What Is Christian Nationalism, and Why Is It So Dangerous?
Should we be fighting a culture war to "take our nation back for God"?
Let me make a few things clear right at the beginning. This is not a partisan post. I won’t be advocating for any political party or for either presidential candidate. It’s not my job to tell you for whom or what you should vote. But it’s very much my job as a pastor to teach about how Christians should participate in the political process, and to protect the integrity of the church.
We also need to make sure we understand what’s meant by “Christian nationalism,” and what is not. This isn’t referring to patriotic Christians. There’s nothing wrong with believers strongly loving their nation and being dedicated to seeking its good. It’s natural for Christians to love their country. (With apologies to my non-U.S. readers, much of what I’m writing here will have particular application to Christians in America.)
By Christian nationalism, I mean the belief the United States was founded as an explicitly Christian nation, and that we should be seeking—through whatever means necessary—to return our nation back to this original heritage. For many of us, our religious devotion and our patriotic fervor have been merged into something that can be difficult to separate. The problem is this is a corruption of both the ideals of our nation and the biblical concept of the church. The claim the United States was founded as an officially Christian nation is terrible history, and the idea we should be seeking to make it explicitly Christian now is even worse theology.
Was the United States founded as a Christian nation?
There’s been a lot of rewriting of history regarding the origins of our nation—on both sides. Some have tried to deny any influence at all from Christianity in the early days of the U.S. This just isn’t true. Christianity was incredibly influential in American society. Of course, it enjoyed a place of influence in European culture for many centuries, so this influence wasn’t new or somehow unique to America.
But this influence in our early nation has often been overstated and exaggerated by Christians. Some of these people have become influential themselves by writing books and speaking at conferences, seeking to Christianize the founding fathers and the early days of our nation. These people are invariably not trained historians, and it’s common for their books to be pulled by their publishers for sloppy work and baseless, completely erroneous historical claims.
We need to remember the historical context of the founding of the United States. All of the nations in Europe were self-described “Christian nations,” with official state churches and prominent Christian imagery. The coronations of their monarchs were routinely conducted in churches by Christian clerics. The monarch of England was even considered the religious leader of their national church. By the 18th century, Europe had experienced centuries of widespread persecution and even execution of those who differed religiously from the various states (usually the persecution and execution of other Christians). These “Christian nations” had a long history of going to war with other “Christian nations” who represented—to them—the wrong kind of Christianity.
This is the context of the origin of our nation. The people had even seen this kind of state Christianity being practiced in some of the American colonies—including state persecution and execution of other Christians. This was a pattern most of the founding fathers were adamant about not continuing. This is why they intentionally established the United States in a way that did not directly connect it with Christianity.
When Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence of “self-evident” truths, “unalienable” rights, and of the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” he was intentionally using wording that wasn’t dependent in any way on Christianity, but that could just as easily be affirmed by the Deists of the day (who were neither truly Jewish nor Christian). An early treaty of the United States, begun under George Washington, carried unanimously by the U.S. Senate, and signed by John Adams in 1797, sought to make plain that “the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.” It’s hard to be much more clear than that.
Of the fifty-six delegates who signed the Declaration of Independence, only four could be claimed as genuine Christians. Most were Deists of one form or another. George Washington refused to take communion. Thomas Jefferson published a New Testament that removed any passage describing miracles or making claims about Jesus being divine. (Imagine a presidential candidate doing that today!) We have a number of verified quotes from some of the founding fathers ridiculing biblical Christianity, describing such beliefs as the deity of Christ, the virgin birth and the necessity of the cross as ignorant myths and superstitions. These founding fathers saw biblical, orthodox Christianity as a narrow-minded and dangerous dogma the nation would hopefully outgrow.
This doesn’t mean there were no Christian founding fathers. Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams are good examples of devout Christians who were prominent in the origin of the United States. And it doesn’t mean Christianity wasn’t influential in the birth of the nation. What it does mean is that it’s completely re-writing history to identify the founding fathers as Christians, or the United States as being established officially as a Christian nation. These claims are thoroughly contradicted by actual history.
But shouldn’t we return to our Judeo-Christian values?
This is another common claim, that America was founded on “Judeo-Christian values.” But this wasn’t something the founding fathers claimed, and it’s not consistent with the history we just considered. More importantly, this isn’t in harmony with Scripture. There is no mention of “Judeo-Christian” heritage or values in the New Testament. The Christian faith did originate in a distinctly Jewish context, this is true. But it was quickly seen as a new sect that was in contrast with first century Judaism. Biblically, faith in Christ was intended to complete and supersede devotion to the law of Moses. The Old Covenant people of God (the nation of Israel) were always intended to become the New Covenant people of God (the church).
