What do we get when a conservative Roman Catholic intellectual interacts with a Calvinist Christian nationalist?
No guesswork required here. Ross Douthat and Doug Wilson in an episode of “Interesting Times” discuss Wilson’s theological and political views.
In the course of one hour and four minutes, either Douthat turned Moscow, Idaho’s “grizzly bear” Calvinist Wilson into a “teddy bear” or Wilson presented a softer, cuddlier version of himself.
The interest here is with Douthat more than Wilson. Why would an intellectual influential New York Times writer provide a platform for a fringe, right-wing Christian nationalist? The interview didn’t sound like a discussion between equals, but Douthat was mostly gentle.
A fringe preacher
No matter how much Wilson wants to “mainstream” his ideas, he is a fringe preacher and he dwells among a people of fringe movements. He comes across in the conversation with Douthat as the “big bad wolf” trying to convince Little Red Riding Hood he is not a big bad wolf.
Wilson tells Douthat he wants a theocracy — an America that is 87% Protestant Calvinist. Then he says he wants this in about 500 years. In other words, he’s not trying to shove Christian nationalism down our throats. He’s basically a nice guy who wants the Ten Commandments enforced by law. He only wants a moderate theocracy.
“He’s basically a nice guy who wants the Ten Commandments enforced by law. He only wants a moderate theocracy.”
I find this questionable claim more rooted in Wilson attempting to come across as mainstream.
He wants 1955 America back again. Why? The 1950s are Wilson’s comfort zone. Little children often have a rag doll to keep them company, keep them reassured and keep them secure. Wilson treats the 1950s like his personal rag doll.
Wilson fantasizes about the 1950s as a golden age for Christianity. Homosexual behavior was against the law. America was not a “totalitarian hellhole” (Is this a confession of our current state?) He idealizes his America: “It was a free and prosperous country that I was grateful to God to be growing up in.”
Sifting through Wilson’s monologue, the garden variety Calvinism shows up: An angry God, an all-determining theism and a proud assertion God is the cause of evil.
Wilson tells Douthat God is responsible for evil. “Well, the answer is God. Basically, there’s no slipping off the point. … The thing that distinguishes the Calvinist is that the Calvinist acknowledges that and speaks right into the microphone and says: Yes, God is involved.”
Darrow and Bryan revisited
There’s a point in the interview where Douthat sounds like Clarence Darrow asking William Jennings Bryan about Noah’s flood. Darrow asked Bryan to venture a guess on it: “What do you think?” Bryan answered, “I do not think about things I don’t think about.” By now openly derisive, Darrow asked, “Do you think about things you do think about?” And Bryan unwisely replied, “Well, sometimes.”
“There’s a point in the interview where Douthat sounds like Clarence Darrow asking William Jennings Bryan about Noah’s flood.”
Douthat: Adultery is worse than fornication.
Wilson: Adultery is far, far worse than fornication.
Douthat: I also know many people who will be relieved to hear that as well.
Wilson: And our goal is to relieve them, right?
Douthat: That’s right.
Wilson: So in Mosaic law, there is no express penalty for fornication. There is a penalty for marital fraud. So, if a woman represents herself as a virgin, and she’s not a virgin, then there were civil consequences. But that had to do with things like inheritance and who the father of the baby was — all of that.
Douthat: So we’re going easy on fornication.
Wilson: Well, we’re following the Bible. So what I want to do is I want to be a biblical —
Douthat: But we’re not completely. I mean, at least in the discussion we just had, you did not advocate stoning adulterers, right?
Wilson: No.
Douthat: There are biblical precepts that allow for the stoning of adulterers in the Old Testament.
Wilson: You are correct. Right.
Douthat: And you’re not in favor of stoning adulterers?
Wilson: Well, I’m not against it, either.
Douthat: You are open to it.
Wilson: No, this is the thing: Politics is the art of the possible.
Wilson reassures the audience he is not attempting radical change. He only wants to tweak the culture: “I’m not trying to reinvent anything. I’m trying to say, I want to go back to where we were getting a C plus. We were doing OK.”
I don’t trust Wilson here. He says if we would eliminate same-sex marriage and abortion and return to a 1950s church-state status quo, he would be content.
