[Note: The original title for this was, “¿Caudillo? Pienso que no, mi brother.” As a spanish speaker, I thought of it as a friendly jab, but something bothered me about it. Since I couldn't put my finger on it, I attributed it to the fact I am not very imaginative when it comes to titling. (By the time I publish, I have attempted at least five or more working titles.) In hindsight, I have decided the original title very likely suggested contempt for people for whom I have high regard. I think this revised title is more accurate in signaling the subject and does not, hopefully, connote an intent to insult anyone.]
*********************************************************************************************
So excellent is chivalry that every Knight ought in a certain sense to be ruler of a…land. But…the earth is too small to signify properly that each one ought to be lord of all…. [D]egrees of status exist to display clearly the excellence, majesty, power and wisdom of our Glorious Lord God. He is one God in Trinity and rules over all things. Thus, it is not fitting that any single Knight by himself alone should govern all the people of this world; for if one Knight alone might do so, it would appear to undermine the uniqueness of God's power and wisdom. Consequently, in order to rule all the earth's peoples, it has pleased God that there should be many Knights — of whom He is sole ruler in turn….1
I
A common critique of Stephen Wolfe's doctrine of the Christian Prince is that in proposing the office Wolfe is arguing for a theonomistic dictator. Some have employed the term caudillo. To be honest, I sometimes find it difficult to believe this understanding of Wolfe’s concept is derived solely from reading his book, and in some cases is a mis-reading, attributable to reading the book and applying categories that Wolfe is not applying.2
I do not know how Wolfe could be clearer. The Christian Prince is not a dictator, and Wolfe isn’t advocating for one, unless he’s lying:
I am not calling for a monarchical regime over every civil polity, and certainly not an autocracy, though I envision a measured and theocratic Caesarism….3
While he lost me at “theocratic Caesarism”, it is not because I regard “Caesarism” as code for autocracy, but because I’m a libertarian and would prefer it if we didn’t have to deal with constitutional dictators, whatever we may call them, including President. But I digress.
Thinking in terms of the categories Wolfe applies, he seems to employ the term theocratic Caesarism to distinguish his position from others, such as (i) Caesaro-papism (in which the church is governed by the state, as it was in the Byzantine empire) and (ii) Papo-caesarism (in which the church is the government). The political economy he envisions, whatever else can be said about it, and whatever objections we may have, is not one in which (i) the Prince is head of the Church or (ii) the Church (through one of more officers) is Head of State (and/or Government). Wolfe’s Christian Prince is not a pastor; neither can a pastor, as a pastor, be such a prince:
Pastors are to political movements what chaplains are to military commanders: they advise and serve people’s spiritual needs, but they do not lead, nor are they decision-makers.4
Theocratic Caesarism obviously refers to a polity in which the natural law (which is God’s) is king.5 It may have been ill-advised to employ it, but he intends for the term, Christian Prince to be synonymous with Christian magistrate. He employs the term Prince to describe the character of those who hold the office:
I might have devoted the chapter to the role of civil government — a term that captures most of the civil roles and functions necessary for Christian nationalism. But the term is impersonal and emphasizes the administration of civil affairs, even connoting the work of bureaucracy and management.6
But isn’t he being dishonest? If his Christian Prince is effectively synonymous with civil government, then why use a different term? The short answer is we do this all the time, use different terms to refer to different aspects of the same office, or the character of the officer. Take for example, the following description of the Presbyterian elder, from the PCA’s Book of Church Order (8-1):
This office is one of dignity and usefulness. The man who fills it has in Scripture different titles expressive of his various duties. As he has the oversight of the flock of Christ, he is termed bishop or pastor. As it is his duty to be spiritually fruitful, dignified, and prudent, an example to the flock, and to govern well in the house and Kingdom of Christ, he is termed presbyter or elder. As he expounds the Word, and by sound doctrine both exhorts and convinces the gainsayer, he is termed teacher. These titles do not indicate different grades of office, but all describe one and the same office.