If all we mean by “Judeo-Christian values” is the continuity between the Old Testament and the New, or the origin of Christianity in a Jewish context—that’s fine. But if we mean much more than that, we’re in danger of being inconsistent with Scripture. Jesus didn’t go throughout the region preaching “Judeo-Christian values.” In fact, his Sermon on the Mount called into question their traditional values. Those most committed to traditional Jewish values would have been the Pharisees, and we all know how hard Jesus was on them! He certainly wouldn’t have identified with any “Phariso-Christian” heritage or values. Paul was just as hard on Jewish traditional values, and showed in Romans 2-3 that Jews were no better than Gentiles, and they were just as much in need of the salvation of God.
There are many rights and principles that are core to who we are as Americans (those of us who are Americans), but these rights and principles aren’t core to who we are as Christians. Many of us would strongly affirm the axiom “Taxation without representation is tyranny.” But is this a “Judeo-Christian value”? Where in Scripture do we see such a decrying of taxation without representation? Wasn’t this normal practice in the nation of Israel? Didn’t Jesus tell them to pay their taxes to the Romans occupying their land? We might contend for these rights as Americans, but we can’t say we must as Christians.
This doesn’t mean we might not often find ourselves sharing similar cultural or political convictions with Jewish people in society. If so, it would be completely appropriate to work together to seek to improve conditions in our communities or nation. Of course, we could have similar shared convictions with Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists or even Atheists, and we could work together with anyone, in a limited capacity, to better our society. But if we can neatly and harmoniously fit who we are entirely within some concept of “Judeo-Christian values” or identity with a “Judeo-Christian heritage,” then we aren’t being transformed by the Spirit of God into the unique body of Christ. There should be aspects of who we are as Christians that transcend any other identity or association. This is the life of the Spirit, the fellowship of the kingdom of Christ. We do not preach Judeo-Christian values; we preach Jesus Christ and him crucified (1 Corinthians 2:2).
But don’t we have to take back our nation for God?
The Constitution of the United States doesn’t include the phrase “separation of church and state.” Many are quick to point this out. It does, however, make clear, in the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Thomas Jefferson, ironically in a letter to a Baptist church, referred to this clause in the First Amendment as necessary for “building a wall of separation between Church & State.”
But this idea didn’t originate with Jefferson or the American founding fathers. We see it even earlier in history, from the Anabaptists or “radical reformers.” Instead of seeking to simply reform the Roman Catholic Church, as Luther and Calvin did, these believers wanted to restore the church back to the original New Testament principles of what the church is to be and do. They insisted the church and the state should be separate. They were also the first (in that period of history) to teach the church is to be a community made up only of genuine believers in Christ, not every individual in a particular town or city (parish or diocese). These teachings were so threatening to the common understanding at that time, of the church as almost interwoven with the state, that both Catholics and Protestants actively hunted down these Anabaptists and killed them.
And where did the Anabaptists get this idea of a separation of church and state? From Jesus Christ. When talking with Pilate, Jesus explained the reason why his followers didn’t fight to keep him from being arrested. It was because “My kingdom is not of this world [John 18:36].” This is why Jesus didn’t lead a revolt against Rome, as the people expected. It’s why his apostles consistently directed his followers to respect the leadership of governing authorities and to obey them, in passages such as Romans 13:1-7, Titus 3:1-2, and 1 Peter 2:13-17. (How many of us consistently show respect to our governing authorities?)
Who was emperor at that time? Nero. So, by these instructions to the church, were Paul and Peter endorsing the Nero Administration? Of course not. But we need to be clear about their commands to us. They didn’t say to respect governing authorities when we agree with them, or to obey them when it feels right to us. That’s anarchy, and we’re called to be good citizens of our nations. For many of us that can include using our voice and our vote to try to change things. In the U.S. we have a right to protest and to “petition the government for a redress of grievances.” It’s right and proper for us to try to bring about healthy change in our society, but we do this is in a respectful manner, not slandering or showing contempt for our governmental leaders.
The only time we’re allowed—even required—to disobey governing authorities is if they’re demanding we directly disobey God (Acts 5:29). Note this is not when they are disobeying God, or when they’re allowing others to disobey God—it’s only when they directly require you to disobey God. Even if we were to face that situation (as believers in some nations do), how are to we to disobey these authorities? Respectfully, seeking to obey them however we can, and then respectfully declining when we can’t. If we must defy them, we aren’t to do it in a defiant manner. Does this characterize evangelical Christians in the U.S. today?
Let’s be honest, most of us virtually never deal with a situation when our government is requiring us to directly, personally disobey God. But that doesn’t stop many of us from showing disrespect and even contempt for governmental leaders—or just for the poor, innocent, minimum-wage worker in the local store trying to get people to wear a face mask because that’s the policy of their employers. I’m not writing this to express any position on whether we should have been wearing face masks or not (and we will not be debating this issue in the comments), but it’s a perfect test case for what we’re discussing. If you’ve been paying attention, you’ll realize our personal opinions on this matter, no matter how passionately held, are completely irrelevant to the question of whether we obey.
