Excellent critique! And valuable insights. There are endless examples of how words are defined and redefined to fit the need of the moment. This is of prime importance. On the practical and even humorous side I remember that after Barry McGuire of "Eve of Destruction" had become a Christian he was being interviewed. He was admonished that he had been brainwashed. He responded in agreement. His response was something along the lines that at least he had chosen who washed his brain, Jesus. In fact his old brains were dirty and in need of a good washing.
Not to overlook another Christian who before answering whether he was a Christian asked the questioner what they meant by "Christian." It is good to know what the word means that you are discussing and agree on the definition.
Darrell Todd Maurina
Dr. Walker, you probably don't know me, but if you talked to Janie Cheaney, who used to be a member of my church in Missouri and knew my work all the way back to the 1990s covering the conservative secession from the Christian Reformed Church, she'd give you an idea of my background.
You have hit the nail on the head about the problems with the term "Christian nationalism." It's been hijacked by ethno-nationalists and a not-insignificant number of alt-right advocates of anti-Semitism.
But since you are a Southern Baptist, I'd urge you to look deeper into the history of the term. I believe it is an accurate and fair description of a type of Christian political theory that **DOES** identify the political state with a "blood and soil" approach to Christianity and patriotism. The problem is that while it does describe much of the history of conservative Christian political activism in Europe, it doesn't describe Christian political activism in the American context.
It is a fair description of what's happening with conservative Christian movements in places like Hungary with Viktor Orban, and in an earlier generation, with the Polish Catholic movements that kept Polish nationhood alive for well over a century during various partitions of the Polish land, and then was instrumental in providing the moral force that destroyed Communism. Closer to home, it's pretty obvious that Irish independence from Britian, while it did have some Irish Protestant advocates, was mostly a Catholic form of Irish nationalism, and the same was true of the role of Greek Orthodoxy in liberating Greece from the Ottoman Empire, and of the Reformed faith in splitting the "Low Countries" into an independent Protestant Netherlands that was separate from Spanish-controlled and Catholic Belgium.
The advocates of "Christian Nationalism" have a point. When Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni identifies herself as an Italian and a Christian, she's deliberately taking sides in a two-centuries-old debate over the role of Christianity in Italian nationalism that dates back to the Risorgimento of the mid-1800s. Would a unified Italy be a Christian nation or a reunification of the Italian peninsula based on shared ethnicity? Italian nationalists have taken both sides and she's making clear that her version of Italian nationalism is based on Italy's Christian heritage, not based solely on "blood and soil" nationalism. Similar things can be said about Viktor Orban, who can correctly point out Hungary's history of fighting off Islam as the battleground between Christian Europe and the Ottoman Empire.
The problem is that when we take those concepts and try to apply them to American history, they just don't work. 1776 wasn't 1620, and while it can fairly be said that the United States has been a predominantly Christian country for most of our history, it isn't key to our national identity in the same way that, for example, Greek Orthodoxy is key to being a Greek conservative, or Catholicism is key to the identity of an Irish or Polish conservative. Even more to the point, the American version of Christian conservatism has **NEVER** been ethnic or ethno-nationalist. Even in the 1600s, we had Scots Presbyterians, Dutch Reformed, various types of German Lutherans, and a not-insignificant number of Catholics in Maryland, all of which were sizeable religious and ethnic minority groups living alongside multiple English denominations, mostly English Episcopalians, English Congregationalists and English Presbyterians. By the 1700s, Jonathan Edwards himself was commissioned as a missionary to Native Americans in western Massachusetts, making clear that conservative Christianity in America, even in the colonial era, was not based on ethnicity in the same way that, for example, the Netherlands was based on its dual identity of being ethnically Dutch and theologically Reformed.
The biggest problem with the term "Christian Nationalism" isn't that the concept of an ethnic religious identity is wrong -- there are nations in which that identity does apply, or at an earlier point in history did apply -- but rather that it doesn't describe the American version of conservative Christianity very well. We're not an ethno-state, and while the New England Puritans likely **DID** want to be a religiously defined Puritan commonwealth, that's not what the United States had become by the time of the Declaration of Independence and the ratification of the US Constitution. If that's what the American founders wanted, they would have had to make war on Maryland rather than accepting some of the richest Catholics in Maryland as key figures among the Founding Fathers.
