A page that calls itself For the New Christian Intellectual posted a question and then answered it. Q: How can you reason with someone who claims the following kind of nonsense? 1. “The God spoken of in Scripture cannot be proved to exist by any other method than the indirect
Hatred, a membership law, and noticing are not one object.
A nation is not a waiting room
The conjunction does not choose
Prudence is not baptism
They grant that a Christian people may care about law, family, and a magistrate. They keep calling the name something along the lines of a grievance ontology.
It names an office: public justice under the Lord, outward care of true religion, no claim to the keys.
Toby Sumpter and CrossPolitic grant that preferring married households with a parent at home, inside federal childcare money that will be spent anyway, is better than farming fraud or fatherless incentives. They keep calling that preference the same genus of ruin: socialism, welfare, the destruction of the family it pretends
What should the magistrate do with a spend he is already going to make?
The civil magistrate in late Protestant memory has become a thin office. A nursing father is not a night watchman.
Russell Moore's title proves too much Russell Moore says laughter at immigrant suffering is deforming our souls. Even those who want closed borders, he writes, should not find migrants’ pain entertaining. What we learn to laugh at disciples us.[1] Grant the last sentence. A conscience can be
Death is the mode the image requires. Part 2 of 2. Part 1 argued that S still requires P, and that T does not discharge the deed.[1] This part asks what P must be when S is the killing of three image-bearers by the hands that fed them.
Forum Publicum
Treatment is not the judgment the deed is owed. Part 1 of 2 It’s commonly believed that when an act is horrific and a serious diagnosis exists, justice must choose between two horns: punish the actor or treat the illness and refuse punishment. Jay Atkins, writing on the Clancy
Forum Publicum
Preferring the household is not becoming its head. Toby Sumpter is right about the father and right about a certain kind of check. He is wrong that a preference for the intact house, inside money that will be spent anyway, is already that check.[1] The father is the ordinary
Forum Publicum
James White named the empty square. The thin civil sentences he already granted still have to speak in it.
Essays
If you are not already in this fight, the question is simpler than the noise.
Notes
A note on Doug Wilson, two meanings of “postwar consensus,” and a sentence that outruns the argument. Published 4 September 2026.
Essays
Essay V of Christ, the Nations, and the Public Square Earlier essays refused to treat America as Zion, and refused to treat her as a machine without God. They kept particular peoples without turning blood into a gospel. The Two Slogans showed how a popular pair of sentences tries to
Essays
Essay IV of Christ, the Nations, and the Public Square Essay I owned a name and distinguished an affection from a claim. Essay III refused to treat America as Zion. The next charge is almost automatic. If nations are real, you must mean blood. If you love a people, you
Essays
Essay III of Christ, the Nations, and the Public Square Essay I owned a name. Essay II kept a word. This one takes the slogan that is meant to shut the argument before it starts. “America was never a Christian nation.” Say it with enough confidence and you do not
Essays
Essay II of Christ, the Nations, and the Public Square Essay I said that Christian nationalism, in the use we mean, is not Mussolini, and is not religion used as a tool of a pagan state. That sentence will not survive contact with the present dictionary unless we do some
Essays
Essay I of Christ, the Nations, and the Public Square Some Christians want the substance and not the name. Call it patriotism. Call it conservatism. Call it “a Christian view of the magistrate.” Leave “nationalism” to the people who will abuse it, and to the people who will use it
Notes
Two sentences often travel together. One says Christian nationalism is inherently white nationalism. The other says America was never a Christian nation. What follows is about that pair, and about why those claims cannot share one past. The pair The popular case against the name usually arrives as two claims.
Start Here
A front door to Christ, the Nations, and the Public Square If the phrase Christian nationalism makes you flinch, you are not strange. The fright has sources. Some of them are real abuses of the name. Some of them are a story told so often that a moral statute starts