I think this conversation suffers from a lack of precision. You write, “should Christians be attempting to establish Christianity as the pre-eminent religion? Should Christians ever use political power to coerce people to follow Jesus?” So the archetypal example of this would be the fundamentalist Christian who is desperate to get his political party elected so that they can impose Christian morals and what not.
I think though things are a lot more fuzzy. Is it Christian nationalism for Christians to defend or promote principles from their faith in a democratic context? Is it Christian nationalism to use Christian language to argue for those? I think not, because that would make democracy pluralistic for everyone except Christians and it would make figures like MLK jr. “Christian nationalist”.
Further, I think of something like a statue commemorating a biblical figure, or a cross in a public space—is this Christian nationalism? But what if Christianity goes deep in the culture’s DNA as it does, say in Europe (and of course in America). To remove all traces of Christianity from public life would be a tragic loss of historical memory and culture.
I’m not sure what is “Christian nationalist” about acknowledging that the US, and other Western countries have very deep Christian roots, that indeed principles of democracy and liberalism are built on Christian ideas, presuppositions, and narratives. I think it’s sensible for our country to acknowledge this legacy, and honour it, I suspect we forget it at our peril.
So while I am opposed to “imposing my faith on others”, I also think that a) being a member of a democratic society entails articulating my point of view, including using the language of faith. And b) our society has deep cultural roots in the Christian narrative that we would do well to honour and uphold. I don’t want to force anyone to adopt my point of view on both accounts, but they seem unobjectionable to me and worth articulating for the sake of honesty.
Yeah these are great thoughts! You would enjoy NT Wright & Michael Bird's recent book, Jesus and the Powers. As Anglicans they are much more comfortable with a sort of soft cultural Christian witness in public spaces (like at the UK King's recent coronation). I agree that that's not necessarily Christian nationalism, even if it's something I feel a tinge uncomfortable with at times. And as I noted in my essay, I do hope that Christians are articulating and voting according to our moral beliefs, just like I hope non-Christians are too!
I think the questions you raise are good ones, as in, what exact behaviors make up Christian nationalism? I think the definition in my essay is the closest one to the academic definition, and it would apply in virtually any nation. [Unfortunately, too often "Christian nationalism" simply seems to mean "those weird fundamentalists that vote for Trump" which is not a replicable definition. That sort of misguided definition is what I wanted to push against.]
Ultimately, as an Anabaptist, I have a much more skeptical view of state power than I believe most Christians have. And that's ok, let's have those conversations amongst ourselves. But I think the extreme cases should be pretty clear still: No conversions at the point of the sword. No burning heretics at the stake, even if they truly are heretics. If we can at least agree with not instituting a "Christian state" at that level, then it gives us a much safer place to talk about the rest of it, such as statues, crosses, and other laws.
I want to make an historical correction. Constantine is not responsible for the establishment of Christianity as the state religion of the empire. Persecution of pagans only began in earnest under Constantine's successors, especially Theodosius, who banned the practice of paganism in the empire and required all his subjects to accept Nicene Orthodoxy.
And more than this, what does it even mean to say that Christianity is the pre-eminent religion? Does it require state establishment or merely laws enforcing controversial Christian moral positions? Is Britain's toothless religious establishment a form of "Christian Nationalism?" What about the state church in overwhelmingly secular Iceland? And even if we could agree on what pre-eminent means, it is clearly not sufficient to establish something as Christian nationalism, because nationalism requires a nation, and nations as we currently know them are an 18th century creation.
Indeed, that is helpful, Matthew. Thank you. You are correct, Constantine did not begin the enforcement of Christianity, but he seems to mark a turn in an unhelpful direction (from my perspective). His vision of a cross, "In this sign, conquer," as reported by Eusebius, seems to fundamentally misunderstand Jesus' call to "take up your cross" and follow him.
<Edit: Hit enter too soon. > The questions in your second paragraph I think are helpful ones! And feel more fruitful to me than others that people often raise. You may enjoy the recent book by NT Wright & Michael Bird entitled "Jesus and the Powers," when they post similar questions especially about the British context.
Obviously the modern concept of the nation-state is new, but that of a Christian Kingdom or Empire is very old. I recall seeing a statue outside the Philadelphia Art Museum of a man holding a sword, commemorating Armenia becoming the first Christian nation in the 300s. "Nation" may not be the right term but the concept is still legible before the 18th century.
Ultimately the question is to what extent should Christian moral positions be enforced by state power. My Catholic ancestors were persecuted by the Protestant British royal family for their religion, and were even implicated in the infamous Guy Fawkes attempt to blow up Parliament. Certainly our faith is worth dying for, but I'm dubious that it's worth killing for.
Out of curiosity, how do anabaptists deal with the Old Testament? It certainly seems like religion is something worth killing for to the Hebrews. I think the issue is very difficult, and the position of someone like Augustine that force can be used in matters of religion is not obviously false. I do not support doing so, for various reasons, but I do not think it is a position that can be dismissed as obviously contrary to the gospel.
As for what Christian moral positions should be enforced by the state, most of the things those termed Christian nationalists want enforced aren't uniquely Christian. There are perfectly reasonable non-Christian reasons for opposing gay marriage. Even something like prohibiting idol worship could be justified on secular grounds, if one believes that the existence of God is provable by reason (I am not saying we should do this, just that it could be justified without appealing to Christianity). The only people I know of who would go even that far are integralists like Adrian Vermuele.
