Christian nationalism is a popular topic nowadays in the news and on social media. It’s even starting to come up in normal conversation. But… what is Christian nationalism?
Let’s start the conversation with a funny video by Lutheran Satire on YouTube (or you can skip it and scroll down, it’s a free country).
This guy does a fantastic job of demonstrating the main problem with the discourse surrounding Christian nationalism. Everyone’s definition is different. Liberals seem to think that Christians taking part in elections or politics in any capacity is Christian nationalism. Edgy political commentators like Nick Fuentes seem to think that Christian nationalism means supporting white supremacy and antisemitism. But they’re at the extremes. What’s a better definition? Here’s one we can start with, taken directly from the video:
Christian nationalism: “A social and governmental system in which Christianity is the driving force that shapes a nation’s laws, people, and culture.”
This seems reasonable, right? At first glance, yes. But the fundamental problem remains. Extremists may be terrible at defining Christian nationalism, but people in the middle are almost as bad. Nobody can agree on this definition, or any definition for that matter.
No Consensus on Christian Nationalism
I’ve heard several people assert that Christian nationalism is inherently Protestant. They argue that the United States was founded by Protestants. But others propose a Catholic influence, given that the Catholic church is by far the largest and most organized church in America. And that’s not even bringing up other major church traditions. Who is correct?
Many assume that Christian nationalism is merely incidental in its influence. They believe the good morals of a nation’s people will naturally lead to laws and practices that reflect a Biblical worldview without the need for top-down mandates. This is roughly what happened in early American history, though it certainly wasn’t perfect. If you ask me, this is the best we can hope for in theory. I’ll talk more about this in the next post.
But times have changed. Public opinion is wildly out of line with the Bible. Christian nationalism is no longer realistic unless the government uses brute force. Many Christian nationalists realize this and don’t mind forcing their religion onto others. In fact, they want to take things further than the founding fathers ever did by eliminating basic freedoms and mandating their form of Christianity for all citizens. This is actually quite similar to the religious persecution that the early American settlers fled from in Europe, ironically enough.
Let’s assume for a moment that a strictly Christian government is possible. What sins should this government regulate? Should theft be illegal? Yes. Should homosexuality be illegal? Maybe, but it depends on who you ask. What about greed or gluttony? Huh… that’s tricky. What about grumbling or complaining? There’s no chance you’re putting anyone in jail for that. But we can go further.
Different denominations disagree on what constitutes a sin. Is drinking a sin, or only heavy drinking? Is divorce always a sin, or is it okay to divorce a cheating partner? Is it a sin for a woman to teach a man anything, or just to preach from the pulpit? It’s impossible to satisfy all Christians, or even all Christians in just one denomination. Let’s not forget how far into progressivism and blatant heresy many modern church denominations are. Do we let them write laws or only traditional churches? How traditional do you have to be? It gets messy very fast. But we can go even further!
What about doctrinal disagreements? If a Baptist gets elected, can he mandate believer’s baptism for all adult Lutherans and Presbyterians? Can a Catholic government punish all churches that fail to affirm the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist? These are secondary issues, but I guarantee you that citizens in a Christian government will fight over them, and it won’t be pretty.
History Repeats Itself
For countless examples of my point, just pick up a history book. The decades following the Reformation were some of the bloodiest in Christian history. Catholics and Protestants killed and ruled over each other in brutal fashion for centuries. Remember Bloody Mary? She burned hundreds of Protestants at the stake for rebelling against her efforts to restore the Catholic church to power in England. Remember the Thirty Years’ War? It was a period of heavy conflict between Catholic and Protestant rulers that devastated Germany, killing one third of its population (a mortality rate twice that of World War I1), and shattered any hope of a unified Europe under one Roman Catholic empire.
I could go on, but I hope the point is clear. Every time a government officially aligns itself with a church, things get ugly. Governments make for terrible church authorities. Do we really expect things to be different this time? Before you know it, you start sounding like a communist. “True Christian nationalism hasn’t been tried! This time it will work. Trust me!”
