The Political Heresy in Christian Nationalism

The debate over so -called Christian nationalism is becoming the definitive political boundary of our time in the

United States. Unfortunately, competing definitions, most of which are not rooted in previous uses of the term, create a cloud of confusion over what

Christian nationalism is. In general, proponents see it as a self -aware attempt to conform the nation to Christian standards for the common good, while opponents use it as a pejorative representing state -supported bigotry toward non -Christians.

MSNBC columnist Anthea Butler recently blamed Christian nationalism for Florida Governor Ron DeSantis' policies against trans kids and the

Don't Say Gay Bill. She stated bluntly that people who believe in Christian nationalism believe that God has given them dominion, and that dominion means they have dominion over everybody who doesn't believe in God, who doesn't think like they do, and that God created this nation for them.

Thus, Butler's major problem with DeSantis concerns his willingness to conform civil society to Christian, instead of cosmopolitan, standards.

This penchant for privileging Christian concerns contradicts the notion of a national identity based on a higher plane of universal secular principles incapable of favoring one religious concern over another.

Regardless of how Christian nationalism is defined, the battle over whether national character includes a religious element lies at the root of the current conflict.

This is mainly due to the fact that for decades, elites on both sides of the political aisle unofficially pledged themselves to an

America fundamentally reducible to an idea or set of ideas.

The Irish rock star Bono articulated this well in an interview for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, when he stated,

Bono's commonly shared belief essentially means that the United States can belong to anyone, whether citizen or not.

Conversely, the United States does not necessarily belong to citizens unless they share a certain ideal.

Some academics refer to this concept as the Proposition Nation, hearkening back to Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, in which the 16th

President conceived of the United States as an innovative new nation dedicated to equality.

Appeals to the Proposition Nation justify causes for both political parties. Consider what

George W. Bush told a Morgantown, West Virginia crowd on Independence Day in 2005.

After opening his speech by quoting Lincoln's proposition, the President argued for continued military involvement in the

Middle East to secure the ideal of human freedom, and oppose those who fight the rise of democracy.

He encouraged his audience with the hope that the terrorists would inevitably fail as the world entered a new age called the

Liberty Century. He closed his speech stating, We know that the freedom we defend is meant for all men and women, and for all times.

It is clear that for Bush, defending America actually meant defending a universal ideal of liberty.

In a similar way, President Barack Obama, during his second inaugural address, pushed for policies like regulating health insurance, combating climate change, and recognizing same -sex marriage, by appealing to the nation's universal and never -ending quest to secure the bedrock principles that we are all created equal.

The drive to realize vague, general, and elusive dreams like liberty or equality serve as easy ways to rationalize almost any set of policies.

The reasons are simple. First, this basic conflation between the purpose or function of a nation and the definition of a nation inspires conformity.

Those who fail to participate in a national cause, whether it be going to war or the elimination of a virus, are suspected of not being true

Americans. Their very identity hangs in the balance contingent on their compliance. An American is thus someone who values equality and obeys orders.

Second, authentically national characteristics such as lineage, ownership, experience, language, tradition, and religion become unimportant and thus able to be cast aside when conflicts arise between them and a politically driven national telos.

Attacking America's institutions, destroying her monuments, and importing large groups of foreigners to share in her blessings can actually be spun as truly

American objectives if they conform to notions of universal liberty or equality.

President Donald Trump rejected this view. James Carville, a Democrat strategist, defined

Trumpism as the belief that the United States of America is a place and not an idea.

Trump's slogan, Make America Great Again, signaled a recognition that the nation did not need fundamental restructuring in order to achieve an ideal realized in a glorious future.

Nor did the United States suffer from an identity crisis separating what it was and what it should be.

Rather, America was a particular people in a particular place kept from pursuing its own national interests by elites in both parties.

Trump made this clear in almost every campaign speech when he cited tangible ways in which citizens suffered and elites prospered.

The belief that the nation and people were synonymous and that America was not an ideal belonging to the world motivated his mission to transfer power back to the people and ensure the government worked for their benefit alone.

Trump's instinctual rejection of the proposition nation offended elite sensibilities and eventually tied him to Christian nationalism.

Opposition to Trump as a proto -Christian nationalist increased as he recognized the importance of Christian practices and symbols to American identity.

It started during the campaign when Trump promised supporters that if he were president, people would see

Merry Christmas displayed at shopping centers again. A professor from King's College claimed this was part of Trump's coming war on free speech.

During the 2017 refugee crisis, the New York Times reported that Trump's intention to favor previously neglected

Christian refugees was a violation of the First Amendment's establishment clause. In 2020,

Trump famously received criticism for posing with a Bible in front of St. John's Episcopal Church in Washington, D .C.

after protesters damaged the building. The Washington Post ran a story claiming Trump used the

Bible to signal his Christian nationalist followers. The recent attacks on Christian nationalism can thus be understood as part of a broader effort to divorce

American identity from the traditional American character defended by people like Donald Trump.