Good question! I was raised Lutheran (LCMS) and became anabaptist later in life, so I’m not an expert yet on the various ways anabaptists wrestle with this question. There’s a few main moves that come to mind. One would be to point to Jesus as the fulfillment and culmination of OT teachings, so his message would amend and supersede the Law (just like it does with Sabbath, cleanliness laws, the sacrificial system, etc). Another move might point out how Israel in the OT was God’s unique chosen vehicle to be a light to the nations, so there were some divine commands for them that are not normative for all. Last, there are many places in the OT that directly or implicitly critique war and violence, thus laying a foundation for the same type of ethic that Jesus would later preach in the sermon on the mount. (examples: seek the welfare of your enemy Babylon in Jer. 29, the commands against the king having a large army and horses in Deut, warning against having a king for war in 1 Sam 8, telling David not to do a census to see how powerful he was, the prophetic peace imagery in Isaiah of the lion and the lamb, the battle bow being broken by the humble king riding on a donkey in Zechariah, etc). It’s certainly a challenge for anabaptists to explain the warlike character of God in OT, but that’s true for other apparent “discrepancies” between OT and NT.
Re: your second paragraph, I think I agree in principle, though might come to different conclusions in the particulars, and/ or focus on different issues.
While I am not a total pacifist in principle, I agree that the cause of Christ cannot be advanced through political power. The war we fight is on the front of unbelief, and our weapon against unbelief is the goodness of God. Rom 2:4
An excellent piece, thank you. I would add a bit from here in Germany - we have a very similar problem here. It's a bit less mainstream, and to my knowledge all significant Christian organisations strongly oppose these ultra-nationalists, but they often claim to be "defending" "Judaeo-Christian culture". Which is especially horrifying considering what German nationalists did to Jews and also to Christian regime opponents. In one particularly grotesque incident some individuals even threatened serious violence (possibly murder, but this was in the 2010s so I'm not certain) against the bell-ringer of a church that decided to ring their bells in protest against the ultra-nationalist's demonstrations...
On a more positive note: I really like the "no baptising until the child is old enough to make up their own mind" approach you explained. I did not realise there is any Christian movement that did this.
I looked up the incident - these individuals (allegedly) told two volunteers at a church (not the actual bell ringer(s), my mistake) that "It could be that I cut your throat" (my translation). Source (in German): https://taz.de/Pegida-Anhaenger-in-Dresden/!5013688/ (major German newspaper, not exactly known for excessive attention to detail, but it's highly unlikely that they would make up quotes to falsely attribute to a church official).
Thank you for sharing Steffen. That is fascinating (and scary) to hear about Christian nationalism in Germany.
And yes I'm glad you liked hearing about that approach for adult baptism! There are a few Christian communities that have arisen with this approach, often known as "believer's baptism" and called Anabaptists. One group that arose in Germany not too long ago you may be interested in are called the Bruderhof Communities: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruderhof_Communities
I am a Republican, a Trump supporter, a Libertarian and an Anabaptist. I see no conflict with any of these. As an active Republican, I can assure you that no one is sitting in rooms discussing how to impose Christianity on our Nation, same with the Trump supporters. What most want is to keep America Free for all faiths. I believe the recent scare campaign about Christian Nationalism is a dog whistle intended to scare voters away from Trump, similar to project 2025. Ultimately, there is no there there.
I am sure that is true for you James, but there certainly are people on the right who are trying to impose Christianity on America through top-down political means (sometimes in varieties that I don't mind, but oftentimes in ways that I very much disagree with).
Think about it: do you think that the Christian Nationalists would be trying to get power subversively? In other words, would they lie about who they are in order to gain power? The reason I ask is if we were in danger of Christian Nationalists getting power via Trump, why would the official Republican platform be devoid of any such language? In fact there is a preamble that specifically states “Common Sense tells us clearly that the Republican Party must stand for Equal Treatment for All.
Likewise, the Republican Party must ensure the equal application of law to all regardless of political affiliation or personal beliefs. “
In Chapter 9 section 3 it further states:
“Republicans Will Defend Religious Liberty
We are the defenders of the First Amendment Right to Religious Liberty. It protects the Right not only to Worship according to the dictates of Conscience, but also to act in accordance with those Beliefs, not just in places of Worship, but in everyday life. Our ranks include men and women from every Faith and Tradition, and we respect the Right of every American to follow his or her deeply held Beliefs.”
if the Republican party was a vehicle for Christian Nationalism why the deception? Wouldn’t Christians want to use the truth to gain power and not a deception? Lying to gain power would be the most counterintuitive thing that Christians could do to gain power as everyone would immediately see the hypocrisy and thus Christians would lose support. Here is the full 2024 party platform for reference:
The true source of lies is the mainstream media, academia and Big Tech who want to subvert the people by pitting them against each other. They do this by various fear campaigns targeted at marginalized groups in order to make them fearful of the majority. This was also done by Chairman Mao in China during the cultural revolution which led to the Communist overthrow of China. They are trying that again here. All major news outlets and organizations such as Google, Meta, Microsoft etc are stifling the truth so that this program of Balkanization can occur here until the very fabric of our society is broken down to the extent that the USA is destroyed and replaced with something they control. This means that if you use Google to find information, the truth will be suppressed and lies will be elevated (like the threat of Christian Nationalism).
I have been a Precinct Committeeman for the Republican Party of Hillsborough County in precinct 240 in Florida for several years and I have never met a Republican who wants to enforce Christianity on the nation through political power. It has never been mentioned at any meeting. What has been mentioned often is that the majority want equal rights for all under the Constitution. If there are Christian Nationalist in our ranks, it is such a small amount as to be ineffective at worst and loudly denounced by the rest of the party at best.
I agree that Christian Nationalism is a terrible thing and we should be vigilant against such ideas, but to insist it is a greater threat than it is would be reckless and dangerous and may actually lead to despotism in our Country if we allow the fear mongers to divide us.
Hi James, I'm glad to hear that the Republicans in your precinct have no desire to enforce Christianity through political power. Unfortunately I could find countless counter-examples of other Christians, at a national level, who do have that desire. It's good to know you would be vigilant against those individuals as well, who do much to undermine the Gospel witness of true believers.
