A brief commentary on the thing—or things—we might have in mind with respect to Christian nationalism.
Make Christianity Great Again?
There’s been much ado in the last few years about the concept known as “Christian nationalism.” The recent release of the Rob Reiner-produced documentary “God & Country” has provoked much discussion online. Quite apart from the film, a cottage industry of books and exposés on the topic have blossomed before our eyes.
I’m not especially interested in the substance of the documentary—not because it isn’t a significant subject—but because I’ve been concerned for some time that many of us aren’t operating with a common definition of Christianity…or nationalism…or Christian nationalism.
Many on the margins have always sought to redefine the faith once-for-all-delivered-to-the-saints. (The apostle Paul’s exhortations to Timothy about guarding the good deposit entrusted to him underscore this dilemma.)
We’ve also had different forms of nationalism to wade through, especially from at least the nineteenth century onward. So, it’s accurate to say that there are various Christian nationalisms on offer, with a subset of those being the particular object of criticism from various parties.
There are secular critiques, typically expressing one of two main criticisms against Christian nationalism: (1) it violates a core tenet of the American Constitution, that being the separation of church from state; or (2) it’s dangerous to democracy. Obviously, these two can coexist within the same critique, but you’ll typically hear one or the other as the headline. No doubt there are other concerns from this crowd. And certainly, Christians like me fervently reject the idea that there’s anything inherent to Christianity that is a threat to either the Constitutional order or democracy per se. But let’s set those latter pieces aside for now.
Then there are the Christian arguments against Christian nationalism. These aren’t difficult to locate. Seriously, there are gobs of them! I think Paul Miller’s excellent book, The Religion of American Greatness: What’s Wrong with Christian Nationalism? is a helpful place to start. There are also much more concise treatments of this topic.
Generally, I recommend the Baptist voices on the topic. After all, Baptist history and theology is a crucial wellspring for sound thinking about issues of church and state, religious liberty, and the importance of regenerate churches founded on believer’s baptism. (Baptist readers, it is very important to do your due diligence on this! Being Baptist is about much more than singing hymns or knowing the Romans Road to salvation.)
What are the Christian objections to Christian nationalism? Funny you ask. I think we're partly to blame for why our secular counterparts launch so many wrongheaded attacks on Christian nationalism: many Christians themselves can't agree on what it is. This is true of both its proponents and critics. And insomuch that we define it differently, it makes it difficult to know (1) whether it might be an actual solution or problem, and (2) if it is a problem, what the nature and scope of the problem is.
A Few Potential Premises
Some who define Christian nationalism see it as a vision for bringing Christian influence to bear upon the nation. This would not solely include the normal practices of evangelism, holy living, and vocational excellence, but privileging certain Christian ideas, practices, and values through political and legal means. Some have argued for reintroducing Blue Laws on the national level, just to give one specific example.
Other versions of Christian nationalism emphasize the historic roots of the nation in Judeo-Christian soil. (This is obviously compatible with the brand above, but again, I’m dealing more with general themes and emphases--flavors, if you will.) Seeing as how America is a Christian nation, by at least some kind of historic account, this would mean that a form of national acknowledgement of that claim isn’t incompatible with the First Amendment’s disestablishment clause.
Still other versions of Christian nationalism emphasize the inescapable fact that civil laws reflect someone’s values, convictions, morals, and/or worldview. Accordingly, we should quit pretending that the secularism currently running the show is truly neutral. Christians should go on the offensive and be proactive in legislating according to their distinct beliefs, morals, and worldview.
Now, a few caveats.
Clearly, I have in no way been exhaustive in my descriptions. As I imply above, the explanations I’ve offered aren’t incompatible with one another. In fact, they often coincide.
One can also be concerned about Christian nationalism (for any number of reasons), but not find some of these component themes to be particularly wrong or problematic. (Personally, I find the point about secularism not being neutral to be especially salient and crucial for Christians to recognize.)
Uncle Sam in a Clerical Collar?
So, what do we do with a subject that obviously has a lot of people hot and bothered? What do we do with something that involves church and state, religion and politics, heritage and the future, patriotism and the pulpit?
I’ll identify three main problems or challenges which flow from this subject, then conclude with a helpful article and quote.
First, idolatry is the fundamental spiritual picture we need to keep in view concerning our doctrine of sin. Because idolatry is deceptive and deals with our loves or desires, we should be especially mindful of how our love for our country may blind us to important facts about history, theology, culture, and society.
It’s hard to be honest with ourselves! If there were a “Christian nationalism spectrum,” you ought to try to figure out where you are, why you’re there, and if you ought to be there.
Second, Christian nationalism seems like the type of subject that would ideally emerge from a calm, informed, earnest, intramural conversation among professing Christians. It would be helpful if as many confessional Christians as possible could come to the table and discuss everything from a proper definition, to figuring out how things like our theological convictions, denominational traditions, and cultural situations are informing our perspectives.