Where’s the Movement?
Finally, a key problem with Christian nationalism is its complete lack of organization on a national level. There is no central authority leading the charge to make Christian nationalism a reality. There are no clear goals being put forward by any kind of majority as representative of the movement. There is no “Christian Nationalist” party you can vote for in elections. The list goes on…
Conclusion
Christian nationalism falls short right out of the gate because it has no real definition. Nobody can agree on what it should look like. How can you create a unified movement out of so many radically different positions? How can you fight for something if you can’t even articulate what it is that you’re fighting for? And if it’s just a theoretical ideal that will never come to pass, what’s the point?
I don’t have any problem with Christian morals influencing the laws of a country. I think it’s a great thing. But I agree with the founding fathers that religious freedom is paramount. I don’t believe in a top-down approach. I believe in living the Christian life openly and boldly, being a voice of truth and reason for the values you hold dear, and praying for your nation fervently, that God might send more workers for the harvest no matter what the government looks like. Live and let live, but most importantly, evangelize. We are not called to save governments. We are called to save souls.
“First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way.” – 1 Timothy 2:1-2 (ESV)
Let me know your thoughts in the comments below. Enter your email to be notified for my next post. Thanks for reading. Godspeed.
Sources:
- Onnekink, David (2013). War and Religion after Westphalia, 1648–1713. Ashgate Publishing. pp. 1–8. ISBN 9781409480211.
Veracity Quest 
This is putting the cart before the horse.
You recognize in the beginning of the article the whole point of Christian nationalism. You point out some of the good things about it.
But then you begin to ask how it will be accomplished and explain all the difficulties in the ‘how’. Your conclusion is since the ‘how’ is difficult and presents problems and challenges, we might as well not do it.
The proper way to approach it is to define Christian nationalism and then decide whether or not that is a good thing that ought to occur. Once you decide yes or no, then you take action. If yes, you put in the work to figure out solutions to the problems presented in outlining the ‘how’. It doesn’t matter whether it is easy or hard to accomplish. You have already decided it should be acomplished, so you work towards that diligently.
For more insight into this philosophy, read chapter 1 of “The Answer to How is Yes” by Peter Block.
In the beginning of the article, I point out some good things about a society which is incidentally affected by Christian morals. That is not the same thing as a society in which Christian morals are forced upon people by the government. I made a clear distinction for a reason. That was part of my main point about definitions being important.
I am concerned with the “how,” but I’m also concerned with the outcome. I don’t want an authoritarian Christian society. I explained in the article how many times that has failed throughout history.
Regarding the “how,” it’s important to remember that the ends do not justify the means. It’s very dangerous to assume that good intentions will only lead to good actions. Peter Block isn’t making a statement on morality. “I want to start a business” is a good example of when to apply Peter Block’s philosophy. You might not know how to start a business, but the first step is trying something to see if it works. That’s great! But I doubt Block would appreciate it if someone took his advice by holding a small business owner at gunpoint and trying to steal his business.
The Christian morals that have affected this country are anything but incidental. In the early years of this country it was required for those who hold certain political offices to be Christians. Most of the people founding the country did so because they wanted a Christian nation that was united under a single banner and wasn’t restricted to a single denomination.
There are plenty of examples of how monarchies (if you want to call that authoritarian, go ahead. I don’t consider it to be) in history that were run by Christians in Christian ways with Christian morals (pretty much Christian nationalism) created some of the most beautiful art, glorious buildings, and high quality society in history. All of the greatest civilizations in history were Christian. Rome, The great nations of Europe during the middle ages, the united states, and even older would be Israel during the reign of David and Solomon. Every nation has problems, but I’d rather have non-Christians be required to follow Christian morals than facing some of the terrible debauchery we see today. It isn’t wrong for the state to punish people for what the Bible calls a sin (like denying God or being a homosexual). In fact, that’s the entire point of governmental establishment. To uphold what is good and punish what is evil. If you truly believe the Bible is true, then there is no concern over enforcing it’s rules in the proper arenas. It is the government’s job to enforce theology in the civil arena. Non-civil theology is the churches’ job.