But anyway, my original piece was not written to litigate the existence or non-existence of Christian Nationalists in America, which has been debated on endlessly in other places. Rather, my piece was to point out a specific problem I was noticing in many of the left's critiques of Christian Nationalism. However since you and I are both agreed that 'Christian Nationalism is a terrible thing', that's what's most important.
To clarify, as a Precinct Committeeman I meet monthly with other committeemen and committeewomen from all over my county (Hillsborough) which is a blue county in Florida. So you could imagine that the rhetoric would be higher since at the county level we are at the highest level of non-Christian rule over our lives. But again, I have personally witnessed the opposite of Christian nationalism as the HREC is made up of all faiths and everyone has a voice. Everyone is fighting for the rights of every faith.
Their may be some national voices for Christian nationalism but I hope it brings you comfort to know that not only are those voices ridiculed amongst serious Republicans, but their voices have no traction in our ranks in regard to policy at any level. The majority (which are the Trump supporters) have systematically kicked out the NeoCon voices who previously worked to impose such policies upon the Republican Party. We fought hard over the last 8 years to do so.
What is left are the voices out side the mainstream of the party which are elevated by a Media who are desperate to amplify their voices. We should ignore them and they will go away and if they don’t, we strongly affirm to them that they are not welcome in Republican politics.
If you have any evidence of such voices which do have sway within Republican Party politics, please bring a few to my attention so we can work to resolve this as we want nothing to do with them in the Trump movement.
Thanks to your article, I will be submitting a resolution at my next HREC meeting to renounce Christian Nationalism. I am connected enough to have this resolution distributed to all counties in Florida and have most counties bring this resolution to a vote to make it clear that we reject such principles.
I'm grateful to hear that! I do think it is ultimately up to Christians like us (and Republican leaders like you) to police our own ranks to make sure these voices remain on the fringe. So glad you can be part of making that happen on the ground.
In terms of who some of the prominent Christian nationalist voices would be, well it depends on your definition of CN, but I would list: Russ Vought, Mike Flynn, Lance Wallnau, and arguably Charlie Kirk & Turning Points USA. Each of these go way beyond healthy Christian engagement in politics (in my opinion) and advocate for Christianity and Christian values to be enforced at all levels of government.
I would caution you from listening to Mainstream Media outlets such as Yahoo, Rolling Stone, CNN, MSNBC, Fox, Media matters, PBS, NPR, MSN, NYT, NBC, CBS, or the Guardian (to name the largest offenders) This is in addition to Big Tech: Facebook, Instagram, Google, Bing, Duck Duck Go, Apple News, etc. these are largely controlled by Anti American groups who are actively subverting the truth for political power and demonizing their political opposition in order to sway the election to their side.
I use independent voices who are looking at this objectively and without political bias. There is a good documentary that calls attention to the imbalance of bias on the internet called “The Creepy Line”, you should watch it ❤️😇
I find your writing of good quality and your other piece that I read had some excellent quotes. I do have a sincere question for you, though. You talk about the concerns you have about Christian nationalism and you speak of fascism in your other piece. As I said you are a good writer. However, I feel like there’s a misunderstanding here, though you’re not alone. I don’t think the majority of Christian voters are of the mindset or views you are characterizing here. We currently have two candidates. Yes, a few whackos support either side. But I would disagree with some of your underlying premises and assumptions.
Some of us understand Marxism. Harris has a Marxist father and her own ideologies align with his. I lived in China a few years. I recognize the tactics and underlying approach. A friend of mine grew up in Iran. She understands the bigger picture and she supports Trump. She commented that Europe has all caved to socialism but the reason she supports Trump is he actually stands against socialism and Marxist ideology. She understands the bigger picture and she’s a bright, intelligent woman.
The ideals of Harris are anything but consistent with our faith. Late term abortions, trans humanism, and her disdain for private property and freedoms guaranteed by our constitution are evident. She pretends to support Israel to get elected but in fact her alignment is with Iran and she treated Israeli leaders terribly. The way this administration has treated police and military has been dismal. Lawlessness is the result of her kind of policies. They create all these false narratives and propaganda from day one.
I am a Christian and I am no fascist. I am not in alignment with those few whackos you mentioned. I understand a nation without a border is unsustainable. I understand God’s word and recognize Israel has a right to exist as a sovereign nation. Trump is imperfect and lacks eloquence. But his policies are compassionate and made sense. He cared about sanctity of life. He supported Israel. He supported and earned the respect of first responders and military. He isn’t the monster some try to make him out to be. Marxism has never worked. I understand how religious freedom is subtly attacked and eroded by policies in liberal countries. In Canada teaching Romans 1 is considered hate speech. In China it’s illegal to share your faith or gather in homes to worship. Teaching the whole Bible is illegal too.
So my prayer is Christians here wake up. We aren’t all into the extremist ideology you tie to Trump. There are many Christians who understand that the lines are drawn. The real danger isn’t an unsavory personality. It’s the propaganda machine and the promises of redistribution of wealth we need to stand against. The truth is we get to have a voice and use our freedom of speech and preserve our freedom of religion before it’s taken away.
I don’t have the illusion this is a Christian nation. I have worked cross culturally and am not racist. I am simply a believer and follower of Christ who sees what’s underneath the fancy claims being made, and the generalizations and narratives created so they can further move us towards Marxism.
I don’t know how a true follower of Christ can accept the killing of human life and call it women’s rights. Babies are humans and Walz and Harris have terrible records on this. Both love riots and lawlessness. As for any biblical values, just as Tim Walz about tampons in boys locker rooms. And babies who they tried to abort but survived dying alone because of his law. In China, my friend disappeared for a few weeks. She cried when she told me they forced her to have an abortion. In China the police visited my apartment looking for Bibles or evidence that I might be spending time in the Word with Chinese women. If this is what you hope for our future here, keep falling for these biased narratives.