So sure, civil government or civil magistrate could do just as nicely, unless you want to discuss not merely the function the magistrate performs, but the quality of man he should be. Even today, the word prince evokes an attractive image, especially for women. (Just ask the executives of The Hallmark Channel!) It also conjures up a different image for men, the image of the chivalrous male, an image still so effective upon men, that Kevin DeYoung alludes to it in his excellent take-down of the so-called Moscow mood.7 And Wolfe’s description of the Christian Prince, in terms of the western and Christian understanding of the power of civil government, demonstrates clearly that the Christian Prince, synonymous with the civil magistrate, is subject to limitations on his authority and power:
By pure nature, every man has certain powers of his own. Rutherford rightly says… “that we defend ourselves from violence by violence is a consequence of unbroken and sinless nature.” The duty of self-preservation entails a right to self-defense. And I contend, with Locke, that individuals, when outside the jurisdiction of the civil government, are permitted to punish transgressors of the natural law, and I agree that individuals transfer these powers to civil rulers in trust for their execution. Nevertheless, civil power, as to its principal part, cannot have its origin in individuals, for no man has inherent power to bind another man’s conscience to particular application of natural law for the common good. That is, no man, by right of his nature, can order the whole; he cannot command his neighbor to obey his positive judgments on particular actions that conduce to the common good. Only the Lord of the conscience has this power…. Thus, as Rutherford states, “All civil power is immediately from God in its root.” The power to order the whole must come from God; it does not inhere in or originate from any man or men in aggregate.8
I'm sorry, but this line of reasoning does not provide for an officer who can justifiably be called a caudillo. Neither does it lay out a philosophy of government which could possibly justify creation of an office which can be described as a caudillo. The vast majority of caudillos were military dictators — the list is long and illustrious. This is not what Wolfe envisions; it is not what he advocates.9 To put it in simplest terms, although Wolfe does not discuss it in his book, if you don’t understand medieval chivalry, then you may not understand what Wolfe is talking about — whether you agree with him or not. But I’m getting ahead of myself.
I suspect the real problem, for Wolfe, is that Americans have an allergic reaction to a word like prince. It sounds royal, which is synonymous with autocratic. And unless we’re watching them in the news, or in movies, we don’t like royals, except in moderation, and only if they are someone else's royals. This Christian Prince of Wolfe’s sounds like someone we might have to address as his royal highness or majesty, or some such thing. Heck, even His Excellency would pose a problem. We sometimes choke on Mister President, especially when the president in question is the one we voted against. If you talk about a prince in American polity, you will see people go into anaphylactic shock.
II
I think another problem, which points to something I do like about Wolfe’s book, is that too many men, regardless how they feel about Christian Nationalism, or Wolfe, or (certainly!) Doug Wilson, just aren’t very “princely”, not very “chivalrous”.10 I don't mean there aren't any well-mannered men. That isn't what Wolfe means; he isn't talking about nice men. He is talking about the sort of man that princes used to be: soldier, scholar, statesman, the sort of men (believers or not) for whom divinity was as deserving of one’s time as law, economics, and international relations. One thought that leaps off the pages is that sort of man Wolfe describes requires a theological competency that would rival that of some pastors (including some PCA teaching elders).11 It stands to reason, that even if we were to accept Wolfe’s argument, we certainly wouldn’t want anyone applying for the job today: without mentioning any names, think of the last President this nation had who was outspoken about his faith. Be honest: you wouldn’t have wanted him teaching Sunday School, at any level, in your church, right? For whatever it’s worth (albeit, not very much) that isn’t what Wolfe is talking about.
The alternative (or as we would call our lived experience, “reality”) is the policy wonk or bureaucrat, whose stock in trade (in my own words) is the banality of evil.12 The difference between a regime led by a prince, and a regime led by bureaucrats is the difference between being ruled by men or managed by wonks — a thousand little Eichmanns, following orders and pushing paper. Wonks don’t lead; they process. Bureaucrats don’t govern; they manage. For wonks and bureaucrats, chivalry was, at best, a passing fad that thankfully sidled off when the flapper, equally thankfully, came sashaying in — if not long before. A world which produces men who could be styled prince, has very little room, or tolerance, for wonks and bureaucrats; and a world which produces wonks and bureaucrats has very little room or tolerance for princes.
