Did you listen to the entire interview yet? Because some of what you're saying completely conflicts with it.

Yes, I could go through point by point but just off the bat, Wilson is wrong about a Christian consensus regarding the founding of the American republic. The consensus was based on universal Natural Law, something bigger and greater than autonomous ambitions and passions. So that Christians, Deists (functional atheists), secular Enlightenment thinkers, etc could assemble and agree on common governance that upholds basic human dignity, freedom, justice, general welfare, goodness, beauty and truth. Also, most don't know how much the American experiment had global reach at that time, not just in so called Christian Europe but among certain Muslim nation states and Russia as well. This is how a robust application of Natural Law can function. No "Mere Christendom" necessary.

The reason why political communities can function this way is because such institutions are outworkings of God's covenant with all mankind for the simple reason that they are human beings, not just Christians. The mandate of just laws that flow out of the covenant made through Noah extends equally to all groups functioning in pluralistic enterprises, such as governance and justice. We can operate in a common basic moral framework, irrespective of race, creed, or color, and can identify what is in violation to what God has revealed in nature. There are responsibilities simply being human, and consequences for violating that natural order. This is not a New testament Christian distinctive body of law, this is Natural Law. So "Christian nationalism" the term itself is problematic and self defeating.Christianity is not the kind of religion meant to unite a nation, any more than it was meant to establish and sustain ethnic bonds.

    Obviously, Wilson and the CNs would vehemently disagree. They reject any notion of Natural Law, a common sphere, or anything in society not characterized by a sharp Christian/anti Christian antithesis.

I'm a member of apologia Church And we consider Christ Church a sister church. We were at the amicus brief that overturned Roe v Wade. We did that on the basis of a faithful and concise Christian worldview and frequently get called Christian nationalists.

Gotcha, so you being a member of a sister church would be in full alignment with Wilson's presupposed worldview of sharp antithesis derived from Van Til, Rushdooney, and Bahnsen. I think its quite a stretch to call this a Christian worldview (I understand the reason) when its really a recent project of a certain attempt of applying bodies of teachings in scripture in certain ways. These are theologian's ideas at the end of the day.

The point of this interview is to define and discuss what Christian nationalism is. Tucker could have just as easily had Dr Joseph Boot or a number of others to explain it. You seem to be hung up on who delivered the message, not the message itself.

The message itself is built on a flawed foundation, because Wilson like all theonomists, reconstructionists, CNs, i.e. all dominion theology, miscontrues the categories of law in order to lift and shift bodies of law out of certain parts of scripture, with certain interpretive methods to justify certain applications of it, and simply brand it as "Christian worldview". It doesn't work, and I can unpack that more as time permits.

You do realize the more faithful someone is to God in the society, the more controversial they will be. It's when you're not being called controversial that you can almost guarantee that you're not having a radical impact on culture.

Yes I am familiar with this retort. Wilson tends to position himself as the righteous suffering victim in relation to his critics. He's done it for decades. And of course, he tends to lump his critics together as being liberals, weak, leftist, secularist compatible, or whatever.

Controversy itself is in fact neutral, its existence does not determine faithfulness or lack thereof. I would be wary of wearing that as a badge of honor. Paul exhorts the Roman church to live peacably with their neighbors as best they can. The Israelites during the time of the Mosaic covenant, had distinct commands of conduct as soon as they ventured outside of their boundaries that were opposite of their conduct within their boundaries: if they confronted enemies outside the land that they would work to establish peace treaties and so forth.

On the flip side, Abraham was a controversial figure in the context of societies he was in, during several instances in his life, because of his sin and unbelief.

Just some things to consider. Blessings to you, regardless our differences.