Christian Nationalism is nothing new but it has been re-cast and reinvigorated in recent years. Preferential Pluralism once dominated the Evangelical scene. The absolute nature and universal claims of Reconstructionism were considered fringe and even revolutionary and yet now are mainstream. Basically, Reconstructionism lives on in a slightly modified form. It lives on under the aegis of the more recently named Christian Nationalism.
And yet we must also admit (if not insist) that both Reconstructionism and Christian Nationalism are somewhat fluid terms that really are part of a larger Dominionist spectrum - one that's always tied to the commitment of Christians wielding power in this world. That's really the key issue. The other debates are just questions of form and implementation. Once controversial, Dominionism has in fact become the orthodoxy of our day.
But within these larger Dominionist and Reconstructionist spheres, one can find a smaller circle which (upon closer examination also fragments). I refer to Theonomy and though it has been a relatively minor movement (in terms of actual numbers) it has exerted a tremendous influence that affects the entire Dominionist sphere, often overlapping with some of the other schools of thought.
Theonomy is a specific (if narrow) expression of Dominionism and Reconstructionism. Theonomists are also avowed postmillennialists, believing the world will become Christianised before Christ's return and to some extent transformed - expressing the glories of the Kingdom of Heaven in history. And not everyone agrees about what these terms and concepts actually mean or would look like in terms of culture and history.
But Theonomy is specifically known for its programme of Christianisation, and it's call for the implementation of the Mosaic Law in the context of the modern state. It proved particularly controversial in the West as it represented a rejection of Classical Liberalism, the foundation of all modern democratic states. A Theonomic regime would necessarily be authoritarian and by most standards draconian. Talk of executing unruly children, adulterers, and homosexuals generated quite a buzz in the 1980's and 1990's. Many within the movement have since softened their tone, choosing to focus on other issues, or in some cases they have modified some aspects of their thinking.
With the death of RJ Rushdoony in 2001, Theonomy splintered and permutated, but it's still out there and it sowed seeds for everything from the Charismatic New Apostolic Reformation (and its re-casting of Kuyperian Sphere categories), to some of the more radical and overtly Christian Nationalist groups that may or may not embrace Theonomy's once narrow attempt to codify the Pentateuch in terms of American society and jurisprudence. The general ethos of Dominionism is dominant, and all the groups within the Reconstructionist/Nationalist sphere want society to be Christian - whatever they think that means. For some the basis is theocratic, for others its a broader notion of Western Christendom. Others think (rather inconsistently) in Libertarian terms, and a growing number are tying in their narratives with race and tribe. And to add to the confusion, there are still some that retain notions of the Founders forming a specifically Christian America and scarcely think beyond these narrow terms.
And given the post-2008 explosion of Right-wing radicalism, some of the older Reconstructionists (and in particular some associated with Theonomy) are now enjoying the spotlight and exerting influence like never before. If you're confused by all this, don't feel bad. It is confusing as these groups are often nebulous in terms of their definitions and goal and they often overlap. They change their packaging and sometimes their style, but they're all more or less motivated by the same things and the impetus for all this (post-1970's) goes back to figures like Rushdoony (1916-2001), Gary North (1942-2022), and Greg Bahnsen (1948-1995). After the founders of Theonomy emerged on the scene in the 1970's and 1980's, there was a new generation of slightly younger men who sometimes went their own way but still were in keeping with the general framework of Theonomic-Reconstructionist thought. Not a few of these men are also dead and some have wandered in different directions - one thinks of Gary DeMar, Jim Jordan, Ray Sutton, Joe Morecraft, and of course the various names associated with Federal Vision. But one remains (who for a time was associated with Federal Vision) and is more popular than ever - Doug Wilson. His celebrity status has moved beyond Theonomic and Reformed circles. He has become a national figure that's receiving attention from major media outlets, far more than Rushdoony ever did.