Of course, there is much more to chivalry than treating women as “weaker vessels”.13 The chief duty of the Order (of Chivalry) is “to support and defend the Holy Catholic Faith, according to which God the Father sent his Son into the world to take on human flesh in the Glorious Virgin…..”14 Not a job for wonks and bureaucrats. This fundamental duty is why the character of the knight is so important (as well as why it was entirely correct for Kevin DeYoung to upbraid Doug Wilson for his “unknightly” conduct), and one of the reasons why, over time, the term gentleman ceased to refer only to landed estate-holders and became something of an honorary title, capable of being bestowed upon any man of appropriate character — soldier, scholar, and statesman, even if only in spirit. On this view, prince, is a term we should prefer to magistrate, which is why Wolfe employs the term.15 Whether or not there should be Christian nations, if arguendo there are to be Christian nations, then those nations should be led by men who once upon a time were styled Christian Prince.16
I said I liked something about his book: implicit in its pages is an excellent social critique; and, as such, it really seems to bother a lot of men, especially portions of the epilogue, which Kevin DeYoung, in his review of Wolfe’s book, refers to as “a 38-part rant.” I do not think I have read a review that does not take Wolfe to task for some of the content of his epilogue. DeYoung excerpted a few typical passages:17
But the epilogue gives the whole book a different feel. Wolfe’s epilogue purports to answer the question “Now what?”—but the chapter consists of a string of loosely connected topics that can fairly be described as a 38-part rant. Several examples will suffice to justify this conclusion.18
On the problem with progress:
Every step of progress is overcoming you. Ask yourself, “What sort of villain does each event of progress have in common?” The straight white male. That is the chief out-group of New America, the embodiment of regression and oppression. (436)
On living under a gynocracy:
We live under a gynocracy—a rule by women. This may not be apparent on the surface, since men still run many things. But the governing virtues of America are feminine vices, associated with certain feminine virtues, such as empathy, fairness, and equality. (448)
On the many problems with gynocracy:
Are you a minority and have a grievance? Signal displeasure to white women, even blame them for your pain, and women will shower you with money and retweets. . . . Consider also child transgenderism, which seems to be facilitated in large part by over-empathetic and sometimes deranged mothers. The most insane and damaging sociological trends of our modern society are female-driven. The gynocracy is self-destructive and breeds social disorder. (451)
On women and credentialism:
As academic institutions cater to and graduate more and more women, credentialism is on the rise. . . . This is why women place their credentials—“Dr.” or “PhD” or “Professor,” or even “MA in theology”—in their social media name. (453)
On the ruling class:
There is no robust common ground here. There is no credibility we can establish with them. Unavoidably, we are threats to their regime. Christian nationalism is an existential threat to the secularist regime. They are enemies of the church and, as such, enemies of the human race. (456)
On the need to resist modern life:
I’m not going to tell you how far to go in this, but it is both good for you and your family and it prepares for a better future. I expect that most committed Christian nationalists will be farmers, homesteaders, and ranchers. (461)
On choosing a career:
I say now [to my kids]: “Find a career that maximizes your autonomy from the forces of the secularist ruling class.” If you are a white, heterosexual, cis-gendered male, then the world will not offer you any favors. Indeed, your career advancement depends on sacrificing your self-respect by praising and pandering to your inferiors who rule over you. Even the CEOs, in the end, are dominated by woke scolds. (464)
[***]
That Wolfe thinks all this is concerning. That he wrote it down is extra troubling. That he and his editors thought it a good idea to end the book with a series of vituperative harangues is baffling. Is this the civilizational answer we’ve been looking for—living off the grid, complaining about women, complaining about the regime, complaining about how hard it is to be a white male, warning about the globalists….
Is it really so baffling? If DeYoung cannot see the connection between (i) the need for “princely” and “chivalrous” men and (ii) the problems posed by progress (so-called), gynocracy, credentialism (as a virtual sacrament in a polity managed by wonks and bureaucrats)19, the ruling class, and modern life, then he should re-read Llull. Much as I agree with DeYoung that Wolfe’s prescription is not the Christian Nationalism we need (if any), someone who has read Llull’s work on the Order of Chivalry, should have no difficulty understanding Wolfe’s epilogue as, at the very least, a prolegomenon to a formal, tightly-reasoned work on the way forward. And the way forward, at least on Wolfe’s view, requires a different sort of man than we have now.
Interjection: Yes, Kevin, as a matter of fact we should do some warning about globalists. Like Rome we, by defending our allies have gained dominion over the whole world.20 And, like Rome, it has cost us the republic that even anti-Christian Nationalists love so much.
Anyway, if there was one part of the epilogue, which really seemed to upset people, especially men, it was this:
Christian nationalism should have a strong and austere aesthetic. I was dismayed when I saw the attendees of a recent PCA General Assembly—men in wrinkled, short-sleeve, golf shirts, sitting plump in their seats. We have to do better. Pursue your potential. Lift weights, eat right, and lose the dad bod. We don’t all have to become bodybuilders, but we ought to be men of power and endurance. We cannot achieve our goals with such a flabby aesthetic vision and under the control of modern nutrition. Sneering at this aesthetic vision, which I fully expect to happen, is pure cope.21 Grace does not destroy T-levels; grace does not perfect testosterone into estrogen. If our opponents want to be fat, have low testosterone, and chug vegetable oil, let them. It won’t be us. (469–70)
Okay, I could have done without those last two sentences, and had I been the editor, I would have struck them: they do not advance the argument of the paragraph, or the book.22 But one would expect that a man having written at length on what a Christian nation might look like, as well as upon the personality and character of the men who should lead such a nation, would include some afterthoughts about men. And in this day and age many of those afterthoughts, while they should avoid misandry, probably should not be very kind to men, a fatherly-brotherly slap upside the back of the head.