For a Christian to angrily insist: “You’re not going to make me wear a face mask!” is completely inappropriate. It’s not just defying the authorities—it’s defying God, who commanded that we obey these authorities, whether we agree with them or not. If the apostle Paul were standing there, and we protested to him “But it’s wrong! We shouldn’t have to wear a face mask!” how would he respond? He’d say: “I don’t care. If you can work in the system—respectfully—to bring about change, go right ahead. Until then, obey your governing authorities.”
How many of you would allow your children to only obey you when they agree with you? How many of you who are managers would allow your employees to only obey you when it feels right to them? When we have this kind of attitude in our society, what does it tell people about evangelical Christians? It shows we’ll only submit to authority when we want to—the government’s authority, the store management’s authority . . . or God’s authority. It causes people to have a perception of evangelicals as self-willed, rebellious and defiant—because that’s what we are too much of the time. This may feel very American, but it’s certainly not following Christ. We seem to feel we get some kind of pass from obeying these biblical commands because of our national heritage. But there’s no “American exception” to Scripture. To disrespect our governing authorities and to disobey them is to disrespect and disobey the God who commanded us to do otherwise. When we defy authority, we defy God.
This doesn’t mean we always have to agree with or support the government. It doesn’t mean we can’t seek to change things in appropriate, respectful ways. But we have to accept the fact there are some things we just won’t be able to change now, and we have to be okay with that. This discussion often prompts questions about civil disobedience and examples such as Rosa Parks. If we’re only to disobey authority when it’s requiring us to personally, directly disobey God, what about the civil rights movement?
This takes us back to the question of just how Christian our nation is, or was. Here’s the cold, hard reality. If the United States had genuinely been a “Christian nation” at its founding, we would have immediately abolished the practice of slavery. A truly Christian nation would never have established unjust Jim Crow laws, or allowed them to continue so long. A common act of resistance during the civil rights movement was the “sit in,” where black people would sit at lunch counters where they were legally forbidden to sit. So let’s think about this. Who was the person being required to do something contrary to the law of God in these cases? The owner of the lunch counter! Who should have been the one saying (respectfully) “I have to obey God, not this human law”? The owner of the lunch counter! The fact we even needed a civil rights movement is a clear indicator of how much we were not a Christian nation.
But some insist (contrary to history) we were established as a Christian nation, and we must be so again. They even describe the U.S. as another Israel, with a similar mandate from God. The problem is only God can establish a theocracy (a nation ruled directly by God). He did this powerfully and undeniably for Israel at Mt Sinai. There was no question who was establishing the Old Testament nation of Israel. This is obviously not the way the United States was established. And to try to do this ourselves, on God’s behalf, is blasphemous. Only God can establish a theocracy.
But some will clarify they’re not trying to establish a theocracy (direct rule by God), but a theonomy (a nation ruled by God’s law). This is the idea of movements such as Christian reconstructionism or the Seven Mountain Mandate. There are two big problems with attempting to establish a theonomy, though. First, to establish a nation under the rule of God’s law, we have to ask the question: “God’s law as interpreted by whom?” Do we include the Old Covenant law, or just Christ’s New Covenant law of love? Christians have strong disagreements on this.
Do we require people to observe the Sabbath (which Sabbath?), follow dietary laws, pay tithes? Whose understanding of God’s law do we impose on everyone, and what do we do about Christians who disagree? You can see how this would lead to diminishing, restricting, and even persecuting what is perceived as the “wrong” kind of Christians. And this is exactly what happens. Without exception, every attempt to impose “God’s law” on a nation has resulted in the persecution and even execution of a great many people—including other Christians!
The second problem is even more important: God has never told us to do this! Nowhere in the New Testament is the church instructed to take over society and impose God’s law on everyone. Quite the contrary (as we saw above). To do this is to disobey the direct command of God in his Word about how we’re to interact with our society, and to instead self-willingly do something he hasn’t told us to do. So instead of imposing God’s authority on everyone, we’d actually be imposing our own authority on everyone. This is idolatrous, because it replaces God’s authority with our own, and corrupts Christ’s design and mission for the church with our design and mission for the church. This is why Christian nationalism is so dangerous. It perverts and changes Christianity into something entirely different, something God did not intend.
Many of us would never admit to going this far, but we still often assume we should be getting non-Christians around us to act more like Christians. We’re shocked when the world around us acts like . . . the world (gasp!). Picture this: A Christian is doing some Christmas shopping, and they take their items to the cash register. The cashier helps them with their purchase, and then cheerily says: “Happy holidays!” They respond to this by snatching the bag from the cashier and angrily insisting: “Merry Christmas!!”