Clearly
this is Doug Wilson's hour and though he was well known back in the
1990's, he is far more famous (or infamous) in the 2020's with many
becoming rabid followers of his faction, not knowing his history or
the the history of the Theonomic movement to which he was (at one
time) intimately connected. Many were simply drawn to him for his
Covid-defiance, his perceived iconoclasm, and his vision of Christian
cultural triumph. He tickles Right-wing ears and like the comedian
George Carlin he became an underground sensation that emerged into
the mainstream. The problem is neither of these blaspheming men are
funny. One is in hell and the other is on his way and is dragging
untold thousands with him. One attacked Christianity, and the other
does so while pretending to promote it.
While someone like
Russell Vought (the fiscal point man in the Trump administration for
Project 2025) may be a Southern Baptist, as someone influenced by
contemporary Calvinism he is also drinking from some of the same
wells as the Wilson camp and the Christian Nationalism they openly
espouse is proving to be the basis for a new ecumenical movement,
bringing together not only Baptists, Calvinists, and former
Presbyterians (like Wilson) but Roman Catholics, Right-wing Jews,
Mormons, Birchers, and other elements on the extreme Right. Who would
have thought in the 1990's that a contentious movement like Christian
Reconstruction would become the ecumenical umbrella movement a couple
of decades later? The name(s) has changed but the ethos is the same.
And who would have thought that Doug Wilson would be the last man
standing of that earlier generation? There are many others of course,
but they do not have the celebrity status he has.
It
certainly caught my eye when I read earlier this year in Politico of
a 2023 meeting in the Dirksen Senate Office Building dedicated to
making a Christian case for immigrant restriction. At the table
sitting side by side were 'Freedom Caucus' member Chip Roy of Texas,
Wilson, and Vought.
Dominionism (and Wilson-style Christianity
and piety) are in the air at the moment and I was interested and yet
not surprised to learn the American Reformer website (which espouses
another fellow-traveller version of this aberrant ideology) did not
rise in grass roots fashion but (like Theonomy in the 70's and 80's)
has investment money behind it - its founders being fairly young
venture capitalists with connections to the homeschool movement etc.
The main names (Chairman and Executive Director) connected to American Reformer are Josh Abbotoy and Nate Fischer who are also the creators of New Founding, a venture capitalist firm that has gained some notoriety with its real estate ventures - seeking to create Right-wing-exclusive developments in pockets of the South, a point to which we will return anon.
American Reformer has received some criticism within Confessional circles for its ecumenical bent, a willingness to embrace not only Reformed thinkers but Anglican, and even Catholic figures. Once again this is just a further testimony to the ecumenical nature of Dominionism and its current fad-form - Christian Nationalism. It is not a commitment to Biblical doctrine that is uniting these people but rather an ideology of power, a notion (if confused and ill-defined) of Christendom, and a challenge to the Liberal Establishment (and thus to the regime created by the American Founders). For some on the extreme end of this spectrum, there is also a narrative about the Liberal World Order which emerged after World War II - a revisionist paradigm that re-writes the history of World War II, questions the Holocaust, and in some cases embraces fascism.
This Dominionist Ecumenism is why figures like Doug Wilson are at the center of attention and why American Reformer publishes the writings of CREC authors, and why someone like Timon Cline (though a member of the OPC) is its editor in chief. Cline is also affiliated with Westminster Seminary and Wilson's New Saint Andrews College. It should be noted that Cline openly wishes to challenge the Establishment Clause and its interpretation in light of the 14th Amendment (1868) as expressed in the Supreme Court's Everson v. Board of Education (1947). Few in these circles are aware of the Right's radical Constitutional revisionism that emerged in the 1970's and such arguments fly in the face of historical jurisprudence and actually undermine not only the historic American understanding of civil law, but the Constitution itself. As I've pointed out elsewhere, some people would consider this to be other than patriotic and not reformist, but revolutionary. I continue to find it strange that so many of these people present themselves as uber-patriots - Cline even argued that Trump should (for the 250th Anniversary next year) place large statues of the American Founders all across America - the expressions of a super-patriot, and yet one that (at least historically) would be viewed as someone bent on destroying the order established by the Founders.