When I read DeYoung’s review, I had to go back to the book and look at this passage again, because I didn’t remember it. I suppose I took no notice of the passage because Wolfe isn’t describing me.23 So I plowed rough-shod through this offending paragraph (which Spartan women would once have thought intended for them) without batting an eye.
There have always been men who believe physical fitness is as much a male duty as opening doors for women, and not only alt-right poseurs and trad chads.For the former, the quotation in the above meme, from Xenephon’s, Memorabilia, Book 3, Chapter 12, is virtually a life motto, and is better rendered as follows:24
“[I]t is a disgrace to grow old through sheer carelessness before seeing what manner of man you may become by developing your bodily strength and beauty to their highest limit. But you cannot see that, if you are careless; for it will not come of its own accord.”
Civilization — whether building, maintaining, or even rescuing — is impossible without self-denial, without discipline. So while one can appreciate DeYoung’s concerns, I can't believe it is right to fault a man for pointing out the necessity of practicing one of the most important virtues required merely to form families, much less to build and advance civilizations:
[T]he young...man may dream of glory. But it is...the married men who achieve it in the modern world. They achieve it, as scripture dictates and women's experience insists, by self-denial and sacrifice.25
And whether there should be nations which could in any sense be called Christian, no one can write a book such as Wolfe has done and not mention the need for austerity as opposed to hedonism, though it is appropriate to criticize the manner an author does so. But look, if you don’t believe in Christian Nationalism, then Wolfe wasn’t talking to you; he was talking to fellow Christian Nationalists.26 Even so, you should take his advice, but not for the reasons he gives. It’ll do you nothing but good, and not just physically.
III
The fact of the matter is, from an historical perspective, no one concerned about cultural movements can ignore the question of men, especially the subject of the type of men any cultural movement might require. So when Kevin DeYoung asks, regarding the epilogue, “Is this the civilizational answer we’ve been looking for…?” in one sense the answer is, No: living off-grid, complaining about women, the regime, the travails of belonging to the only ethnic group which can be insulted at will and whose declining numbers can be applauded on national television, etc. — these things will not, of themselves, save a civilization. But that does not render them unworthy of mention on the way to those civilizational answers. There is no civilizational answer that does not require serious reflection on the role of men, as well as challenge to men.
In essence, whatever else we may say about them, complaints are truth-claims. Before he asked whether these are the civilizational answers we are looking for, should not DeYoung have asked whether any of Wolfe’s complaints are false? It does seem like a relevant question. Is it false that the straight, white male is seen as the quintessential devil — renegade and terrorist — in human history, the enemy of progress, and that he poses a civilizational problem? Is it false that we live under a gynocracy, which also poses a civilizational problem? Is Wolfe incorrect about the problems with gynocracy? Granted, it is not the function of a book review to answer those questions, but neither is it the function of a book review to dismiss, as mere complaints, the possibility that any given claim made by an author is true, and relevant to the subject.
The purpose of the epilogue is social critique, presented aphoristically. And so, in another sense, the answer is, Yes: it is the civilizational answer we are looking for, because it points to the sort of men required to maintain, to save — or even to build — a civilization. Would Rome have been built by the sort of men we have today?27 Forget Rome: would the sort of men we have today have gotten on board those little yachts to cross the Atlantic five hundred years ago? Would the type of men we have today have pledged their lives, their fortunes, their sacred honor for the propositions inscribed in the Declaration of Independence (or hidden behind the selectively applied spirituality of the Church)?
It is telling that the portions of the epilogue quoted by DeYoung in his review are all about men in some fashion. Men build and maintain civilizations; and they do it for their women and their children. If a civilization is to be saved, it requires men of a certain sort: disciplined physically, emotionally, intellectually, sexually. I likely won’t garner a new crowd of subscribers with this, but gynocracy (which usually follows liberalizing of sexual mores) is the death of civilization, and you don't have to be misogynistic to think so. There was a time when men might have read the epilogue and retorted, “Duh.”