Christian Nationalism makes sense if we're talking about Hungary or Poland. For people like PM Meloni, it makes sense to describe her specific type of conservative politics in Italy.
It doesn't make sense to describe the way most American evangelicals think, let alone most American Catholics or other types of Christian conservatives in the United States.
So criticizing the term "Christian Nationalism" doesn't mean the term doesn't have value. It just means it doesn't have value in describing our American context.
Jacob Rhoda
I hate to dog-pile on Andrew because there seems to be criticism coming at him on all sides. As a listener to Bully Pulpit, I think this is a classic Andrew qualification. Really, I think that Andrew could be a card-carrying Presbyterian purely due to his affinity for the concept of "we distinguish". ;-) All jesting aside, I do find it amusing that the guy criticizing an embattled term also co-hosts a podcast called "Bully Pulpit". (I realize the show is probably named after Teddy Roosevelt's term rather than Michael Kruger's book, but the ambiguity also seems part of the fun.) So, which is it? Do we abandon terms which are ambiguous and controvertible? Or can we allow people to use terms and define what they mean when they use them? I can think of a few others that would be in a similar category — "evangelical," "orthodox", "fundamentalist", and "right-wing", are all words which might have a variety of meanings depending on who's using them — but we still use them to greater or lesser extents because we don't allow opponents to define our terms for us. Why is the application of 2 Timothy 2:14 used to rule *out* a word, rather than ruling it *in*? If that's the case, then should this article have even been written because now we're quarreling about words?
Georgia Eagle
I find it strange that the author failed to cover rational, biblical statements on the subject of Christian Nationalism that World readers would find informative and well within the realm of orthodox Christianity such as the Statement on Christian Nationalism and the Gospel (https://www.statementonchristiannationalism.com/) or the Statement on Natural Affection - A statement on racial ideologies threatening the Church (https://natural-affections.com/) which are IMO God-honoring attempts at constructive dialogue and faithful witness to Scripture and history.
MinnieKins
When a word means whatever the person using it wants it to mean, pick a different word.
I'm not sure. I think words have meanings, and we shouldn't just allow people to hijack them for their own ends.
For example, "fascism" is a right-wing ideology by definition, no matter what anyone says.
"Nationalism" means identifying with and supporting your country above and to the exclusion of all others (which is why it can be so dangerous in the hands of leaders with twisted worldviews and/or expansionist policies).
Nationalism is an important (if not the central) tenet of fascism. Therefore, the original intent of the phrase "Christian nationalism" was to point out a perceived dangerous alliance of Christianity and a nationalist/proto-fascist spirit.
Words have meanings, and anyone who tells you otherwise is being (intentionally?) disingenuous.
Words do have meanings, but those meanings evolve over time as people use the same words in different ways. I wish this wasn't the case, but it is. My main concern is that we use words that clearly communicate what we are actually saying, and ambiguous or contested terms rarely succeed in that.
Cory Lane
Christians Against Christian Nationalism Statement:
As Christians, our faith teaches us everyone is created in God’s image and commands us to love one another. As Americans, we value our system of government and the good that can be accomplished in our constitutional democracy. Today, we are concerned about a persistent threat to both our religious communities and our democracy — Christian nationalism.
Christian nationalism seeks to merge Christian and American identities, distorting both the Christian faith and America’s constitutional democracy. Christian nationalism demands Christianity be privileged by the State and implies that to be a good American, one must be Christian. It often overlaps with and provides cover for white supremacy and racial subjugation. We reject this damaging political ideology and invite our fellow Christians to join us in opposing this threat to our faith and to our nation.
As Christians, we are bound to Christ, not by citizenship, but by faith. We believe that:
- People of all faiths and none have the right and responsibility to engage constructively in the public square.
- Patriotism does not require us to minimize our religious convictions.
- One’s religious affiliation, or lack thereof, should be irrelevant to one’s standing in the civic community.
- Government should not prefer one religion over another or religion over nonreligion.
- Religious instruction is best left to our houses of worship, other religious institutions and families.
- America’s historic commitment to religious pluralism enables faith communities to live in civic harmony with one another without sacrificing our theological convictions.
- Conflating religious authority with political authority is idolatrous and often leads to oppression of minority and other marginalized groups as well as the spiritual impoverishment of religion.