Why? Because of some imagined “war on Christmas.” That we apparently have to win. Even if there is such a war, what are we accomplishing by forcing everyone to prioritize our holiday? A superficial, cultural “Christianity,” winning some kind of cultural superiority for us? Where does God tell us to impose our own cultural dominance on everyone else? Where does Jesus enlist us in a culture war? Where are we commanded to pressure non-Christians to behave (insincerely) like Christians? Just what is it we’re trying to do? (And, dare we ask, has the cashier in this story seen anything from the Christian showing the love and grace of Christ?) Where in the world did we get the idea it’s a good thing to make non-Christians in our public schools teach the Bible or lead kids in prayer?!
The time will come when Jesus establishes a true theocracy, everyone under the authority of Christ, the king. But this is something he will do—at the right time—not something we’re to be doing for him. Revelation 19 describes Jesus coming on a white horse, as a conquering king. But he has not yet arrived as conquering king. That time has not yet come. Instead, we’re called now to follow the king who arrived in Jerusalem riding on a donkey, coming humbly, in peace. And as he was sent, so he sends us (John 20:21), humbly and in peace. It’s not our job to establish the kingdom of Christ in society; it’s our job to be loyal subjects of his kingdom, following his commands, and showing the world around us what life in his kingdom is like.
Jesus’ victory is assured, no one can stop it. But we’re not here to win; we’re here to be faithful. We’re not here to take over; we’re here to remain loyal to Christ and his mission for us, regardless of the consequences, not allowing ourselves to be co-opted by any other group loyalty or mission. If we say we have to take over and “take our nation back for God,” we’re actually expressing a lack of faith in Christ to accomplish his own victory.
America (or any other nation) is not the kingdom of God; it’s part of the world. And we’re not sent into the world to fight a war against other people, to defeat them, to take over. We’re sent to love them sacrificially, to lay down our lives for them. That’s the way we “win,” the same way Jesus won. This isn’t us versus them; it’s us for them. This is the mission our King has given us. Will we faithfully follow him?
Related posts:
Discussing Politics in Church?
What Does Christian Character Look Like?
Was Jesus a Conservative or a Progressive?
We All Hate How Polarized We’ve Become . . . So What Are We Doing About It?
Playing Fair: Defining the Terms We Use
Did God Use Evil People in the Bible?
Hi, Bill! Great to hear from you! And thanks for the comment.
I would agree there is much good in both Greco-Roman culture and the influence of Christianity on Western Civilization, and we could spend a good amount of time describing these beneficial influences. Unfortunately, with the good often also comes the bad, and we could also describe a lot of ways these same influences have been detrimental. Such is the nature of humanity, and human culture. And it's really important for us to see both.
I see much the same need in discussions about our own more recent heritage in the U.S. Many see mostly bad, others see mostly good. But we need to wisely see both, so we can better understand both the good and the bad. Do the government and public institutions enact harmful, destructive policies? Undoubtedly! And it's right and proper for Christian citizens to (respectfully) discuss concerns about these kinds of things, and to work appropriately to address them. Of course, governments and public institutions have always (to varying degrees) enacted harmful, destructive policies, even going back to the Jewish Sanhedrin and the Roman government the Christians were specifically told to respect and obey. We need to discern the current dangers, and seek improvements, without falling into seeing our current dangers as somehow unique.
We definitely don't want to silence dialogue, and I very much appreciate that concern. But part of good dialogue—especially as Christians—is for "iron to sharpen iron," for us to "sharpen" each other in bringing our language and concepts into better, more biblical, focus, and to help each other not fall into an unintentional corruption of the gospel of Christ or mission of the church, which can easily lead us into idolatry (and which has often done so in the past). We don't want to silence dialogue, but we do want to hold all dialogue to a rigorous accountability scripturally. We should all be seeking for this kind of "sharpening" from each other, and for all of our dialogue to come into greater biblical focus, and so be more productive and of more benefit. In the case of Christian Nationalism, we can discern—and jettison—unbiblical, non-gospel, historically baseless ways of addressing concerns without jettisoning the *concerns* themselves. This should help lead us to a more biblical, more gospel harmonious way of addressing concerns faithfully as followers of Christ. Thanks, Bill!
Your treatise is well written and clear. I'd suggest that you have 'responded' to the 'challenge' of some who are very clever at silencing their opposition. If you look at the issue(s) a little differently, the discussion might take a more constructive tone. I'm not a historian, but the development of 'Western Civilization' was heavily influenced by both Greco Roman and Christian values. And, looking around, I haven't seen many examples of other value systems producing similarly 'successful' cultures and governments. As I watch our government and other 'public institutions' endorse actions that are directly opposed and threatening to values that have created the unique cultural and economic environment we all enjoy, I am saddened to see observations and concerns categorized and marginalized as 'Christian Nationalism' seemingly clearly designed to silence any dialogue. Thanks again Curt. Looking forward to more....