Susan, I appreciate your lengthy and deep thoughts here. You clearly took time to try to persuade me, which I really appreciate. Some folks just use ad hominem attacks or non sequiturs.
I will not go line by line with all of the arguments you raise, since I actually agree with you on many of them, or have such nuanced and complex views that they would take too long to explain.
I will zoom out to the historical perspective and point out one thing, though: Both Mussolini and Hitler also used the spectre of "socialism" and "marxism" to rally their supporters to embrace fascism. In 2020, when I originally wrote this piece, I saw many on the right doing the same to try to encourage Republicans to rally behind Trump (ex. Proud Boys, 3 Percenters, Patriot Front, Boogaloo Boys etc). But what Bonhoeffer shows us is that there is a choice beyond either Marxism or Fascism. And that's authentic, biblical, Christianity, and his writings in 1942 serve as a prophetic warning against the dangers of fascism. That's why I think studying his antifascist theology is important; if we're already under a fascist dictatorship, it's too late--so instead we need to be mindful of the warning signs ahead of time. I've seen a majority of Christians screaming about the dangers of Marxism for decades now, and justifiably so, but I think we also need to be screaming about the dangers of fascism. Anything that we serve that isn't Jesus is an idol.
I'm sorry Susan, I thought this comment was on my Bonhoeffer piece, so I apologize if my response doesn't quite make sense in the specific context of this article. Hopefully you get the gist of what I'm saying.
Thank you for this thoughtful response. I suspect we have quite a bit in common and I do believe we need to understand history. I appreciate you taking time to respond and even read my thoughts.
I guess Christian nationalism can be a broad definition, but if you’re referring to Theonomy (correct me if I’m wrong) I don’t know any theonomists trying to spread the gospel with the sword, we’re trying to have just laws that align with the only source of justice; God himself.
Isaiah 10:1-2
[1] Woe to those who decree iniquitous decrees,
and the writers who keep writing oppression,
[2]
to turn aside the needy from justice
and to rob the poor of my people of their right,
that widows may be their spoil,
and that they may make the fatherless their prey!
The Government has been given the sword, and is also supposed to be a servant of the triune God.
Romans 13:3-4
[3] For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, [4] for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.
Would love your thoughts, feel free to DM me as well
Hey Joe, yeah great thoughts. I'll share a few off the cuff responses:
-My piece here is critiquing certain critiques I've heard of Christian nationalism, so I'm not really going super deep into my own thoughts on Christian nationalism nor theonomy. That would take a longer, more thorough post.
-CNs and theonomists seem to have some overlap and I'm unsure how to easily distinguish the two, so forgive me if I am not being precise in some of my terminology. I'd be curious if/how you could distinguish them at first glance.
-Romans 13 is written about Nero, seemingly requiring Christians to submit to one of the worst rulers alive, which does logically follow from Romans 12 (bless those who persecute you, don't take revenge, show love to your enemies, etc). However, most Christian nationalists and theonomists that I see seem to be very opposed to rulers that they think are non-Christian, even to the point of purchasing weapons and/or mentally preparing for armed rebellion. Personally as an Anabaptist pacifist, I have little problem with Romans 13. But it is unclear to me that Christians should ever be the ones bearing the sword, executing wrath on the wrongdoer (Romans 12:19 specifically tells us not to!).
-I agree with theonomists when they say that laws should align with God's justice. But most theonomists I hear about only seem to favor laws that align with "rightwing" policies. However one could easily make a biblical argument for numerous "leftwing" policies that also reflect God's heart, such as debt forgiveness (lev. 25), wealth redistribution and welfare policies (Matthew 25, Acts 2-5), banning interest-bearing loans (Lev 25 again), pacifism (Matthew 5), etc. I think if theonomists want to enact laws that reflect God's heart for justice, I would be theoretically in favor. Yet I don't see them being consistently applying God's Scripture to government affairs. I'm not sure how to resolve this discrepency.
-At the end of the day, I care more about the gospel going forth than in there being perfect justice enacted by a Christian government (which isn't possible until Jesus returns anyway). Historically it seems like the gospel spreads faster under explicitly anti-Christian governments, like in Iran, China, etc. I don't ever pray for persecution, but I wonder if persecution might actually be the way that God (in his Providence) spreads the good news, and thus we shouldn't be so scared of it!
Sorry for the scattered thoughts, but it is a wide and complex topic and so wanted to give a few of my various perspectives. Have a great day.
Can you elaborate? Are you talking about Jesus and John Wayne? If I remember correctly that book tackled a somewhat different topic, the impact of hyper masculinity on the American church.
Yes she does mention politics and Christian nationalism not as the main issue but she does bring it up with masculity although to me it’s not really a fair and balanced book
Gotcha. Personally I thought her book was well-argued and researched, and tracked with a lot with of what I see in American culture. But to each their own
Fair enough, I didn’t mean that it didn’t showed any truth or reality but there were times where she really isn’t approaching it unbiased or objective. But hey I appreciate you interacting with my comment!
You’re welcome. Yeah probably, it was a few years ago when it first came out so I don’t remember it super clearly. I think if I had an issue it was that in all the critique of toxic masculinity, it’s unclear what healthy Christian masculinity ought to look like. I don’t think that’s Du Mez’ job to figure out or define, but it was a question that came up for me
But it’s hard for me, on the one hand to hear critiques of unhealthy and unbiblical masculinity within evangelicalism and yet not hear what the solution is. It comes across as wanting to tear down negatively instead of building up positively
I think this conversation suffers from a lack of precision. You write, “should Christians be attempting to establish Christianity as the pre-eminent religion? Should Christians ever use political power to coerce people to follow Jesus?” So the archetypal example of this would be the fundamentalist Christian who is desperate to get his political party elected so that they can impose Christian morals and what not.