Obviously we must consider the means and ensure the means that are being used are correct. That was assumed. The comparison in starting a business is a straw man and does not correlate to the argument over Christian nationalism.
While the First Amendment has always prevented religious requirements for federal offices, some did exist at the state level. But America’s Christian influences did not substantially come from this. You’re putting the cart before the horse. Most people back then identified as Christian anyways, so it hardly mattered. Once atheism became more commonplace, those restrictions fell away. And that’s my point. America is not a good example of an authoritarian style of Christian nationalism. It’s a constitutional republic guided by documents (upholding freedom of religion) and representatives (reflecting public opinion).
You are confusing the Puritans with the founding fathers. Yes, some of the early settlers wanted to make their own Puritan government (under England, by the way). But the founding fathers were primarily deist, with some Christians, and they compromised with the First Amendment. I talk about this (and the denomination misconception) in my next post.
Monarchies are, by definition, authoritarian. It’s not a matter of opinion. Your argument in this section is essentially weighing scales. I agree that Christian societies have contributed some incredible art and infrastructure to history. That’s amazing. But it does not cancel out the hundreds of thousands who were slaughtered. Pretty buildings aren’t worth the bloodshed. Of course, history is complicated. Not every pretty building came from Christians with pure motives. Not every Protestant peasant was killed by an evil Catholic. But by and large, history shows that authoritarian state churches lead to bad outcomes.
You say all the greatest civilizations in history were Christian. What do you mean by “greatest?” Earthly greatness (big buildings, prosperity, etc) is not the same as greatness in God’s eyes. The last shall be first and the first shall be last. See also: Psalm 147:10-11 and Matthew 20:25-28. And what do you mean by “Christian?” Ancient Israel was not Christian nationalism. It was theocracy corrupted by monarchy. The Bible makes it clear that Israel demanding a king was not a good thing. Rome was ruled by Catholics who killed people they deemed to be heretics and did horrible things in conjunction with the government. Would you be okay with that? Could you as a Protestant live under that and still call it one of the greatest civilizations in history?
I’ll address the argument for Christian nationalism from Romans 13 in a future post. You make some good points there.
My business example is not a straw man. In response to my post outlining how the implementation of Christian nationalism has always led to violence, you said “don’t worry about how, just say yes.” That’s another way of saying that the ends justify the means, which my analogy was addressing.
I didn’t claim that they did. I stated it as evidence that Christian (more importantly to this conversation-Christian nationalist) influences were present and active.
I would say that it definitely mattered. Simply by principle. Just like we have specific requirements in a church for those that hold an office even though most of the members of the church meet that qualification. It is clearly a very important requirement. That it fell away is another discussion. I didn’t uphold the American political system as a good example of authoritarian Christian nationalism. I simply pointed out that it wasn’t an incidental occurrence for Christian influences to be present in the early roots of the nation.
In response, I quote a portion of this very entertaining forum thread that covers this topic:
—
If we are going by definition, Any government that enforces legal power (so, every government) is authoritarian. My problem your use of the term authoritarian is the negative connotation it carries today. You are seemingly using it in your post to express a type of government that is domineering over its citizens (such as a communist dictatorship). In that sense of the word authoritarian, many monarchies throughout history have not been that way, and it is incorrect to treat them as such. I can agree that I am ‘weighing scales’, but it’s important to recognize what is on them. I’m not weighing pretty buildings vs mass slaughter. I am weighing the small problem of nominal Christians being present with the much larger benefit of a society and culture that isn’t actively demonic. Most of the ‘mass bloodshed’ that people refer to regarding the Christian nations of old is simply revisionist history (e.g. the Crusades) and not an accurate reflection of what went on. The general statement that “history shows” Christian government is bad is both historically and theologically false.