- We must stand up to and speak out against Christian nationalism, especially when it inspires acts of violence and intimidation—including vandalism, bomb threats, arson, hate crimes, and attacks on houses of worship—against religious communities at home and abroad.
Whether we worship at a church, mosque, synagogue, or temple, America has no second-class faiths. All are equal under the U.S. Constitution. As Christians, we must speak in one voice condemning Christian nationalism as a distortion of the gospel of Jesus and a threat to American democracy.
Such a confused statement that mixes too many categories with too many straw men. Andrew’s description is appropriate for you who view CN as “an all-encompassing bogeyman.”
“Christian nationalism demands Christianity be privileged by the State.” Which religion would you demand be privileged, if not the one our founders focused? And don’t go all neutral on me in the name of pluralism… bc there is no neutral. That’s a myth that leads to mayhem. We just saw how far a nation can fall in 12 short years of secular religious so-called pluralism w/ Obama’s vision of “fundamental transformation of America.” We had men dressed up as women leading the health department… and called that “leadership.” “Abortion is healthcare” was heard in our hallowed halls. A Democratic Senate staffer had sex with another man in a Senate hearing room… and filmed it. It’s a bottomless pit.
——-
“Government should not prefer one religion over another or religion over nonreligion.” No, of course not. Just because American founders said the exact opposite — preferring the Christian religion — is no reason to propagate the hateful rhetoric of those ancient relics of Christian Nationalism. Away with Adams! Wash off Washington! Hear no more from Henry!
——-
“All faiths are equal under the U.S. Constitution.” Actually, all Americans have equal rights to freedom of religion under the U.S. Constitution. But the U.S. Constitution rests on one particular faith that is privileged among other faiths, precisely bc it provides the framework for the pluralism we enjoy. Christianity knows no coercion and allows freedom of faith. Islam… not so much. To unappreciated this nuance is to neuter & threaten the very values you presume to protect.
“One’s religious affiliation, or lack thereof, should be irrelevant to one’s standing in the civic community.” Of course, of course! Give me the atheist, godless, trans-affirming, baby-killing humanists to stand atop our civic community. Religion, or lack of, matters not. Never has… never will.
Leon Cook
Dear Lord,
Help us to be salt and light in this world, as you instructed, acting as your disciples "in the world but not of the world". Our citizenship is in heaven, but as your word explained to the Jewish captives in Babylon, we are vessels of your work here; "Seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the LORD on its behalf; for in its welfare you will have welfare." (Jeremiah 29:7 NASB)
Amen
not silent
Thank you for this explanation.
Scots WhaHae
Andrew issues a complex challenge to drop CN.
It may not be too late to abandon “Christian nationalism,” but it’s too hard getting Christians to adopt Andrew’s attitude toward conforming & transforming Christian culture.
“Politics obviously matters, and the law should conform to Christian principles.” Herein lies the rub. This is the heart of the matter @ CN that makes modern minds (left & right) start to squirm & shrink back. They agitate against such Christian-law conformity talk. They plea bargain on behalf of our oh-so “pluralistic” society who are not Xian and “should not be forced to conform,” they cry. You can stop using the CN label, but CN won’t stop using you.
“The real work before us is to rebuild a Christian culture in American hearts and communities.” You can expect pushback from people in the pews when you say that sentence at Sunday School. “The real work” (I’m told) is just sharing the gospel by the great commission. The culture (I’m told) “belongs to the world and everything in it” — which is earthly, temporary & passing away — so don’t waste your time “rebuilding a Christian culture” bc culture is not part of God’s Kingdom.
“Be a Christian. Love and prioritize your nation’s Christian origins.” Yes, but it’s impossible to prioritize what you don’t appreciate. Many Christians are unaware of their nation’s Christian origins — even your pastor, perhaps. Worse, when you tell them (or write in the comments) the truth of the matter, they double-down to defend their errant un-Christian “enlightenment” origin arguments. Again, the CN label lurches out to claim you, even as you re-educate de-educated friends.
I don’t care about labels. And the Left is gonna Left. The deeper issue is the doctrinal divide among disciples of Christ… who have only a “personal & private” approach to faith’s transforming power… who flinch when told, “they should focus on a more authentic vision that champions Christian virtue in the public square.”
