I'm put in mind here of an article by my colleague Brad East in Christianity Today. In his 2024 article "How (Not) to Talk About Christian Nationalism" Brad suggests that the label "Christian Nationalism" has lost its descriptive usefulness and is now mainly used as a slur. To make the case, Brad helpfully describes how Christian faith relates to politics in ways that are normal but get hysterically branded as "Christian nationalist." Brad delineates six practices and beliefs that he believes should not be described as "Christian nationalist" and I quote a bit of Brad's essay to help you see the point he is making. For Brad, the following should not be described as Christian nationalism:
1. Putting God into politics: "In the United States, people of all faiths and none are welcome to bring their deepest convictions into the public square. No one has to pretend. This is not France. No Christian, Jew, or Muslim is wrong—morally, theologically, or constitutionally—to bring faith into democratic debate."
2. Putting politics into church: "The gospel makes public claims that pertain to the world outside the walls of the sanctuary. These claims concern Christ’s sovereign rule over the nations and his passionate affection for the poor, the marginal, and the vulnerable...Worship of a crucified Messiah can never truly be apolitical..."
3. Supporting Christian candidates for office: "Humanly speaking, there is nothing more natural than the desire for representation in democratic assemblies. Christians are not unique in wanting to vote for people who share our faith, and that tendency isn’t worth worry."
4. Believing divine providence guides America: "I wish fellow Christians would give up this belief...And yet there is nothing more American than American exceptionalism. From our founding onward, this belief has always been with us, often with religious overtones. Christians who disagree with me on this issue aren’t radicals. They’re ordinary Americans."
5. Believing America is, or should be, Christian: "Like American exceptionalism, the notion of an informal “Christian America” is deeply embedded in US history, culture, and law...[Arguing that America should be Christian] is no less American than arguments for a secular America. Both deserve a hearing."
6. Doubting liberalism, democracy, or American order. A surprise here! And Brad admits that this is "the sticking point" in his argument. The word carrying the weight here is "doubting." As we've described, postliberal theologians have raised a lot of "doubts" about liberalism, and those theologians don't support Christian nationalism. As Brad writes, "Dorothy Day, Jacques Ellul, Ivan Illich, Wendell Berry, Alasdair MacIntyre, Cornel West, and Stanley Hauerwas have each placed a question mark next to some modern shibboleth: liberalism, democracy, human rights, capitalism, industrialism, the nuclear family, digital technology, American empire—whatever it may be, they’ve put it in the dock and interrogated it." Point taken. Lots of people raise questions and express doubts about liberalism, democracy, and the American order. And many of those, like Stanley Hauerwas, have been postliberal theologians. So raising questions or doubts about liberalism, democracy, or America doesn't automatically make you a Christian nationalist.
Before turning to my working definition of Christian nationalism, let me point to some of the good points Brad has raised, especially in his first three points. If we believe that democracy involves a rough-and-tumble debate where citizens bring into those debates their values, beliefs, and faith commitments, then we cannot tar Christians as "Christian nationalists" for showing up to that debate as Christians and arguing for Christian outcomes. Abortion is the obvious example. A committed Catholic, for example, who votes for pro-life policies and candidates is not a "Christian nationalist." You might disagree with this Catholic voter, but you have a right to disagree and express your disagreements, loudly and passionately, as a part of the democratic process. And the fact that this debate is often angry and harsh does not make it any less democratic. Far too often, Christians behaving like Christians within the liberal, democratic order are described as "Christian nationalists." Well, let me be more clear: Far too often, Evangelical Christians behaving like Evangelical Christians within the liberal, democratic order are described as "Christian nationalists." I think liberal and progressive Christians need to take this to heart. Evangelical Christians are allowed to be Evangelical Christians as they engage the liberal, democratic project, just as you are allowed to express and vote for your own values and worldview.
So what is a Christian nationalist? Taking a cue from Brad, it has got to be more than raising questions about the health of the liberal order. So here is my definition of Christian nationalism: Christian nationalists are those who believe that the government should use illiberal and authoritarian means to create and control a Christian political and cultural order. Christian nationalists are those who view the liberal, democratic order of America, and the pluralism it produces, as a political obstacle that must be overcome. According to Christian nationalism, the pursuit of a Christian vision of the good must take precedence over the preservation of freedom and liberty. Hungary's Viktor Orbán put the postliberal political vision this way: "The new state that we are are building in Hungary is an illiberal state, a non-liberal state."
I would encourage you to read Laura Field's Furious Minds: The Making of the MAGA New Right for an intellectual tour of postliberal political thinking, along with related intellectual movements from Christian nationalism to Catholic integralism. There are thinkers, with Ivy League credentials, who are arguing for an illiberal politics on behalf of their vision of the common good.
But other examples of Christian nationalism are closer to hand. For example, any and all Christians who supported the "Stop the Steal" narrative, participated in or supported the January 6th insurrection at the US Capitol, and who continue to endorse and propagate the Big Lie about the 2020 presidential election meet my definition of Christian nationalism. That is to say, these Christians supported the rejection of a legitimate democratic election in order to keep Donald Trump in power. Political illiberalism was embraced to further the pursuit of a Christian nation. If creating a Christian nation required an illiberal reversal of an election, then so be it
Now, some might respond that many (most?) of these Christians actually believed there were electoral shenanigans going on in the 2020 election. True. But let me connect some dots here.
Christians who came to believe in the Big Lie found the prospect of a Joe Biden win intolerable, precisely because of their Christian commitments. They faced, however, an electoral loss. Democratic reality and Christian desire (even Biblical prophecy!) came into conflict. That outcome was so tragic it became unbelievable. And yet, these Christians were Americans who claimed to value freedom, liberty, and democracy. Consequently, to make their dream come true these Christians could not consciously and explicitly embrace an illiberal politics, denying the will of the people to keep Trump in office. These Christians experienced what psychologists call "cognitive dissonance." To resolve that dissonance, these Christians were psychologically motivated to view the 2020 election results as fraudulent. By embracing the Big Lie they could reject the democratic outcome of the election, thereby making their presidential dream come true while still believing they were true Americans who championed liberty and "We the People." We might call these Christians "Unwitting Christian Nationalists" or "Functional Christian Nationalists." An unwitting, functional Christian nationalist is a Christian whose desire for a Christian political outcome is so powerful that it overwhelms and biases their perception of political reality, allowing them to reject democratic outcomes while still believing themselves defenders of democracy. And for my part, these unwitting and functional Christian nationalists are just as worrisome as the explicit and self-conscious Christian nationalists Fields describes in Furious Minds.