So while I can join DeYoung in thinking the book might have been better without the epilogue, the fact is the subject matter of the book requires some social critique, a significant, even somewhat harsh, criticism aimed at our society’s men. You cannot argue the need for the sort of men we might call Christian Princes and not at some point devote some attention to the quality of men a society needs, a society populated by so many “princely” men that you could choose your princes at random, in much the same way as presbyterian churches should seek to form men such that, if it were necessary (and proper), any random man could be “drafted” into the office of elder or deacon.
IV
You know, it is ironic that Wolfe would be accused of advocating for the establishment of rule by a caudillo. The sort of men we refer to as caudillo do not want a society filled with the sort of men for which Wolfe is advocating. The caudillo doesn't want strong men, unless those strong men work for him. He doesn't want competition, especially from the sort of men for whom terms such as virtue and honor mean something: those men would find it nauseating to work for a caudillo and might believe that virtue and honor require removing the caudillo from his chair — by any means necessary (the sort of work that only a certain kind of man is up to). The caudillo loves “fat, sleek-headed men”: they don't put up any resistance worth bothering about.28 These men can be mollified by the twenty-first century equivalents of bread and circuses (whatever those equivalents may be) — or chicken nuggets and mexican pizza.
I have noticed during the last several years, whenever the subject of Christian Nationalism arises, at some point the question of men arises, and not always because men like Doug Wilson, Joel Webbon, Jonathan Harris, A. D. Robles and Stephen Wolfe have raised it. The question of men has been walking towards center stage for about ten years now, and Christians have not been the only ones pushing it along. Outside of Christian circles it has been coming on since Carl Benjamin and others started badgering feminist influencers like Anita Sarkeesian and Lacey Green, specifically, but feminism more broadly, as a destructive cancer destroying western civilization.29
The question of men is no less relevant when thinking of what it would mean for any man to be justly styled a Christian Prince but improperly referred to as a caudillo. More basic than what is a Christian Prince or even a caudillo, is the question, “What is it to be a man?”30 What is the central feature of masculinity such that it matters whether a head of state is the sort of man who could be styled a prince — Christian or otherwise?
There is another way of asking the question. When David was coming to the end of his life, he summoned Solomon and charged him to be strong and to show himself a man. What did that mean? What was David saying to Solomon that, presumably, he would not have said to any of his daughters (and not just because his daughters would not be sitting on the throne of God)? After charging Solomon to be a man, David says,
Do your duty to the Lord your God, to walk in His ways, to keep His statutes, His commandments, His ordinances, and His testimonies, according to what is written in the Law of Moses, so that you may succeed in all that you do and wherever you turn….’31
Whatever we may think of any sort of Christian Nationalism, especially the sort for which Wolfe advocates, we need to be honest about what is being advocated and not go tilting at windmills just because (let's be honest) we happen not care for the advocates. Stephen Wolfe is no more arguing for the institution of a caudillo than Calvin was addressing a caudillo when he wrote to King Francis I:
Your duty most serene Prince, is not to shut either your ears or mind against a cause involving such mighty interests as these: how the glory of God is to be maintained on the earth inviolate, how the truth of God is to preserve its dignity, how the kingdom of Christ is to continue amongst us compact and secure. The cause is worthy of your ear, worthy of your investigation, worthy of your throne. The very characteristic of a true sovereign, is the acknowledgment that, in the administration of the kingdom, he is a minister of God.32
If anything, in fact, Calvin was admonishing Francis to be a Christian Prince, giving him a charge similar to the one David gave to Solomon: do your duty to God, walk in his ways, keep his statutes and his commandments. And if Calvin were writing to the governing officials of a republic, he would have written the same message.
But if Wolfe had altered his argument just a bit and argued for vesting executive authority in a college of Christian Princes he would then likely have been accused of advocating for some sort of ruling junta. If Wolfe were to have piped a jig for them, they would not have danced. If he had sung a dirge they would not have mourned.33
Ramón Llull, The Book of the Order of Chivalry, Chapter III, “The Responsibilities that Pertain to a Knight.”
One common mis-reading seems to be that in writing his book, Wolfe is setting forth a manifesto. That may be the case, but I don’t really see that. I think the assumption is based on the title of the book, rather then the content. It might be a reasonable assumption: one can understand that a book bearing the title, The Case for Christian Nationalism, would be received as a manifesto, an understanding bolstered by the epilogue, which could certainly be read as a prologue to a manifesto. But that would be a topic for another article, if I write much more on this.
The Case for Christian Nationalism, at 279. Wolfe continues, referring to the Christian Prince as “a world-shaker for our time, who brings a Christian people to self-consciousness and who…restores their will for their good.” As a libertarian, I am skeptical of the sort of leader who brings people to self-consciousness, and am therefore also bothered by the fact that many of the same people who are bothered by a Christian Prince who brings people to self-consciousness were not bothered by Barak Obama telling supporters, “Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for.”