Discipleship starts right here at home in this zone. Good luck.
Excellent critique! And valuable insights. There are endless examples of how words are defined and redefined to fit the need of the moment. This is of prime importance. On the practical and even humorous side I remember that after Barry McGuire of "Eve of Destruction" had become a Christian he was being interviewed. He was admonished that he had been brainwashed. He responded in agreement. His response was something along the lines that at least he had chosen who washed his brain, Jesus. In fact his old brains were dirty and in need of a good washing.
Not to overlook another Christian who before answering whether he was a Christian asked the questioner what they meant by "Christian." It is good to know what the word means that you are discussing and agree on the definition.
Dr. Walker, you probably don't know me, but if you talked to Janie Cheaney, who used to be a member of my church in Missouri and knew my work all the way back to the 1990s covering the conservative secession from the Christian Reformed Church, she'd give you an idea of my background.
You have hit the nail on the head about the problems with the term "Christian nationalism." It's been hijacked by ethno-nationalists and a not-insignificant number of alt-right advocates of anti-Semitism.
But since you are a Southern Baptist, I'd urge you to look deeper into the history of the term. I believe it is an accurate and fair description of a type of Christian political theory that **DOES** identify the political state with a "blood and soil" approach to Christianity and patriotism. The problem is that while it does describe much of the history of conservative Christian political activism in Europe, it doesn't describe Christian political activism in the American context.
It is a fair description of what's happening with conservative Christian movements in places like Hungary with Viktor Orban, and in an earlier generation, with the Polish Catholic movements that kept Polish nationhood alive for well over a century during various partitions of the Polish land, and then was instrumental in providing the moral force that destroyed Communism. Closer to home, it's pretty obvious that Irish independence from Britian, while it did have some Irish Protestant advocates, was mostly a Catholic form of Irish nationalism, and the same was true of the role of Greek Orthodoxy in liberating Greece from the Ottoman Empire, and of the Reformed faith in splitting the "Low Countries" into an independent Protestant Netherlands that was separate from Spanish-controlled and Catholic Belgium.
The advocates of "Christian Nationalism" have a point. When Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni identifies herself as an Italian and a Christian, she's deliberately taking sides in a two-centuries-old debate over the role of Christianity in Italian nationalism that dates back to the Risorgimento of the mid-1800s. Would a unified Italy be a Christian nation or a reunification of the Italian peninsula based on shared ethnicity? Italian nationalists have taken both sides and she's making clear that her version of Italian nationalism is based on Italy's Christian heritage, not based solely on "blood and soil" nationalism. Similar things can be said about Viktor Orban, who can correctly point out Hungary's history of fighting off Islam as the battleground between Christian Europe and the Ottoman Empire.
The problem is that when we take those concepts and try to apply them to American history, they just don't work. 1776 wasn't 1620, and while it can fairly be said that the United States has been a predominantly Christian country for most of our history, it isn't key to our national identity in the same way that, for example, Greek Orthodoxy is key to being a Greek conservative, or Catholicism is key to the identity of an Irish or Polish conservative. Even more to the point, the American version of Christian conservatism has **NEVER** been ethnic or ethno-nationalist. Even in the 1600s, we had Scots Presbyterians, Dutch Reformed, various types of German Lutherans, and a not-insignificant number of Catholics in Maryland, all of which were sizeable religious and ethnic minority groups living alongside multiple English denominations, mostly English Episcopalians, English Congregationalists and English Presbyterians. By the 1700s, Jonathan Edwards himself was commissioned as a missionary to Native Americans in western Massachusetts, making clear that conservative Christianity in America, even in the colonial era, was not based on ethnicity in the same way that, for example, the Netherlands was based on its dual identity of being ethnically Dutch and theologically Reformed.
The biggest problem with the term "Christian Nationalism" isn't that the concept of an ethnic religious identity is wrong -- there are nations in which that identity does apply, or at an earlier point in history did apply -- but rather that it doesn't describe the American version of conservative Christianity very well. We're not an ethno-state, and while the New England Puritans likely **DID** want to be a religiously defined Puritan commonwealth, that's not what the United States had become by the time of the Declaration of Independence and the ratification of the US Constitution. If that's what the American founders wanted, they would have had to make war on Maryland rather than accepting some of the richest Catholics in Maryland as key figures among the Founding Fathers.
