The Right Christian Nationalism

Are you a Christian Nationalist? The midterm elections are upon us. People will go out in mass to vote on Tuesday (many have already voted in early voting states) and the national rhetoric around how we ought to run the country has reached a fever pitch.  It always does.  Relentless attack ads, mudslinging, misrepresenting an opponent’s platform, or, flat out lying about it.  This has been the way of American politics for as long as I can remember. I wish it weren't so, but unfortunately such is the state of things in our nations current environment. In this vein a new term has bubbled to surface in recent years meant to denigrate conservative Christian voters that want to see a nation return to the Judeo-Christian values of the founding. The term has been around for decades but, since the election of Donald Trump has seen a resurgence on the left and right. While this term has a technical definition it seems, at least to me, that the technical definition has been discarded for political expediency. The term: Christian Nationalism. These days it seems to be purposefully ambiguous.  Those that use it in a way that is meant to disparage the other side rarely give a cogent definition.  They will point to certain events claiming that these were obvious results of supposed Christian Nationalism but fail to provide a realistic link to such events and those of us who seek to honor our Lord and our country through our faith. Sure, there are horrible views espoused using the moniker historically, views that include forced conversion, religious persecution, and state control of the church. But, by and large, these are not the views used to define the term by those I converse with on the left. It should not surprise us to see the transition from White Nationalism to Christian Nationalism to White Christian Nationalism as a ploy to divide Americans into different voting blocks. As I note in this response to TIME magazine White Nationalism and White Christian Nationalism are altogether different ideologies than Christian Nationalism.  The idea that white people are superior to any other ethnicity is not only absurd but evil and the idea that White Christians are superior and must protect their favored status is equally absurd (Eph. 2:14; Gal. 3:28).  The conflating of the three ideologies brings purposeful confusion and ambiguity to the public discourse. After all, if we can purposefully castigate one side or the other as evil racist bigots that want to take over the nation and subjugate anyone who does not think or look like them to brutal authoritarianism, we can likely win the election and gain power ourselves.  Ironic that this sort of tactic results in viewing other people with different ideas and beliefs about the country as an evil group that must be snuffed out. In other words, this tactic accomplishes the very thing it accuses the other side of attempting. As I said on Twitter a few days ago:

“Christian Nationalism, as far as I can tell, is a purposefully nebulous term designed to maintain an ambiguous moral high ground for the left. The idea is to conflate Christianity with fascism and racism without the need for evidence or definitions. It does not mean anything. But, the left knew that the right would jump and say, “Christian Nationalism is good!” To which I agree, but we fell into the trap of the nebulous term and did not over a cogent definition in response.”

So what

is

Christian Nationalism? Well, suffice it to say, it is simply another term for Christian Conservatism but with the added emphasis on an America first foreign policy. Interestingly, the type of Christian Nationalism I find abhorrent is not the kind that seeks to impose Christian values on our nation but the kind that seeks to dogmatize patriotism as a sacrament.  When our politics influence our faith that is cause for concern, but when our faith influences our politics that is cause for celebration. Historically, a Christian Nationalist simply sees the historical roots of the country based in Christianity and desires the United States to reflect, once again, this standard. We used to call that conservatism. Breaking Christian Nationalism down to its most basic parts displays how erroneous and dishonest the nebulous (or simple lack of) definition is. Voddie Baucham, the Dean of Theology at African Christian University in Zambia makes this point in this interaction with conservative commentator Allie Beth Stuckey: It should not be surprising that conservative Christians would want their

representative

based government to represent their beliefs and values at the local, state, and federal levels.  It should also not be a surprise that those same conservatives would not embrace globalist pluralism as an ideology and would rather see the country in which they reside become reflective of the values they adhere to. As Tim Stratton said in an article on Christian Nationalism three years ago:

Not all worldviews or “faiths” are equal. Some command the murder of homosexuals, some command the killing of “infidels,” some might require the sacrificing of young virgins, others entail that there is nothing really wrong with murder. A few “faiths” (like Christianity), on the other hand, teach that all humans are created objectively equal and that we ought to love all people all the time.

One of the arguments against Christian Nationalism claims that our country is founded on the principles of religious pluralism.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  The founders would certainly be surprised at such a proclamation! It is true that the constitution does not indicate an allegiance to any one way of thinking about faith.  In fact, the first amendment seems to expressly embrace religious pluralism from a federal level.  However, that is a misreading of history and misreading of the document itself.  The only thing the federal government is prohibited from doing is establishing a federal state religion (i.e. forced conversion/worship). The assumption that they intended this prohibition to carry with it a mandate for religious pluralism fails to understand history. Most of the founders (estimated to be 95%) were Christians of some stripe, the remaining 5% were theistic or deistic with a high respect for Judeo-Christian values and ethics. The framing of the constitution carries with it a backdrop of historical Christian persecution. That is to say, the people that fled to settle the “New World” were on the run from

other Christians

. From 1400-1600 AD religious persecution in England vacillated from Protestant to Catholic depending on which religious affiliate garnered monarchical power. You might remember the story of Bloody Mary who reigned in the 1500s.  She earned such a moniker because of her affinity for burning Protestants at the stake.  You might be less aware of her half-sister Elizabeth who reigned after her and committed similar acts of violence towards Catholics. It was against this backdrop of feuding religious persecution from one type of Christianity to another that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were drafted. In studying the history of the Mayflower Compact, the Declaration of Independence and the varied writings of the founding fathers it should be readily apparent that the intent behind no establishment of state religion was to avoid the type of government based enforcement of a certain type of Christian belief (to the point of executing those who believed different).  The idea of pluralism would have been far from their minds. In 1774 the first Continental Congress opened in prayer and even today being sworn into office usually uses a Bible to swear over (though not required).