The Case for Christian Nationalism, at 470.
The term theocratic may be unfortunate as well, because it connotes the view of the law in relation to society which is advanced by theonomists. If the Christian Prince is the personification of something called a theocratic Caesarism, then the sort of Christian Nationalism being advanced appears to be some strand of theonomy. But Wolfe does not argue for a Christian Prince who imposes and enforces the civil and judicial laws. The law which Wolfe intends for the Prince to enforce is the natural law. See The Case for Christian Nationalism, 243-247.
The Case for Christian Nationalism, at 278.
See Kevin DeYoung, “On Culture War, Doug Wilson, and the Moscow Mood,” ClearlyReformed.org, 27 November 2023, citing Ramón Llull’s Book of Knighthood and Chivalry. Okay look, we all want to be Aragorn, and not because he gets the lovely elven princess (because if that is what we want, then it is certainly not Aragorn we wish to be: we wish to be scum). And if we didn’t want to be Aragorn, then we probably wanted to be worthy of a seat at the Round Table. (The only book I still have from my childhood, is Henry Frith’s King Arthur and his Knights, tattered, well-worn and held together with scotch tape, and kept me company on two continents.) DeYoung’s criticism is well worth repeating (internal quotation marks removed):
Wilson has frequently compared PCA study committees to a stacked blonde in a tight dress. Once he wrote that a committee was as stacked as Dolly Parton after her new implants. There is no excuse for this language. To be sure, the prophet Ezekiel could use extreme language in extreme situations to show the ugliness of extreme wickedness. Likening a study committee of a confessionally Reformed denomination to Dolly Parton’s anatomy is none of these things. It’s juvenile, sensuous, and entirely without biblical warrant. This isn’t using graphic language to highlight the horror of sin; it’s a bawdy way to make fun of a group of orthodox churchmen with whom Wilson disagrees. Wilson likes to emphasize that if Christ is Lord, he must be Lord of all. Yes and Amen. But “all” means our hearts, our minds, and our typing fingers.
Yes and Amen. I cannot agree more. That is not gentlemanly; it is not knightly; it is not chivalrous.
The Case for Christian Nationalism, at 282. Note that the body of law to which Wolfe appeals, the body of law to be enforced, is the natural law.
It would be strange for an advocate for a military dictatorship to assert the right of revolution. Most tyrants prefer disarming their subjects, sort of like many American civil magistrates. Talk about caudillos! See The Case for Christian Nationalism, Chapter 8 (pp. 325ff).
Especially Doug Wilson.
That is only an observation, not an endorsement.
Even if the wonk, or bureaucrat, is a Christian.
See I Peter 1.37.
Ramón Llull, The Book of the Order of Chivalry, Chapter III. It is worth noting that after retiring from the Order, Llull founded a school for training missionaries to Islamic lands. He was also an accomplished philosopher and theologian as well as poet and novelist— soldier, scholar, statesman.
It must be pointed out, however, that after the term gentleman became something of a compliment it began to be more and more meaningless. At the very least, as a compliment, it could be employed to refer to someone who, although possessed of neither land nor titles, still exhibited the best qualities of a true gentleman, the sort of lord a vassal would wish he could serve. To see how meaningless a term such as gentleman has become, think of the term knight and ponder the fact that Elton John, Mick Jagger, Paul McCartney, Ian McKellan, and Danial Day-Lewis are all knights. A thousand years ago, these men would have been waiting at the Round Table, not seated at it.
To the sophomoric retort that the time I refer to has passed, I reply: the time during which the term was employed has indeed passed; but need for the character displayed by those to whom the term was applied, has not passed. In fact, the need is more dire: one of the purposes of the “code” was to channel male, martial aggression into useful, even peaceful, civilization-building pursuits, including the protection of women and children — from male, martial aggression.
Italicized portions are selections from Wolfe’s book.
In fact, this conclusion is not justified by these examples: Wolfe admits at the outset that the style of the epilogue is aphoristic, and loosely connected. See The Case for Christian Nationalism, at 434.