The aforementioned point concerning the challenge to the Liberal Establishment is a broad category able to incorporate figures from what might be called the Centre-Right all the way to the Extreme Right. The latter has given birth to overt racists, again the World War II revisionists, and Nazi sympathizers. Wilson has put up a smoke screen to distance himself from these people but he is nevertheless associated with some of them - and in some cases continues to support them. Incidentally, Abbotoy (founder of the American Reformer) argued in 2023 for a Franco-type dictatorship. In other words, while he may not be a Nazi, he is advocating for a form of fascism. Given that fascism is the now dominant ideology of the GOP, it's not too surprising. In fact, someone like Abbotoy (and Wilson) can seem moderate by today's standards and present (without serious challenge) ideas that would have led to a blacklisting just a generation ago.
Reading New Founding's 2023 Annual Letter, I was struck by the organisation's values and the outlining of some of their projects. Fischer posits national self-determination as a counter to globalism, which is ironic given that globalism emerged from within the triumph of capitalism in the 1990's. He seems to suggest the globalism creates 'tighter aligned groups who are less focused on universal ideas'. He seems to suggest this is a negative when in fact that's exactly what he's advocating. The thinking is muddled to say the least.
He seems to want localism, but then advocates for investment strategies that would undermine if not destroy its viability.
He argues against 'managerialism' and wants to see administrative structures streamlined. He blames DEI and undefined 'woke' policies for creating a culture of alienation. The solution is to return to traditional Christian values and hopes to profit from this by targeting disgruntled and 'alienated' people by means of machine-driven operations. He apparently doesn't see or does not want to see how an AI-driven business world results in alienation and dehumanisation. It's not a little ironic to read of 'alienation' as a problem - with capitalist solutions. I suppose they might think it an attempt to provide capitalist solutions to Marxist analysis and problems.
He wants 'High Trust' communities but one is left wondering how this achieved? Venture Capital is usually perceived as predatory and exploitative. The caveat emptor ethics of Capitalism hardly foster trust. Is Fischer suggesting regulation and oversight? For some reason I don't think so. Is he willing to submit his portfolio to Elder oversight and ethical evaluation? Who will enforce this trust when it is broken?
And so what does New Founding offer?
We have its real estate projects, creating Right-wing enclaves for the disgruntled and alienated. There's definitely a 'prepper' ethos at work - one that relies on fear and mistrust. This too is ironic.
They are promoting a health care insurance start-up which is (from this author's standpoint) about as ethical as a back alley dice game or a game of Three-card monte. The only true statement in its description was to call out health-sharing 'ministries' as something other than true insurance. Of course in the American context health insurance is not about cost-benefit ratios but a question of access and sometimes it's the difference between life and death. The fund pretends to be pro-life but as I continue to argue the label is itself a fiction as the Christian Right is not pro-life in any meaningful sense. The health care model also relies on AI technology which is hardly unique but noteworthy given their claims to traditional ideals and the ethics of high trust and localism.
And AI keeps returning to the stage as it's a big part of their thinking and investment strategy. AI as stated, dehumanises the health care experience but otherwise it simply destroys jobs and thus communities and families.
After reading their misleading precis regarding health care, we find they are promoting a platform for gun and weapons advertising - effectively a platform to service this industry and market their products. How strange that this is considered a Christian venture. It certainly is in keeping with the blood-soaked ideology that is Americanism but has nothing to do with the religion presented in the New Testament.
Turning to their fund page, we discover Durin Mining, a name (like Thiel's Palantir) ripped off from Tolkien. And yet what do they have to offer? AI-driven autonomous mining platforms. The appeal is made to fear and the need for rare earth metals in order to feed America's war machine. Using the smoke-screen of a declining work force, they hid the fact that their strategy is to kill jobs and maximize profit.
The fund page also promotes AI-related projects connected to law enforcement, the judiciary, and military and intelligence ventures. It's chilling to say the least and smacks of not just authoritarian government (which is what all these pseudo-freedom loving patriots are after) but even an Orwellian-type scenario.