Paul Miller's popular critique of Christian nationalism typifies this approach. In Miller's book,

The Religion of American Greatness, What's Wrong with Christian Nationalism, the

Georgetown University professor promotes an America not defined by language, ethnicity, religion, or culture, but instead by a set of ideas that are universal.

When citizens love these ideas, they are able to love humanity more, generally, and reach a truer love for their homeland.

Barriers to this love, put simply, include Donald Trump and Christian nationalists.

According to Miller, Trump failed to encourage democracy abroad because he mistakenly thought

American culture, faith, and tradition were uniquely the source of liberal values.

Consequently, some people missed opportunities as the 45th president pursued national power instead of their freedom.

This is one reason Miller calls nationalism Jim Crow on a global scale.

Many Christians supported Trump's agenda, according to Miller, because they were shaped more by racial identity than religion.

Their desire to assert ownership over American identity by codifying Christianity into public symbolism, the teaching of American history, and political rhetoric was actually just an extension of their

Anglo -Protestantism. Thus, Miller delegitimizes a specific Christian tradition because of its cultural embeddedness and instead encourages

Americans to grow beyond our Anglo -Protestant past, to incorporate universal ideals.

The creed of liberty and equality once again becomes the barometers by which to measure all national action.

This is how Miller, though a Southern Baptist, can defend allowing drag queens story hour at a public library while blasting white

American Christians for rejecting their obligation to eliminate racial disparities.

In contrast, Stephen Wolf's best -selling book, The Case for Christian Nationalism, argues for a nation based upon natural affection, similarity, and fellowship.

This includes a common language, manners, customs, stories, taboos, rituals, calendars, social expectations, duties, loves, and religion.

Stephen sees the nation as an extension of the family, and just as families can be Christian, then so too can the nation.

In contradiction to prevailing stereotypes, love rather than hate motivates this preference for one's own people, even over abstract notions of liberty and equality.

Wolf sees the normalization of Christian customs as a way to order earthly life to heavenly life, as society encourages citizens toward conversion, faithfulness, and a commodious social life.

The final result is a citizenry oriented toward worshipping God and loving their neighbor. Conserving differences and excluding foreigners en masse is a universal good meant to protect civil fellowship and symbiosis.

Wolf states a Christian should love his children over other children, his parents over other parents, his kin over other kin, his nation over other nations.

This of course directly contradicts the proposition -nation idea. Wolf acknowledges that the intimate connection of people and place he argues for undermines the so -called creedal nation concept popular among neoconservatives, mainstream republicans, and left liberals.

In fact, Wolf declares that propositions do not and cannot serve as the foundation for nations.

The reason is simple. A sense of familiarity, attachment, and ownership of a place is rooted in a pre -reflective, pre -propositional love for one's own, generated from intergenerational affections, daily life, and productive activity that link a society of the dead, living, and unborn.

This does not mean that political creeds are useless or unimportant, but they are not what grounds the nation.

Though this is the rock of offense modern elites find so disturbing about modern nationalism, it is not unique in the history of the world.

Virtually all pre -modern societies and most nations today think of themselves in organically rooted ways and self -consciously pursue their own interests.

Plato observed an element of friendship in the community of race, language, and laws, and rights of worship, that precluded different laws and forms.

Augustine believed that difference of race or condition of sex were embedded in our mortal interactions and to be respected.

If anything is universal, it is the way nations prefer themselves. The Bible is no exception.

After God created distinct languages by which to separate the peoples of the world, he made

Abraham's descendants into what Genesis calls a great nation. For them, he established special rituals, laws, a homeland, a shared history, and kept them distinct, even when living in captivity to other nations.

Walls surrounded their major cities, foreigners were identifiable, and children were to speak the language of their parents.

The coming of Christ fulfilled the ceremonial law and instituted a holy nation called the Church, but it did not erase the tangible reality of earthly nations.

The Great Commission, as well as Luke's, Paul's, and John's writings all used the concept of nation to organize humanity.

Paul even desired to sacrifice himself spiritually on behalf of his kinsmen according to the flesh.

Clearly, the kingdom of God did not erase natural relationships. The question before us today is not whether Americans will follow a new

Christian nationalist movement to either victory or perdition. If anything is new, it is the proposition nation that belongs to everyone, and no one simultaneously.

The question is whether Americans will cast off modern innovations that contradict human nature and pave the way for globalism.

Today's Christian nationalism should be seen as a resistance movement. In that sense, it is both populist and aligned with an

America First agenda. It is resistance against a century of elites foisting upon the

American public an idea meant to neutralize their natural inclinations toward self -preservation.

All Americans, whether they object to the terminology or certain features advocated by some proponents, should wish

Christian nationalism a measure of success if they are to truly stay American.