Christian Nationalism makes sense if we're talking about Hungary or Poland. For people like PM Meloni, it makes sense to describe her specific type of conservative politics in Italy.
It doesn't make sense to describe the way most American evangelicals think, let alone most American Catholics or other types of Christian conservatives in the United States.
So criticizing the term "Christian Nationalism" doesn't mean the term doesn't have value. It just means it doesn't have value in describing our American context.
I hate to dog-pile on Andrew because there seems to be criticism coming at him on all sides. As a listener to Bully Pulpit, I think this is a classic Andrew qualification. Really, I think that Andrew could be a card-carrying Presbyterian purely due to his affinity for the concept of "we distinguish". ;-) All jesting aside, I do find it amusing that the guy criticizing an embattled term also co-hosts a podcast called "Bully Pulpit". (I realize the show is probably named after Teddy Roosevelt's term rather than Michael Kruger's book, but the ambiguity also seems part of the fun.) So, which is it? Do we abandon terms which are ambiguous and controvertible? Or can we allow people to use terms and define what they mean when they use them? I can think of a few others that would be in a similar category — "evangelical," "orthodox", "fundamentalist", and "right-wing", are all words which might have a variety of meanings depending on who's using them — but we still use them to greater or lesser extents because we don't allow opponents to define our terms for us. Why is the application of 2 Timothy 2:14 used to rule *out* a word, rather than ruling it *in*? If that's the case, then should this article have even been written because now we're quarreling about words?
I find it strange that the author failed to cover rational, biblical statements on the subject of Christian Nationalism that World readers would find informative and well within the realm of orthodox Christianity such as the Statement on Christian Nationalism and the Gospel (https://www.statementonchristiannationalism.com/) or the Statement on Natural Affection - A statement on racial ideologies threatening the Church (https://natural-affections.com/) which are IMO God-honoring attempts at constructive dialogue and faithful witness to Scripture and history.
When a word means whatever the person using it wants it to mean, pick a different word.
I'm not sure. I think words have meanings, and we shouldn't just allow people to hijack them for their own ends.
For example, "fascism" is a right-wing ideology by definition, no matter what anyone says.
"Nationalism" means identifying with and supporting your country above and to the exclusion of all others (which is why it can be so dangerous in the hands of leaders with twisted worldviews and/or expansionist policies).
Nationalism is an important (if not the central) tenet of fascism. Therefore, the original intent of the phrase "Christian nationalism" was to point out a perceived dangerous alliance of Christianity and a nationalist/proto-fascist spirit.
Words have meanings, and anyone who tells you otherwise is being (intentionally?) disingenuous.
Words do have meanings, but those meanings evolve over time as people use the same words in different ways. I wish this wasn't the case, but it is. My main concern is that we use words that clearly communicate what we are actually saying, and ambiguous or contested terms rarely succeed in that.
Christians Against Christian Nationalism Statement:
As Christians, our faith teaches us everyone is created in God’s image and commands us to love one another. As Americans, we value our system of government and the good that can be accomplished in our constitutional democracy. Today, we are concerned about a persistent threat to both our religious communities and our democracy — Christian nationalism.
Christian nationalism seeks to merge Christian and American identities, distorting both the Christian faith and America’s constitutional democracy. Christian nationalism demands Christianity be privileged by the State and implies that to be a good American, one must be Christian. It often overlaps with and provides cover for white supremacy and racial subjugation. We reject this damaging political ideology and invite our fellow Christians to join us in opposing this threat to our faith and to our nation.
As Christians, we are bound to Christ, not by citizenship, but by faith. We believe that:
- People of all faiths and none have the right and responsibility to engage constructively in the public square.
- Patriotism does not require us to minimize our religious convictions.
- One’s religious affiliation, or lack thereof, should be irrelevant to one’s standing in the civic community.
- Government should not prefer one religion over another or religion over nonreligion.
- Religious instruction is best left to our houses of worship, other religious institutions and families.
- America’s historic commitment to religious pluralism enables faith communities to live in civic harmony with one another without sacrificing our theological convictions.
- Conflating religious authority with political authority is idolatrous and often leads to oppression of minority and other marginalized groups as well as the spiritual impoverishment of religion.