Their micro-school model is interesting, but the fact that investors like Peter Thiel and Sam Altman are willing to invest strikes me as not only suspicious but dubious and something to avoid. It smells rotten and in some cases is very expensive. Parents should realize they're not just paying for their children's education, but also lining the pockets of investors. And speaking of sick and twisted members of the wealthy investment class, I was not impressed by the fact that someone like Erik Prince is keen to speak with the New Founding and collaborate with them. They should be ashamed, but not sure these people are capable of grasping the concept.
It's funny, but you'll also find criticism of New Founding in some quarters accusing their real estate ventures as being akin to neo-monasticism. This is to misunderstand the Rushdoony narrative that floats around in these circles and is sometimes promoted by the likes of Doug Wilson. The patriarch of Theonomy posited that Western Civilisation is doomed to collapse. He advocated homeschooling, the hoarding of gold and the like in order to create an army of cultural warriors that would rise to the fore at that critical moment. Others took this narrative and wove in the Quiverfull ideology, positing that Christians would out-breed the world with its declining birth rates.
Homeschooling, prepping, or even withdrawn enclaves are not signs of retreatism for this larger Dominionist movement. The strategy is cultural conquest - the polar opposite of retreatism. The retreat is tactical, a temporary measure required to preserve and amass strength waiting for the right moment in which they can 'strike' and triumph. Obviously as these movements shift and change and sometimes embrace other ideologies (forms of nationalism, libertarianism, and the like) not everyone is on the same page or motivated by the same reasons - a point I have to keep repeating. Some, view the retreat as strategic in preparation for a civil war. Others might be driven by apocalyptic concerns. The list is long, but these people are not monastics in any way shape or form. This is not deliberate separatism nor is it related to some kind of higher Christian life type of piety, let alone the counsels of perfection.
For my part what I see with New Founding is something much simpler - I see profit. I think New Founding is about making money and preying on fear. They either don't know what conservative family values are or they are simply using these concepts and emotional triggers as a marketing tool. They seem more than willing to destroy jobs and livelihoods in order to maximize profit.
In other words, these are snake-oil salesman looking for money and power. Like so many others of this ilk, their willingness to embrace a large sphere of players and ideas also testifies to this. They are capitalizing off of the Doug Wilson moment and while his motivations are slightly different, (and even though I'm sure he's profiting nicely from all his ventures), he is the key player at the core of all this. This is not to suggest he's calling shots or pulling strings. Rather, he is the figurehead that has (probably more than anyone else) stirred up the passions and created an ethos that is driving these various camps to come together.
Some won't see the connection and in reality the elephant in the room is as much Donald Trump as anyone else, but in terms of Christian circles it is Wilson (again more than anyone else) that has capitalized and channelled what we could call the Trumpian moment. And so when I read American Reformer or learn about the financial projects of its founders - I think it's critical to understand what air they are breathing or as I put earlier, what poisoned wells they are drinking from.
None of it is Biblical and so it will fail even if it succeeds temporarily in worldly terms and estimations. But I think that since all of this is fundamentally corrupt and will implode and fail. What then? What will happen to all the Christians caught up in this rubbish? What will the fallout be? That's the question I'm interested in.
Russell Vought may continue to implement The Heritage Foundation's visions of government overhaul and budgetary warfare. Others seek to capitalize on the moment and tie in their ambitions for profit with Dominionist aspiration. They may even honestly believe they are one and the same. But the average man in the pew that is motivated to run for political office, to push his homeschool graduate into working on a campaign, or to become a staffer or lawyer in service of the political cause - it is a figure like Doug Wilson that is uniting and inspiring this thinking. He's not alone as there are many seeking to emulate him and they too will inspire their sheep to invest their money into such ventures and turn all their time and energy to this futile end.
What will the fallout be?
See also:
https://www.newfounding.com/2023-letter
https://religionnews.com/2025/06/23/russ-vought/
https://lawliberty.org/the-absurdity-of-a-protestant-franco/