I mean greatest as in most Christian, most Christlike, and least sinful. Our goal as Christians should be for every part of our lives (including our government) to be as Christlike as possible. That is why I define greatest in that way. Great architecture is a consequence of great theology. It is possible for it not to be (such as in other religions), but the motive is to glorify God, and Christians should do that better than any other religion, so our buildings should be the most glorifying to God. Ancient Israel under David and Solomon was absolutely Christian nationalism. It was men who were Christians (those who follow the Christ, whether before He arrived or after) running a nation with specific laws and rules that were aimed at being as glorifying to God as possible within a Monarchy aimed at following God. Sure, the history of the nation includes them making a bunch of mistakes. That is why I specified the time period. They could have been a Theocracy (the perfect government) but rebelled against it. That doesn’t mean they weren’t a Christian nation after that point when they were under a Christian ruler.
I could live under Rome and be okay with it because it *was* one of the greatest civilizations in history. Obviously it had its problems, not the least of them was the corruption in the Roman Catholic church, but *the church* was the Roman Catholic church for a large portion of history, and the beliefs that they hold now and the beliefs that the Protestants were protesting against came about over a long period of corruption where the civil rulers and church rulers made bad choices. Those issues weren’t present early on. Other nations learned from the mistakes of Rome. No, that isn’t a “they just haven’t done it right yet” claim. Every civilization has its flaws, but for a good long while, Rome was doing a lot of things correctly. Similar to many of the other Christian nations in history. When Luther and other reformers separated from the Roman Catholic church, other nations recognized the issues as well, and multiple European Christian nations then adopted various reformed views as well.
Sounds good. I look forward to it.
I wasn’t saying ‘don’t worry about how, just say yes’. That means it was in fact a straw man because it wasn’t addressing my argument. I was saying don’t let the difficulty of how affect your decision of yes or no. If the decided action turns out to be really hard to execute morally, you don’t just blindly do it immorally because you decided to do it already. You figure out the really hard way to do it morally and you do it that way.
I’d love to go over everything here, but this is no longer a productive conversation and I have work to get done. You’re playing semantics games, denying your own positions, using forum posts from “Puritan Board” as evidence, using equivocation and irrelevant/invented definitions, ignoring my points, denying basic history, contradicting yourself, and making statements without anything to back them up. You aren’t arguing in good faith.
If you’d prefer to not continue conversing, that’s okay. I do not appreciate being insulted though.
Linguistics, ‘semantics’, and definitions are necessary to speak accurately on this, as you yourself pointed out in the article. I am not denying my own positions or contradicting myself. I didn’t cite that forum post as evidence, but simply as a response. If I was trying to provide a historical and logical proof for a claim like this, I would be doing that in a blog of my own or in a book. I don’t try to write up full theses in comments sections. I am not ignoring your points. I tried to address each one. If anyone is denying basic history, it is you when you talk about the history of Christian nations.
I am arguing in as good faith as I can for the format. If we were speaking in person or writing a thesis on the subject it would be a different story.
I didn’t insult you. I just pointed out how you’re arguing in bad faith. I maintain that.
Again, the type of argument you seem to expect is not one that is going to happen in a comments section.
You could argue in good faith in a comments section. You just choose not to.
This is false. If you want to say it is true, you will need to engage in ‘semantics’ and define what you mean so we can discern whether or not the statement is true.
My criticism is not of semantics itself, but of you playing games with semantics. You repeatedly use equivocations to try and win the argument. You are not properly defining your terms and you purposefully change them. You willfully take my statements in a way I never intended so you can try to catch me on a technicality that isn’t there. You refuse to argue in good faith. It’s impossible to have a coherent argument.
So I guess you don’t want to define what you mean by good faith. That is fine. But it isn’t worth arguing if you aren’t willing to say what you are arguing.
You’ve made plenty of criticisms of me, but you aren’t willing to define the specific things you have a problem with. I can’t argue against something that isn’t outlined.
Use Google, I guess. It’s not a cipher.
I have shown you what I have a problem with at enormous length.