- We must stand up to and speak out against Christian nationalism, especially when it inspires acts of violence and intimidation—including vandalism, bomb threats, arson, hate crimes, and attacks on houses of worship—against religious communities at home and abroad.
Whether we worship at a church, mosque, synagogue, or temple, America has no second-class faiths. All are equal under the U.S. Constitution. As Christians, we must speak in one voice condemning Christian nationalism as a distortion of the gospel of Jesus and a threat to American democracy.
https://www.christiansagainstchristiannationalism.org/statement
Such a confused statement that mixes too many categories with too many straw men. Andrew’s description is appropriate for you who view CN as “an all-encompassing bogeyman.”
“Christian nationalism demands Christianity be privileged by the State.” Which religion would you demand be privileged, if not the one our founders focused? And don’t go all neutral on me in the name of pluralism… bc there is no neutral. That’s a myth that leads to mayhem. We just saw how far a nation can fall in 12 short years of secular religious so-called pluralism w/ Obama’s vision of “fundamental transformation of America.” We had men dressed up as women leading the health department… and called that “leadership.” “Abortion is healthcare” was heard in our hallowed halls. A Democratic Senate staffer had sex with another man in a Senate hearing room… and filmed it. It’s a bottomless pit.
——-
“Government should not prefer one religion over another or religion over nonreligion.” No, of course not. Just because American founders said the exact opposite — preferring the Christian religion — is no reason to propagate the hateful rhetoric of those ancient relics of Christian Nationalism. Away with Adams! Wash off Washington! Hear no more from Henry!
——-
“All faiths are equal under the U.S. Constitution.” Actually, all Americans have equal rights to freedom of religion under the U.S. Constitution. But the U.S. Constitution rests on one particular faith that is privileged among other faiths, precisely bc it provides the framework for the pluralism we enjoy. Christianity knows no coercion and allows freedom of faith. Islam… not so much. To unappreciated this nuance is to neuter & threaten the very values you presume to protect.
“One’s religious affiliation, or lack thereof, should be irrelevant to one’s standing in the civic community.” Of course, of course! Give me the atheist, godless, trans-affirming, baby-killing humanists to stand atop our civic community. Religion, or lack of, matters not. Never has… never will.
Dear Lord,
Help us to be salt and light in this world, as you instructed, acting as your disciples "in the world but not of the world". Our citizenship is in heaven, but as your word explained to the Jewish captives in Babylon, we are vessels of your work here; "Seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the LORD on its behalf; for in its welfare you will have welfare." (Jeremiah 29:7 NASB)
Amen
Thank you for this explanation.
Andrew issues a complex challenge to drop CN.
It may not be too late to abandon “Christian nationalism,” but it’s too hard getting Christians to adopt Andrew’s attitude toward conforming & transforming Christian culture.
“Politics obviously matters, and the law should conform to Christian principles.” Herein lies the rub. This is the heart of the matter @ CN that makes modern minds (left & right) start to squirm & shrink back. They agitate against such Christian-law conformity talk. They plea bargain on behalf of our oh-so “pluralistic” society who are not Xian and “should not be forced to conform,” they cry. You can stop using the CN label, but CN won’t stop using you.
“The real work before us is to rebuild a Christian culture in American hearts and communities.” You can expect pushback from people in the pews when you say that sentence at Sunday School. “The real work” (I’m told) is just sharing the gospel by the great commission. The culture (I’m told) “belongs to the world and everything in it” — which is earthly, temporary & passing away — so don’t waste your time “rebuilding a Christian culture” bc culture is not part of God’s Kingdom.
“Be a Christian. Love and prioritize your nation’s Christian origins.” Yes, but it’s impossible to prioritize what you don’t appreciate. Many Christians are unaware of their nation’s Christian origins — even your pastor, perhaps. Worse, when you tell them (or write in the comments) the truth of the matter, they double-down to defend their errant un-Christian “enlightenment” origin arguments. Again, the CN label lurches out to claim you, even as you re-educate de-educated friends.
I don’t care about labels. And the Left is gonna Left. The deeper issue is the doctrinal divide among disciples of Christ… who have only a “personal & private” approach to faith’s transforming power… who flinch when told, “they should focus on a more authentic vision that champions Christian virtue in the public square.”
Discipleship starts right here at home in this zone. Good luck.