On credentialism as a sacrament: The awarding of degrees, especially in the West is as much a sacrament as Holy Orders are to Roman Catholicism. We have gone from, “Believe the Church,” (that is, the religious priests) to “Believe the Science” (that is, the secular priests). I was watching some talk channel several weeks ago, the host (whoever she is) was talking to a mother about the sexually explicit reading materials in her children’s school. The host spent several moments challenging this mother’s credentials, asking her what expertise she had in child-development. On the host’s view, being a mother doesn't count: this mother simply did not have the expertise to challenge someone with a doctorate in education or child psychology, who had decided that such books were not only not harmful, but actually beneficial. On this particular point (that is, credentialism) I believe Wolfe is implicitly arguing that credentialism is more important to women than to men: men care first about results.
“[O]ur people by defending their allies have gained dominion over the whole world….” Cicero, The Republic, 3.35.
I have to admit, as the beneficiary of a classical-adjacent education, as well as a toxically masculine male who spends a lot of time thinking about the Roman Empire, the term austere aesthetic made me think first of Marcus Aurelius, who adopted an austere lifestyle at the age of 12, which included his sleeping on the floor, in many respects a pagan form of the Christian Prince. I thought secondly of the desert fathers, whose austere lifestyle Calvin compared to that of the Spartans. Wolfe was indeed correct that there would be sneering. But since I can't know anyone's motivations, I can't agree with him that all the sneering is cope. I would point out to those who sneer that austerity is not strange to the Christian life. See Peter J. Leithart (yes, that Peter Leithart), “The Iron Philosophy: Stoic Elements in Calvin’s Doctrine of Mortification,” (unpublished ThM thesis, Westminster Theological Seminary, 1987), pp. 115-132; and Calvin, Institutes, 3.10.
In the original posting of this article, the very next sentence read, “(Then too, those plump, low-T, vegetable oil chugging simps are running everything.)” Upon reflection, I believe this sentence, given its context, can legitimately be interpreted as a swipe at my brethren (fellow PCA elders), since that is who Wolfe was talking about. But at this point in the article, I had in mind, as the “simps” who are running everything, the people heading up the USA’s social, political, and other institutions, not the PCA. In other words, in repeating the phrase, it was not my intention to call my brothers “plump, low-T, vegetable oil chugging simps.” It could be argued that I shouldn’t be calling anyone “plump, low-T, vegetable oil chugging simps,” and I will waste no time denying that. I repent, and resolve to exhibit more care, and more charity, in future.
By which I mean only that I don’t do wrinkled shirts, certainly not golf shirts (however relevant it may be), and I don’t lift weights, either, as Wolfe recommends. (I’ve gone the way of bodyweight culture, and am a longtime practitioner of intermittent fasting, both of which I highly recommend.)
I believe the context to be so relevant that I quote the passage in full:
On noticing that Epigenes, one of his companions, was in poor condition, for a young man, [Socrates] said: “You look as if you need exercise, Epigenes.”
“Well,” he replied, “I'm not an athlete, Socrates.”
“Just as much as the competitors entered for Olympia,” he retorted. “Or do you count the life and death struggle with their enemies, upon which, it may be, the Athenians will enter, but a small thing? Why, many, thanks to their bad condition, lose their life in the perils of war or save it disgracefully: many, just for this same cause, are taken prisoners, and then either pass the rest of their days, perhaps, in slavery of the hardest kind, or, after meeting with cruel sufferings and paying, sometimes, more than they have, live on, destitute and in misery. Many, again, by their bodily weakness earn infamy, being thought cowards. Or do you despise these, the rewards of bad condition, and think that you can easily endure such things? And yet I suppose that what has to be borne by anyone who takes care to keep his body in good condition is far lighter and far pleasanter than these things. Or is it that you think bad condition healthier and generally more serviceable than good, or do you despise the effects of good condition? And yet the results of physical fitness are the direct opposite of those that follow from unfitness. The fit are healthy and strong; and many, as a consequence, save themselves decorously on the battle-field and escape all the dangers of war; many help friends and do good to their country and for this cause earn gratitude; get great glory and gain very high honors, and for this cause live henceforth a pleasanter and better life, and leave to their children better means of winning a livelihood.
“I tell you, because military training is not publicly recognized by the state, you must not make that an excuse for being a whit less careful in attending to it yourself. For you may rest assured that there is no kind of struggle, apart from war, and no undertaking in which you will be worse off by keeping your body in better fettle. For in everything that men do the body is useful; and in all uses of the body it is of great importance to be in as high a state of physical efficiency as possible. Why, even in the process of thinking, in which the use of the body seems to be reduced to a minimum, it is matter of common knowledge that grave mistakes may often be traced to bad health. And because the body is in a bad condition, loss of memory, depression, discontent, insanity often assail the mind so violently as to drive whatever knowledge it contains clean out of it. But a sound and healthy body is a strong protection to a man, and at least there is no danger then of such a calamity happening to him through physical weakness: on the contrary, it is likely that his sound condition will serve to produce effects the opposite of those that arise from bad condition. And surely a man of sense would submit to anything to obtain the effects that are the opposite of those mentioned in my list.