I think though things are a lot more fuzzy. Is it Christian nationalism for Christians to defend or promote principles from their faith in a democratic context? Is it Christian nationalism to use Christian language to argue for those? I think not, because that would make democracy pluralistic for everyone except Christians and it would make figures like MLK jr. “Christian nationalist”.
Further, I think of something like a statue commemorating a biblical figure, or a cross in a public space—is this Christian nationalism? But what if Christianity goes deep in the culture’s DNA as it does, say in Europe (and of course in America). To remove all traces of Christianity from public life would be a tragic loss of historical memory and culture.
I’m not sure what is “Christian nationalist” about acknowledging that the US, and other Western countries have very deep Christian roots, that indeed principles of democracy and liberalism are built on Christian ideas, presuppositions, and narratives. I think it’s sensible for our country to acknowledge this legacy, and honour it, I suspect we forget it at our peril.
So while I am opposed to “imposing my faith on others”, I also think that a) being a member of a democratic society entails articulating my point of view, including using the language of faith. And b) our society has deep cultural roots in the Christian narrative that we would do well to honour and uphold. I don’t want to force anyone to adopt my point of view on both accounts, but they seem unobjectionable to me and worth articulating for the sake of honesty.
Yeah these are great thoughts! You would enjoy NT Wright & Michael Bird's recent book, Jesus and the Powers. As Anglicans they are much more comfortable with a sort of soft cultural Christian witness in public spaces (like at the UK King's recent coronation). I agree that that's not necessarily Christian nationalism, even if it's something I feel a tinge uncomfortable with at times. And as I noted in my essay, I do hope that Christians are articulating and voting according to our moral beliefs, just like I hope non-Christians are too!
I think the questions you raise are good ones, as in, what exact behaviors make up Christian nationalism? I think the definition in my essay is the closest one to the academic definition, and it would apply in virtually any nation. [Unfortunately, too often "Christian nationalism" simply seems to mean "those weird fundamentalists that vote for Trump" which is not a replicable definition. That sort of misguided definition is what I wanted to push against.]
Ultimately, as an Anabaptist, I have a much more skeptical view of state power than I believe most Christians have. And that's ok, let's have those conversations amongst ourselves. But I think the extreme cases should be pretty clear still: No conversions at the point of the sword. No burning heretics at the stake, even if they truly are heretics. If we can at least agree with not instituting a "Christian state" at that level, then it gives us a much safer place to talk about the rest of it, such as statues, crosses, and other laws.
I want to make an historical correction. Constantine is not responsible for the establishment of Christianity as the state religion of the empire. Persecution of pagans only began in earnest under Constantine's successors, especially Theodosius, who banned the practice of paganism in the empire and required all his subjects to accept Nicene Orthodoxy.
And more than this, what does it even mean to say that Christianity is the pre-eminent religion? Does it require state establishment or merely laws enforcing controversial Christian moral positions? Is Britain's toothless religious establishment a form of "Christian Nationalism?" What about the state church in overwhelmingly secular Iceland? And even if we could agree on what pre-eminent means, it is clearly not sufficient to establish something as Christian nationalism, because nationalism requires a nation, and nations as we currently know them are an 18th century creation.
Indeed, that is helpful, Matthew. Thank you. You are correct, Constantine did not begin the enforcement of Christianity, but he seems to mark a turn in an unhelpful direction (from my perspective). His vision of a cross, "In this sign, conquer," as reported by Eusebius, seems to fundamentally misunderstand Jesus' call to "take up your cross" and follow him.
<Edit: Hit enter too soon. > The questions in your second paragraph I think are helpful ones! And feel more fruitful to me than others that people often raise. You may enjoy the recent book by NT Wright & Michael Bird entitled "Jesus and the Powers," when they post similar questions especially about the British context.
Obviously the modern concept of the nation-state is new, but that of a Christian Kingdom or Empire is very old. I recall seeing a statue outside the Philadelphia Art Museum of a man holding a sword, commemorating Armenia becoming the first Christian nation in the 300s. "Nation" may not be the right term but the concept is still legible before the 18th century.
Ultimately the question is to what extent should Christian moral positions be enforced by state power. My Catholic ancestors were persecuted by the Protestant British royal family for their religion, and were even implicated in the infamous Guy Fawkes attempt to blow up Parliament. Certainly our faith is worth dying for, but I'm dubious that it's worth killing for.
Thanks for responding!
Out of curiosity, how do anabaptists deal with the Old Testament? It certainly seems like religion is something worth killing for to the Hebrews. I think the issue is very difficult, and the position of someone like Augustine that force can be used in matters of religion is not obviously false. I do not support doing so, for various reasons, but I do not think it is a position that can be dismissed as obviously contrary to the gospel.
As for what Christian moral positions should be enforced by the state, most of the things those termed Christian nationalists want enforced aren't uniquely Christian. There are perfectly reasonable non-Christian reasons for opposing gay marriage. Even something like prohibiting idol worship could be justified on secular grounds, if one believes that the existence of God is provable by reason (I am not saying we should do this, just that it could be justified without appealing to Christianity). The only people I know of who would go even that far are integralists like Adrian Vermuele.
Good question! I was raised Lutheran (LCMS) and became anabaptist later in life, so I’m not an expert yet on the various ways anabaptists wrestle with this question. There’s a few main moves that come to mind. One would be to point to Jesus as the fulfillment and culmination of OT teachings, so his message would amend and supersede the Law (just like it does with Sabbath, cleanliness laws, the sacrificial system, etc). Another move might point out how Israel in the OT was God’s unique chosen vehicle to be a light to the nations, so there were some divine commands for them that are not normative for all. Last, there are many places in the OT that directly or implicitly critique war and violence, thus laying a foundation for the same type of ethic that Jesus would later preach in the sermon on the mount. (examples: seek the welfare of your enemy Babylon in Jer. 29, the commands against the king having a large army and horses in Deut, warning against having a king for war in 1 Sam 8, telling David not to do a census to see how powerful he was, the prophetic peace imagery in Isaiah of the lion and the lamb, the battle bow being broken by the humble king riding on a donkey in Zechariah, etc). It’s certainly a challenge for anabaptists to explain the warlike character of God in OT, but that’s true for other apparent “discrepancies” between OT and NT.
Re: your second paragraph, I think I agree in principle, though might come to different conclusions in the particulars, and/ or focus on different issues.
While I am not a total pacifist in principle, I agree that the cause of Christ cannot be advanced through political power. The war we fight is on the front of unbelief, and our weapon against unbelief is the goodness of God. Rom 2:4
An excellent piece, thank you. I would add a bit from here in Germany - we have a very similar problem here. It's a bit less mainstream, and to my knowledge all significant Christian organisations strongly oppose these ultra-nationalists, but they often claim to be "defending" "Judaeo-Christian culture". Which is especially horrifying considering what German nationalists did to Jews and also to Christian regime opponents. In one particularly grotesque incident some individuals even threatened serious violence (possibly murder, but this was in the 2010s so I'm not certain) against the bell-ringer of a church that decided to ring their bells in protest against the ultra-nationalist's demonstrations...
On a more positive note: I really like the "no baptising until the child is old enough to make up their own mind" approach you explained. I did not realise there is any Christian movement that did this.
I looked up the incident - these individuals (allegedly) told two volunteers at a church (not the actual bell ringer(s), my mistake) that "It could be that I cut your throat" (my translation). Source (in German): https://taz.de/Pegida-Anhaenger-in-Dresden/!5013688/ (major German newspaper, not exactly known for excessive attention to detail, but it's highly unlikely that they would make up quotes to falsely attribute to a church official).
Thank you for sharing Steffen. That is fascinating (and scary) to hear about Christian nationalism in Germany.
And yes I'm glad you liked hearing about that approach for adult baptism! There are a few Christian communities that have arisen with this approach, often known as "believer's baptism" and called Anabaptists. One group that arose in Germany not too long ago you may be interested in are called the Bruderhof Communities: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruderhof_Communities
I am a Republican, a Trump supporter, a Libertarian and an Anabaptist. I see no conflict with any of these. As an active Republican, I can assure you that no one is sitting in rooms discussing how to impose Christianity on our Nation, same with the Trump supporters. What most want is to keep America Free for all faiths. I believe the recent scare campaign about Christian Nationalism is a dog whistle intended to scare voters away from Trump, similar to project 2025. Ultimately, there is no there there.
I am sure that is true for you James, but there certainly are people on the right who are trying to impose Christianity on America through top-down political means (sometimes in varieties that I don't mind, but oftentimes in ways that I very much disagree with).
Think about it: do you think that the Christian Nationalists would be trying to get power subversively? In other words, would they lie about who they are in order to gain power? The reason I ask is if we were in danger of Christian Nationalists getting power via Trump, why would the official Republican platform be devoid of any such language? In fact there is a preamble that specifically states “Common Sense tells us clearly that the Republican Party must stand for Equal Treatment for All.
Likewise, the Republican Party must ensure the equal application of law to all regardless of political affiliation or personal beliefs. “
In Chapter 9 section 3 it further states:
“Republicans Will Defend Religious Liberty
We are the defenders of the First Amendment Right to Religious Liberty. It protects the Right not only to Worship according to the dictates of Conscience, but also to act in accordance with those Beliefs, not just in places of Worship, but in everyday life. Our ranks include men and women from every Faith and Tradition, and we respect the Right of every American to follow his or her deeply held Beliefs.”
if the Republican party was a vehicle for Christian Nationalism why the deception? Wouldn’t Christians want to use the truth to gain power and not a deception? Lying to gain power would be the most counterintuitive thing that Christians could do to gain power as everyone would immediately see the hypocrisy and thus Christians would lose support. Here is the full 2024 party platform for reference:
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/2024-republican-party-platform
The true source of lies is the mainstream media, academia and Big Tech who want to subvert the people by pitting them against each other. They do this by various fear campaigns targeted at marginalized groups in order to make them fearful of the majority. This was also done by Chairman Mao in China during the cultural revolution which led to the Communist overthrow of China. They are trying that again here. All major news outlets and organizations such as Google, Meta, Microsoft etc are stifling the truth so that this program of Balkanization can occur here until the very fabric of our society is broken down to the extent that the USA is destroyed and replaced with something they control. This means that if you use Google to find information, the truth will be suppressed and lies will be elevated (like the threat of Christian Nationalism).
I have been a Precinct Committeeman for the Republican Party of Hillsborough County in precinct 240 in Florida for several years and I have never met a Republican who wants to enforce Christianity on the nation through political power. It has never been mentioned at any meeting. What has been mentioned often is that the majority want equal rights for all under the Constitution. If there are Christian Nationalist in our ranks, it is such a small amount as to be ineffective at worst and loudly denounced by the rest of the party at best.
I agree that Christian Nationalism is a terrible thing and we should be vigilant against such ideas, but to insist it is a greater threat than it is would be reckless and dangerous and may actually lead to despotism in our Country if we allow the fear mongers to divide us.
Hi James, I'm glad to hear that the Republicans in your precinct have no desire to enforce Christianity through political power. Unfortunately I could find countless counter-examples of other Christians, at a national level, who do have that desire. It's good to know you would be vigilant against those individuals as well, who do much to undermine the Gospel witness of true believers.
But anyway, my original piece was not written to litigate the existence or non-existence of Christian Nationalists in America, which has been debated on endlessly in other places. Rather, my piece was to point out a specific problem I was noticing in many of the left's critiques of Christian Nationalism. However since you and I are both agreed that 'Christian Nationalism is a terrible thing', that's what's most important.
To clarify, as a Precinct Committeeman I meet monthly with other committeemen and committeewomen from all over my county (Hillsborough) which is a blue county in Florida. So you could imagine that the rhetoric would be higher since at the county level we are at the highest level of non-Christian rule over our lives. But again, I have personally witnessed the opposite of Christian nationalism as the HREC is made up of all faiths and everyone has a voice. Everyone is fighting for the rights of every faith.
Their may be some national voices for Christian nationalism but I hope it brings you comfort to know that not only are those voices ridiculed amongst serious Republicans, but their voices have no traction in our ranks in regard to policy at any level. The majority (which are the Trump supporters) have systematically kicked out the NeoCon voices who previously worked to impose such policies upon the Republican Party. We fought hard over the last 8 years to do so.
What is left are the voices out side the mainstream of the party which are elevated by a Media who are desperate to amplify their voices. We should ignore them and they will go away and if they don’t, we strongly affirm to them that they are not welcome in Republican politics.
If you have any evidence of such voices which do have sway within Republican Party politics, please bring a few to my attention so we can work to resolve this as we want nothing to do with them in the Trump movement.
Thanks to your article, I will be submitting a resolution at my next HREC meeting to renounce Christian Nationalism. I am connected enough to have this resolution distributed to all counties in Florida and have most counties bring this resolution to a vote to make it clear that we reject such principles.
Thank you, brother 😇🙏🏼
I'm grateful to hear that! I do think it is ultimately up to Christians like us (and Republican leaders like you) to police our own ranks to make sure these voices remain on the fringe. So glad you can be part of making that happen on the ground.
In terms of who some of the prominent Christian nationalist voices would be, well it depends on your definition of CN, but I would list: Russ Vought, Mike Flynn, Lance Wallnau, and arguably Charlie Kirk & Turning Points USA. Each of these go way beyond healthy Christian engagement in politics (in my opinion) and advocate for Christianity and Christian values to be enforced at all levels of government.
I would caution you from listening to Mainstream Media outlets such as Yahoo, Rolling Stone, CNN, MSNBC, Fox, Media matters, PBS, NPR, MSN, NYT, NBC, CBS, or the Guardian (to name the largest offenders) This is in addition to Big Tech: Facebook, Instagram, Google, Bing, Duck Duck Go, Apple News, etc. these are largely controlled by Anti American groups who are actively subverting the truth for political power and demonizing their political opposition in order to sway the election to their side.
I use independent voices who are looking at this objectively and without political bias. There is a good documentary that calls attention to the imbalance of bias on the internet called “The Creepy Line”, you should watch it ❤️😇
https://link.tubi.tv/fVdglNcngNb
Great points @James
I find your writing of good quality and your other piece that I read had some excellent quotes. I do have a sincere question for you, though. You talk about the concerns you have about Christian nationalism and you speak of fascism in your other piece. As I said you are a good writer. However, I feel like there’s a misunderstanding here, though you’re not alone. I don’t think the majority of Christian voters are of the mindset or views you are characterizing here. We currently have two candidates. Yes, a few whackos support either side. But I would disagree with some of your underlying premises and assumptions.
Some of us understand Marxism. Harris has a Marxist father and her own ideologies align with his. I lived in China a few years. I recognize the tactics and underlying approach. A friend of mine grew up in Iran. She understands the bigger picture and she supports Trump. She commented that Europe has all caved to socialism but the reason she supports Trump is he actually stands against socialism and Marxist ideology. She understands the bigger picture and she’s a bright, intelligent woman.
The ideals of Harris are anything but consistent with our faith. Late term abortions, trans humanism, and her disdain for private property and freedoms guaranteed by our constitution are evident. She pretends to support Israel to get elected but in fact her alignment is with Iran and she treated Israeli leaders terribly. The way this administration has treated police and military has been dismal. Lawlessness is the result of her kind of policies. They create all these false narratives and propaganda from day one.
I am a Christian and I am no fascist. I am not in alignment with those few whackos you mentioned. I understand a nation without a border is unsustainable. I understand God’s word and recognize Israel has a right to exist as a sovereign nation. Trump is imperfect and lacks eloquence. But his policies are compassionate and made sense. He cared about sanctity of life. He supported Israel. He supported and earned the respect of first responders and military. He isn’t the monster some try to make him out to be. Marxism has never worked. I understand how religious freedom is subtly attacked and eroded by policies in liberal countries. In Canada teaching Romans 1 is considered hate speech. In China it’s illegal to share your faith or gather in homes to worship. Teaching the whole Bible is illegal too.
So my prayer is Christians here wake up. We aren’t all into the extremist ideology you tie to Trump. There are many Christians who understand that the lines are drawn. The real danger isn’t an unsavory personality. It’s the propaganda machine and the promises of redistribution of wealth we need to stand against. The truth is we get to have a voice and use our freedom of speech and preserve our freedom of religion before it’s taken away.
I don’t have the illusion this is a Christian nation. I have worked cross culturally and am not racist. I am simply a believer and follower of Christ who sees what’s underneath the fancy claims being made, and the generalizations and narratives created so they can further move us towards Marxism.
I don’t know how a true follower of Christ can accept the killing of human life and call it women’s rights. Babies are humans and Walz and Harris have terrible records on this. Both love riots and lawlessness. As for any biblical values, just as Tim Walz about tampons in boys locker rooms. And babies who they tried to abort but survived dying alone because of his law. In China, my friend disappeared for a few weeks. She cried when she told me they forced her to have an abortion. In China the police visited my apartment looking for Bibles or evidence that I might be spending time in the Word with Chinese women. If this is what you hope for our future here, keep falling for these biased narratives.
Susan, I appreciate your lengthy and deep thoughts here. You clearly took time to try to persuade me, which I really appreciate. Some folks just use ad hominem attacks or non sequiturs.
I will not go line by line with all of the arguments you raise, since I actually agree with you on many of them, or have such nuanced and complex views that they would take too long to explain.
I will zoom out to the historical perspective and point out one thing, though: Both Mussolini and Hitler also used the spectre of "socialism" and "marxism" to rally their supporters to embrace fascism. In 2020, when I originally wrote this piece, I saw many on the right doing the same to try to encourage Republicans to rally behind Trump (ex. Proud Boys, 3 Percenters, Patriot Front, Boogaloo Boys etc). But what Bonhoeffer shows us is that there is a choice beyond either Marxism or Fascism. And that's authentic, biblical, Christianity, and his writings in 1942 serve as a prophetic warning against the dangers of fascism. That's why I think studying his antifascist theology is important; if we're already under a fascist dictatorship, it's too late--so instead we need to be mindful of the warning signs ahead of time. I've seen a majority of Christians screaming about the dangers of Marxism for decades now, and justifiably so, but I think we also need to be screaming about the dangers of fascism. Anything that we serve that isn't Jesus is an idol.
I'm sorry Susan, I thought this comment was on my Bonhoeffer piece, so I apologize if my response doesn't quite make sense in the specific context of this article. Hopefully you get the gist of what I'm saying.
Thank you for this thoughtful response. I suspect we have quite a bit in common and I do believe we need to understand history. I appreciate you taking time to respond and even read my thoughts.
I guess Christian nationalism can be a broad definition, but if you’re referring to Theonomy (correct me if I’m wrong) I don’t know any theonomists trying to spread the gospel with the sword, we’re trying to have just laws that align with the only source of justice; God himself.
Isaiah 10:1-2
[1] Woe to those who decree iniquitous decrees,
and the writers who keep writing oppression,
[2]
to turn aside the needy from justice
and to rob the poor of my people of their right,
that widows may be their spoil,
and that they may make the fatherless their prey!
The Government has been given the sword, and is also supposed to be a servant of the triune God.
Romans 13:3-4
[3] For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, [4] for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.
Would love your thoughts, feel free to DM me as well
Hey Joe, yeah great thoughts. I'll share a few off the cuff responses:
-My piece here is critiquing certain critiques I've heard of Christian nationalism, so I'm not really going super deep into my own thoughts on Christian nationalism nor theonomy. That would take a longer, more thorough post.
-CNs and theonomists seem to have some overlap and I'm unsure how to easily distinguish the two, so forgive me if I am not being precise in some of my terminology. I'd be curious if/how you could distinguish them at first glance.
-Romans 13 is written about Nero, seemingly requiring Christians to submit to one of the worst rulers alive, which does logically follow from Romans 12 (bless those who persecute you, don't take revenge, show love to your enemies, etc). However, most Christian nationalists and theonomists that I see seem to be very opposed to rulers that they think are non-Christian, even to the point of purchasing weapons and/or mentally preparing for armed rebellion. Personally as an Anabaptist pacifist, I have little problem with Romans 13. But it is unclear to me that Christians should ever be the ones bearing the sword, executing wrath on the wrongdoer (Romans 12:19 specifically tells us not to!).
-I agree with theonomists when they say that laws should align with God's justice. But most theonomists I hear about only seem to favor laws that align with "rightwing" policies. However one could easily make a biblical argument for numerous "leftwing" policies that also reflect God's heart, such as debt forgiveness (lev. 25), wealth redistribution and welfare policies (Matthew 25, Acts 2-5), banning interest-bearing loans (Lev 25 again), pacifism (Matthew 5), etc. I think if theonomists want to enact laws that reflect God's heart for justice, I would be theoretically in favor. Yet I don't see them being consistently applying God's Scripture to government affairs. I'm not sure how to resolve this discrepency.
-At the end of the day, I care more about the gospel going forth than in there being perfect justice enacted by a Christian government (which isn't possible until Jesus returns anyway). Historically it seems like the gospel spreads faster under explicitly anti-Christian governments, like in Iran, China, etc. I don't ever pray for persecution, but I wonder if persecution might actually be the way that God (in his Providence) spreads the good news, and thus we shouldn't be so scared of it!
Sorry for the scattered thoughts, but it is a wide and complex topic and so wanted to give a few of my various perspectives. Have a great day.
This is what Du Mez should’ve have written instead of what she actually did
Can you elaborate? Are you talking about Jesus and John Wayne? If I remember correctly that book tackled a somewhat different topic, the impact of hyper masculinity on the American church.
Yes she does mention politics and Christian nationalism not as the main issue but she does bring it up with masculity although to me it’s not really a fair and balanced book
Gotcha. Personally I thought her book was well-argued and researched, and tracked with a lot with of what I see in American culture. But to each their own
Fair enough, I didn’t mean that it didn’t showed any truth or reality but there were times where she really isn’t approaching it unbiased or objective. But hey I appreciate you interacting with my comment!
Was there anything you disagreed with?
You’re welcome. Yeah probably, it was a few years ago when it first came out so I don’t remember it super clearly. I think if I had an issue it was that in all the critique of toxic masculinity, it’s unclear what healthy Christian masculinity ought to look like. I don’t think that’s Du Mez’ job to figure out or define, but it was a question that came up for me
But it’s hard for me, on the one hand to hear critiques of unhealthy and unbiblical masculinity within evangelicalism and yet not hear what the solution is. It comes across as wanting to tear down negatively instead of building up positively