“Most of the Founders no doubt assumed that the only significant variation between states would be between different forms of Christianity, and thus that the federal government would operate from within a broadly Christian consensus.”

It is safe to state that at its inception the United States was assumed to be a Christian nation. While the religious freedom the Founders sought opened the door to pluralism, it certainly did not mandate it.  (As an aside, I know some might bring up Separation of Church and State as proof for pluralism, but that is simply not the case: see here). It has been this argument for decades that lay at the heart of Christian Conservativism. Progressivism seeks to shed the “shackles” of America’s overtly Christian past, but conservatism seeks to conserve these values and purposes within the nation it holds dear. Why would a conservative Christian not vote for his or her interests in a representative democracy? If you love your country and you love Christ, of course you should vote for those that would represent that love within the government. Romans 13 indicates that the government ought to subjected to the service of Christ, and Romans 14 gives Christians the liberty to participate in a given culture in matters of conscience (such as voting). Some might pipe in here and make the claim that “you cannot legislate morality.”  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Some of our most important laws are legislations of morality.  Murder is illegal and immoral, so too is theft, and polygamy (for now). The retort to this could be that these legislations of morality are only necessary when others are harmed, but then we would not feel the need to legislate a social safety net or pursue positive rights as a matter of law (whether or not I agree with those policies). A majority of legislation legislates some

type

of morality.  The disagreement then is not on the legislative duties of the government, but which basis of morality such legislation should be grounded on.  Herein lies the secret to the issue. The reason Christian Nationalism has become a boogie man is not because it is some nefarious ideology threatening to take over and ruin people’s lives but because it is a competing form of morality on which we seek to ground our national ethos. At its roots Christian Nationalism provided the impetus of ridding the country of the scourge of slavery and Jim Crow but it is also naturally at odds with drag queen story hour, gender ideology, socialism, partiality, polygamy, homosexual marriage and the like.

(note: I am speaking of a form of Christian Nationalism that is consistent with the biblical text. Any "Christian Nationalism" that would espouse slavery or racist ideology is not, by definition, conservative nor is it faithful to the biblical text. For more see - If You Think Racism is Wrong, You Should be a Christian.)

It is worth noting also that many on the left espouse a different style of Christian Nationalism that they gloss as progressive.  Using their understanding of scripture (with which I do not agree) they seek to establish policies based on what they deem to be biblical values. During the abortion debate I saw many progressive Christians stump for abortion "rights" on Twitter under the guise of choice and the gospel. So the question really is: What type of Christian Nationalism is the Right type? This Tuesday we have an opportunity to vote for representation in the government that would more closely represent the moral standard set by the God of the Bible. And we should. This is not to say that we should mandate people worship or pay homage to the God of the Bible.  This would not be biblically or historically appropriate.  Our desires as Christians should be to see people freely choose our Lord, not under compulsion from governmental actors.  Even so, the desire to have a nation that honors Christ rather than mocks Christ is a good desire, and, at least in America, an attainable one.  So, if that is what is meant by Christian Nationalist, I suppose I must embrace the moniker, I think the Founders would have. So, how should we as Christians handle the term Christian Nationalism?  Should we disavow it? Embrace it? Run from it? Well, depends on how you define it, but if we define the same way we have defined historical conservatism and the views of most of the founders? I say, fine, call me the name. My thoughts in 2022 echo those of Tim Stratton in 2019. In the end:

This is why I am a proud patriotic Christian American. I also affirm the label, “American Nationalist” (as opposed to the evil of “white nationalism”) because I believe the philosophy of America — which is not necessarily “Christian” — and the teachings of Christ go hand-on-hand. With that said, I am happy to “construct” the American “public square” with anyone who sincerely believes and affirms the same “self-evident” truths espoused in America’s foundational document.

Notes

https://freethinkingministries.com/should-christians-be-against-christian-nationalism/ https://www.history.com/news/queen-mary-i-bloody-mary-reformation#:~:text=She%20was%20the%20first%2Dever,the%20stake%20in%20the%20hundreds. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/50912https://www.theportlandsun.com/opinion/letters_to_editor/america-was-founded-as-a-christian-nation/article_0c771bdc-3e93-11e8-b312-b35f97302eb5.html#:~:text=In%201892%20the%20Supreme%20Court,was%20a%20%22Christian%20nation.%22https://mereorthodoxy.com/the-search-for-a-christian-nation-christian-nationalism-and-the-american-founding/