“Besides, it is a disgrace to grow old through sheer carelessness before seeing what manner of man you may become by developing your bodily strength and beauty to their highest limit. But you cannot see that, if you are careless; for it will not come of its own accord.”
George Gilder, Men and Marriage, at 177.
I have to admit, now that I’ve read this offending passage again, to wondering how Doug Wilson, who published the book, felt about this passage: Wilson’s physique doesn’t exactly look like it has seen the inside of a weight room, or suffered the ravages of intermittent fasting.
Imagine if politicians were expected to have even four to six years of military service before they would be taken seriously as proper candidates for office, especially members of Congress, empowered to declare war — on the rare occasions on which we bother with declarations of war.
This is not a new idea. Even Shakespeare recognized the sort of men tyrants prefer:
Let me have men about me that are fat,
Sleek-headed men, and such as sleep o’ nights:
Yon Cassius has a lean and hungry look;
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.[***]
Would he were fatter! But I fear him not.
Yet if my name were liable to fear,
I do not know the man I should avoid
So soon as that spare Cassius. He reads much,
He is a great observer, and he looks
Quite through the deeds of men. He loves no plays,
As thou dost, Antony; he hears no music;
Seldom he smiles, and smiles in such a sort
As if he mock'd himself, and scorn'd his spirit
That could be mov'd to smile at any thing.Julius Caesar, Act 1, Scene 2.
It is worth noting that during this period, which reached its zenith in 2017, what started this wave of anti-feminist assault is when feminists, in the words of one commentator, went after gaming. Most of the people associated with this anti-feminist onslaught were male gamers, with handles such as Sargon of Akkad, Omegon, Some Black Guy, (yes, for real), Computing Forever (Dave Cullen, eventually banned — ostensibly for criticizing UK COVID policies — now does mostly movie reviews). The powder keg was set off as an immediate consequence of the Gamergate constroversy. As the conflict continued, it became a conflict about everything, including the place of men in the world — a clash of civilizations. Eventually, in the eyes of pundits, these critics were associated — by the pundits — with the dreaded alt-right. The history of this period, I believe, underscores my claim that no social movement proceeds without taking up the question of men: What is it to be a man? Some of the men, including Dave Cullen, converted to Christ as a result of being “forced” to wrestle with these question; and they were forced to wrestle with these questions simply because they wanted to play video games and be left alone.
Voddie Baucham has some thoughts.
I Kings 2.1-3.
Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, “Prefatory Address to Francis I, 1536,” emphasis added.
Cf. Matthew 11.17.
The reason men like Clark, Isbell, DeYoung, etc., don't like Wolfe seems to me to be because the substance of his analysis and critique applies to feckless political atheists in the ecclesiastical realm (i.e,, them) just as much as it does to feckless political atheists in the civil magisterial realm. To paraphrase the estimable Frank Herbert, "[Wolfe] displays a general garment and you claim it's cut to your fit? What a fascinating revelation."
It shouldn't be any surprise that men who are instinctively dedicated to (and may indeed hold their very offices by virtue of the operation of) bureaucratic managerialism really, really don't like people arguing for the necessity of decisive individual leadership. The whole point of bureaucratic managerialism is precisely to eliminate both the need for and possibility of decisive individual leadership.
Notice that those Reformed ecclesiastical officers who are vigorous about exercising the authority of their respective offices, i.e., making real, timely, substantive decisions in ambiguous circumstances based on the exercise of personal judgment as opposed to only taking actions unambiguously required by accepted rules of procedure, aren't the ones criticizing Wolfe. It's those who like to LARP as staunch theological conservatives yet never seem to get around to taking, or even advocating for, any kind of action that appears likely to make any kind of meaningful difference one way or the other. Decisive action is always needed tomorrow, never today. We can take steps to enforce the rules after we change them, never as they stand. Because, see, if we adopt the principle that those who hold authoritative offices of whatever sort are called to exercise their best judgment in actually executing the functions of their office, that means they'd have to reconsider their own passivity.
Much easier to shoot the messenger.
Kruptos has been writing about these and related ideas under the guise of his discourse on Jacques Ellul and Technique for a while now. You should really look him up, if you haven't already.
All of which to say that I'll start taking Wolfe's critics seriously when they themselves start taking their own offices seriously. Not a moment before.