However, the cat is out of the bag. Sometimes we inch closer to that intramural chat, but we need to remember that the world is listening in. They’re taking notes, and they’re responding.
Third, because (1) the world is inhospitable to Christian truth, and (2) the church has so often made an actual mess of explaining and/or living out the faith, our neighbors are going to define Christian nationalism for the rest of the world, regardless of whether that gels with our own individual views on the topic.
It has become quite clear that a lot of good Christian people are going to be smeared. They’ll have ideas ascribed to them under the banner of “Christian nationalism” that they in no way recognize as their own. It will be used as a cudgel against them. People will be told to be suspicious of those Christians “who really take their citizenship seriously.”
Daniel Darling has a brief and helpful article in USA Today expressing some of the important qualifications and concerns which attend this issue. What I like about the article is how he emphasizes (1) the problem of defining Christian nationalism; and (2) the fact that Christians will have to do a better job articulating what we think it is and isn’t. He says,
Advocating for public policy based on one’s faith is not Christian nationalism. A robust love of country isn’t Christian nationalism. Acknowledging America’s profoundly Christian roots isn’t Christian nationalism. And those who analyze politics and religion should be honest enough to admit this.
For my own part, I’ll say that we don’t need to adopt some of the versions of Christian nationalism out there to affirm several, widely-held beliefs among confessional Christians; (1) Citizenship is a stewardship; (2) The First Amendment is important; (3) America’s founders did largely demonstrate great respect for the Christian religion; (4) Secularism is a type of religion, and is anything but neutral; and (5) Christians are right to discern how sources like Scripture, tradition, and natural law might inform wise public policy, guide the selection of political candidates, and generally direct their involvement in public life.
Beyond that, be wary of how you use the word “Christian” as an adjective to define or justify any ideology.
“Little children, keep yourself from idols.” (1 Jn. 5:21)
Follow-Up:
In Newsletter #102 I reflected upon the experience of winter weather and seasonal change more generally. Well, the Lord has mercifully sent us folks in the bi-state area a lot of 50–60-degree days in the last couple of weeks. Except for three cold days this past weekend, it feels like spring isn’t too far away!
What I’m Reading or Rereading:
Donald Whitney, Spiritual Disciplines for the Christian Life.
Deborah Lipstadt, History on Trial: My Day in Court with a Holocaust Denier.
J.I. Packer and Thomas Howard, Christianity: The True Humanism.
Jeffrey T. Briggler and Tom R. Johnson, A Guide to Missouri’s Snakes.
Quote of the Week:
The decline of morality had been abetted, [Alasdair] MacIntyre said, by a vast intellectual movement which he referred to as ‘the Enlightenment project’. Proponents of the project believed that human conduct can be explained ‘in mechanical terms’, without reference to culture, language, meaning and history, and they liked to present themselves as architects of a scientific brave new world . . . The enlighteners were obsessed with science, but they had no idea how it actually worked. They treated it as a monolithic enterprise with immutable methods, rather than a collection of diverse practices – ethnography, botany, virology, linguistics, economics, mathematics and so on – each with its own purposes, protocols and techniques. On top of that they assumed that scientific progress happens automatically whenever a fresh fact is discovered or a new theory proposed – rather than when a bunch of scientists come up with a story which persuades their colleagues that there is something wrong with what they thought before. (‘The criterion of a successful theory,’ as MacIntyre put it, ‘is that it enables us to understand its predecessors in a newly intelligible way.’) The sciences, in short, are not paragons of timeless perfection, but human institutions in perpetual dialogue with their past.
The Enlightenment project had started off as an attempt to replace our sentimental storied world with a utopia based on the solid facts of science and the ‘expertise’ of managers; but it was turning out to be just another sentimental story, and a peculiarly unconvincing one at that – and this is why ‘the Enlightenment project had to fail.’
Jonathan Rée, “Like a Top Hat.”
Common Grace Wisdom (CGW): On Not Co-Habitating Before Marriage
I recently went to hear Jordan Peterson lecture in St. Louis on some of the themes in his forthcoming book. Though not an evangelical Christian, Peterson often challenges listeners/viewers/readers to consider insights that many us might consider “good ole common sense.” In other instances, he himself reveals his indebtedness to ancient biblical wisdom, even if his interpretation of some biblical doctrines and texts push the boundaries of credulous.
However, I appreciated this recent, practical tidbit on a prevalent problem:
On one of my tour stops last year, I was asked about why I advise against cohabitation before marriage. First, simulating commitment is not possible. Evidence shows that people who live together before marriage are more likely to get divorced. A common argument in favor of living together before marriage is to learn what you need to learn in order to decide who you should marry — or learn how to act if you do get married. But if the goal is to help your marriage last, factual evidence reveals living together before marriage does not work. Instead, to call the best out of yourself and your partner, you move forward in faith — because faith is what makes movement into the unknown possible.
Parting Shot
My birthday is in February. I have known six people who shared my exact birthdate. I think that is odd.
On a related note, September 9th is the most common birthdate in the world.