Disdain for Muslims
His easygoing moderate theocracy skips town, however, when Douthat questions him about Muslims. Wilson has a serious problem, especially with the Muslims in Dearborn, Mich. In Wilson’s view, America has done a great job of working out good relations with Catholics and Jews, but Muslims are a bridge too far.
“His easygoing moderate theocracy skips town, however, when Douthat questions him about Muslims.”
“We do not know how,” Wilson insists, “to take 3 million Muslims who want to live under Shariah law and put them in the middle of Michigan.”
Here Douthat presses Wilson a bit.
Douthat: Do you think most American Muslims right now want to live under Shariah law?
Wilson: The ones in Dearborn do.
Wilson doesn’t envision Muslims as citizens of his American theocratic state. He says, “In my biblical republic, if Muslims were here — not citizens, but residents — if they were traveling merchants or whatever, and you had a number of Muslims in the same town and they wanted to get together and pray together, would that be a problem? No. Would they be allowed to build a minaret? No. Church bells? Yes.”
Wilson seems unaware that secularism is winning, that our secular society has shown it doesn’t require a transcendent grounding to flourish and his attempt to provide a transcendent ground turns out to be idolatry — Christian nationalism.
What is a theocratic libertarian?
Wilson denies wanting a theocratic government that controls everything. He pivots at this point and claims to be a libertarian.
Wilson: “I actually think we need limited government. The government should be significantly smaller than it is, and we need to curtail a lot of the busybodyness that we have. That’s why I would call myself a theocratic libertarian. There is a true libertarian element in this and, yet, the transcendent grounding for what we’re talking about means that we acknowledge the authority of God.”
A libertarian Calvinist? Libertarianism involves a fantasy of atomism and an unhealthy dogmatic contrarianism. Too often, libertarians, to a man (and the vast majority are males), think they are being radical and different by all being exactly the same as each other. Wilson’s Calvinist/libertarian approach makes room for consumer capitalism. And demands absolute freedom.
“He has no interest in reining in the galloping greed undermining our civilization.”
He has no interest in reining in the galloping greed undermining our civilization. He’s too libertarian for that. He admits no police force can counter greed. Wilson’s libertarian love for a Calvinist state crashes into his love for big business, the unfettered pursuit of Mammon and having the right to and the freedom to make money even in industries polluting the planet.
He appears as a lover of truth and reason driven to deny the most crucial truth about the world today (that pollution is on the verge of destroying our civilization) yet his subjectivizing of everything important destroys his avowed love for truth itself and is truly farcical.
Wilson’s lack of concern over greed seems strange because at least as far as the New Testament is concerned, greed is considered to be more of a threat for the ability to follow Christ than lust.
He is very specific about what the government should do before it becomes limited. This would be things like no more Pride parades, no more drag queen story hours, no more abortion on demand, no more legalized same-sex unions.
How about equal time for serious theologians?
If Douthat is interested in Christianity in our precarious times, he should grant equal time to thinkers and theologians who dispute almost everything Wilson endorses. The list is long, but I recommend conservations with Stanley Hauerwas on the idolatry of Christian nationalism, Terrence Tilley on the futility of theodicy, Charles Taylor on the secular age and the disappearance of the transcendent, Rowan Williams on trusting God and David Bentley Hart on the serious deficiencies of Wilson’s brand of Calvinism.
A Calvinist playing nice with a Roman Catholic who is smarter than him is a fun read. I’m still a bit confused about Douthat’s motive. I can’t judge his motives, but I watched and read the interview with Wilson, and I sense a playfulness from Douthat that simply can’t take Wilson seriously. And neither should anyone else. He is not a serious theologian, Christian or politician.
Rodney Kennedy
Rodney W. Kennedy is a pastor and writer in New York state. He is the author of 11 books, including his latest, Dancing with Metaphors in the Pulpit.
Related articles:
No Enemies to the Right? Inside the GOP’s new civil war | Analysis by David Bumgardner
Why Doug Wilson is wrong about women’s rights and the 19th Amendment | Opinion by Lee Enochs
Du Mez calls conservatives to speak against Doug Wilson
CNN interviews Doug Wilson, and Pete Hegseth likes it | Analysis by Mark Wingfield
Here’s who’s behind the war on empathy | Analysis by Alan Bean
Why these Christian men believe women shouldn’t have the right to vote | Analysis by Mallory Challis