What the Heck is a Christian Nationalist?

On today’s podcast, David and Curtis tackle Christian nationalism. What is it? Is it an ...

By

On today’s podcast, David and Curtis tackle Christian nationalism. What is it? Is it an ideology? A theology? An emotional, visceral connection? Or some combination of all three? Then they talk about healthy patriotism and how to love your national home, warts and all.

Show Notes:

–Thomas Kidd: “Christian Nationalism vs. Christian Patriotism”

–Deseret News: “What the latest data tells us about Christian nationalism”

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
By
Comments (45)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Sam Elder

    I just read the exchange between the prophet Amos and priest Amaziah in Amos 7:10-17 in my personal quiet time and would commend it to anyone wrestling with these subjects. Here's a quick synopsis:
    - Amos has been prophesying forthcoming destruction for Israel, the northern kingdom, at a time of relative prosperity and near the nadir of power for that century's regional aggressor, Assyria.
    - Amaziah, the priest of Bethel and essentially the representative of official religion, alerts the king of Amos's prophecies, putting his life in danger. In a double-faced move, he also tells Amos to take all those prophecies to Judah, declaring that Bethel is "the king's sanctuary" and "a temple of the kingdom." In other words, he is declaring his ultimate allegiance to the political leadership, not to God, which I think is the core to any Christian nationalism.
    - Amos replies, in a "we shall obey God and not men" (Acts 5:29) sort of way, that he was told by God to prophesy to Israel and can do no other.

    This exchange has some of the very same dynamics that have been discussed on this podcast. For instance, Amaziah offers the solution that Amos flee to Judah -- he at least pretends to be okay with Amos's prophecies of destruction, but only if they're external, if Amos is making them as part of a different tribe. I'm sure this all sounds incredibly familiar.

    Collapse
    1. Brendan Bossard

      Sam, your post reminds me of another confrontation, between Jeremiah and the false prophet Hananiah in Jeremiah 28:1–17 (https://ref.ly/logosref/BibleESV.Je28.1-17). Jeremiah advised submitting to the God-ordained yoke of Nebuchanezzar for the long haul. Hananiah prophesied that God would quickly break that yoke, thus encouraging a rebellious spirit based on false hope. