Which "Christian Nationalism" Do You Mean?
Which "Christian Nationalism" Do You Mean?
Chances are you have come across the term, Christian Nationalism, by now; most likely you have heard of it from a left-wing source. Wielded as a pejorative, it is meant to evoke the stereotype of a MAGA-hat wearing megachurch member, carrying a flag-draped cross into the capital, screaming “This is a Christian country!” While people who maintain these visuals certainly exist - a house down the street from mine flies a meta-flag of a picture of Jesus hugging the stars and stripes - most conservative Christians will affirm that this represents a minority of “patriotic” church goers.
Last summer I wrote about a dishonest attempt to place “rad-trad” Catholics under this rubric, by The Atlantic. Since that time, two groups within conservative, Protestant Christianity have gained prominence by deciding to own the pejorative. Rather than wresting the term from the left, these right-wing groups have only served to cause more confusion, to the point where I, someone who has paid close attention to the subject, am often confused about which camp is being discussed. To that end, I thought it prudent to clarify these three definitions of Christian Nationalism, laying out their similarities and divergences (I am in the research phase for a book on what I will define below as Christian Authoritarianism). If anything, I aim to remove any confusion that might arise from my previous post.
Christian America
The derogatory, left-wing definition of “Christian Nationalism” is synonymous with what was previously termed the Christian America stance. As Grove City College professor of history, Gary Scott Smith, wrote, the position is signified by a United States that “has a substantial Christian heritage, which we should seek to revitalize… that the United States can survive only by reestablishing a fundamentally Christian approach and system of values.”1 One of the key distinctions of the Christian America position is its loose definition, which has less agreement among its proponents than most other established philosophies of Christian government2. It is of note that neither of the other two Christian Nationalist positions would wholly disagree with the Christian America view of history - although many Christian Authoritarians would disagree that our liberal democracy is inline with God’s will.
Some proponents of Christian America are well studied on the subject and bring forth detailed plans for a governmental revival. But disagreements on policy, along with a hyper-focus on a mythologized history of a Christian America, stripped of all negative effects (for example, Catholics were not allowed to hold public office in multiple states well into the 19th century3), renders it a catch-all category for those who are taken by the fear of losing Christian cultural dominance, but not inclined to develop a robust political philosophy to counter it. Thus it has mainly become a belligerent position whose key contribution to discourse is its use by left-wing activists, both inside and outside the church, to strawman politically active, conservative Christians.
This view of “Christian Nationalism”, most notably put forth in Kristin Kobes Du Mez’s Jesus and John Wayne, and Andrew Whitehead and Samuel Perry’s Taking America Back for God, paints a picture of a hyper-belligerent Christian America stance that is taking over “white evangelicalism” and, as the subtitle of DuMez’s book states, “corrupted a faith and fractured a nation”. Not satisfied with the term, White and Perry have moved to using the more frightening “White Christian Nationalism”4, though the survey that makes up the beginning of their book concludes that a significant portion of conservative, American Christians of all races hold to the Christian America view5.
Criticism of Christian America is conspicuous in its regular denouncement of right-wing politicking from the pulpit, while ignoring the equally, if not more, prevalent politicization of the faith from the other end. Incidents, such as when the megachurch pastor, Creflo Dollar, endorsed pro-choice Georgia gubernatorial candidate, Stacy Abrams, from behind the pulpit6, have become a trope among conservative Christian commentators, who are always quick to point out the hypocrisy.
Ultimately, while the threat MAGA populism poses to our nation is genuinely debatable, forcing it under the heading of “White Christian Nationalism” is unhelpful, at best, and deceptive political posturing, at worst. It is worth noting that its greatest proponents, including DuMez, have made decidedly theologically liberal statements that would put them at ideological odds with the majority of conservative Christians7, making them far from objective observers. Most books on Christian Nationalism available at public libraries are akin to an Ohio State fan writing about Michigan football.
Christian Federalism
Conservative Christian commentator and podcast host, Josh Daws, coined the term, Christian Federalism, in a recent Twitter thread, with the aim of differentiating it from the other, more authoritarian, form of self-designed “Christian Nationalism”. It is an excellent, well argued thread that I recommend you read before moving forward.
Christian Federalism is very similar in its premise to the Christian America position, replete with appeals to recover, as Daws puts it, “America's Christian political heritage”. The key difference between the two is that Christian Federalism brings a defined, republican strategy for acquisition of political power to the table.
This strategy, namely to use existing, democratic means to gain a political consensus that enacts laws based on Christian mores is identical to the traditional strategy of theonomists - those who believe a Christian government should still be governed by both Old and New Covenant commandments. As the prominent theonomist, Greg L. Bahnsen, wrote:
The morally proper way for Christians to correct social evils that are not under the lawful jurisdiction of the state is by means of voluntary and charitable enterprises or the censures of the home, church, and marketplace - even as the appropriate method for changing the political order of civil law is not violent revolution, but dependence upon regeneration, re-education, and gradual legal reform.8
Where Christian Federalism differs from the traditional theonomist stance is in what happens after the peaceful gain of power. In this respect, positions are as vague and diverse as that of Christian America. They can consist of anything from general calls to remove Critical and Queer Theories from education to a theonomy-lite ordering of civil law towards “Christian values”. Daws has previously been a proponent of the equally difficult to define National Conservatism9.
It is, perhaps, unfair to expect more clarity from Christian Federalism, because the term is so new. Time will tell whether a formal body of thought forms from this subset of “Christian Nationalism”.
Christian Authoritarianism
What Daws calls “Project 1” Christian Nationalism has coalesced around two recent books, Andrew Torba’s Christian Nationalism: A Biblical Guide for Taking Dominion and Discipling Nations and political theorist, Stephen Wolfe’s, The Case for Christian Nationalism. Torba has a well documented history of objectionable comments on race and ethnicity that are inline with the White and Perry view10, and is considered more fringe than Wolfe, whose book was published by Canon Press, a moderately sized publishing house tied to Reformed pastor and political commentator, Doug Wilson. Though Wolfe is not free from questionable comments on ethnicity, mostly through tweets that he often deletes11, nor questionable associations12, here I will focus on the tenets of his version of “Christian Nationalism” and its similarities to other authoritarian movements.
One, key distinction between Christian Authoritarianism and Christian Federalism is that the former explicitly condones violent revolution to attain a Christian nation13. According to Wolfe, once this nation is established, “atheism will be crushed” using “scripture, tradition, and Plato”.14 Wolfe argues for an official state religion, the outright banning of public worship of other religions, and civil punishment of heretics15. It is a position not out of step with many theonomists and, not inconspicuously, something that was achieved by one of the first laws of the National Catholic state of Spanish dictator, Francisco Franco, in 193916. Wolfe's brand of self-described “Christian Nationalism” has multiple similarities to the fascism and authoritarianism of the 1930s and 40s, most closely with Falangist/Francoist Spain:
An appeal to a mythologized cultural past, used not just as an emotional appeal, but as a point of personal identity. For the Falangistas it was Catalonian Spain and for the Fascistas it was Rome. To Christian Authoritarians, who mostly identify with the Reformed tradition, it is often sixteenth century Geneva.
Blaming the core ideas of liberal democracy for most of society’s current ills and naming it as the utopian state's greatest enemy. The epilogue of Wolfe’s book is a manifesto against Western liberalism and what he calls the “gynocracy”.17
An openly expressed desire to fully eradicate the opposition (see Wolfe above on atheism).
A desire to enact law, whether through executive fiat or a stacked legislature, that aims to control the day to day lives of individuals and shape them towards a national purpose (see above on restriction of public worship and state-sanctioned religious doctrine, with civil penalties).
The installation of a figurehead, whose main purpose is to serve as the ideological director of the nation. For Spain and Italy this was el Caudillo (Franco) and il Duce (Mussolini), respectively; for Wolfe it is the “Christian Prince”. Wolfe says this prince, “mediates the people’s national will for their good, providing the necessary and specific civil actions for that end,”18 and that he, “mediates divine rule both by a sort of divine presence or gravitas and in civil judgment.”19 Truly this could be ripped right from a speech by Mussolini, who once said, “The man of Fascism is an individual who is nation and fatherland.”20
Wolfe has made the rounds on Christian podcasts, promoting his vision and speaking to notable commentators, such as Crosspolitic, Joel Webbon and, for obvious reasons, Doug Wilson. To be fair to these hosts, none of them fully endorsed Wolfe’s vision and often pushed back on his assertions. Doug Wilson, speaking to James White about Wolfe, stated that he was explicitly against violent revolution21. There has also been a fair amount of theological push-back to Wolfe's book, from people such as Christian apologist, Neil Shenvi, and the Christian Ethics & Public Theology Professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Andrew T. Walker.
While I am a (near) free speech absolutist who would not seek to silence Wolfe, I am concerned that, lacking a robust challenge from other Christians in a society where few people know anything of authoritarianism other than “Nazis are evil”, Wolfe’s political theories may go largely unchallenged.
Gary Scott Smith, God and Politics: Four Views on the Reformation of Civil Government : Theonomy, Principled Pluralism, Christian America, National Confessionalism (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed Pub. Co., 1989), 123, 124.
Michael Williams, Shadow of the Pope (New York: Whittlesey House, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1932), 46, 48.
“Why White Christian Nationalism Isn’t Going Away,” Time, https://time.com/6233438/white-christian-nationalism-isnt-going-away.
Andrew L. Whitehead and Samuel L. Perry, Taking America Back for God: Christian Nationalism in the United States (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2020)
“‘Jesus and John Wayne’ Author Kristen Kobes Du Mez Comes Out Further as Gay-Affirming,” Protestia, https://protestia.com/2022/06/20/jesus-and-john-wayne-author-kristen-kobes-du-mez-comes-out-further-as-gay-affirming
Greg L. Bahnsen, God and Politics: Four Views on the Reformation of Civil Government : Theonomy, Principled Pluralism, Christian America, National Confessionalism (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed Pub. Co., 1989), 24.
“Gab’s CEO deactivates Twitter account after wildly antisemitic tirade,” daily dot, https://www.dailydot.com/debug/andrew-torba-deactivates-gab-twitter-antisemitism
“On Thomas Achord”, Alastair Roberts, https://alastairadversaria.com/2022/11/27/the-case-against-thomas-achord
Giorgia Priorelli, Italian Fascism and Spanish Falangism in Comparison: Constructing the Nation, Palgrave Studies in Political History (Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan, 2020), 149, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46056-3.
Giorgia Priorelli, 28. Referencing: Benito Moussolini, ‘Fascismo,’ Enciclopedia italiana di scinze, lettere ed arti, vol. XIV, 847.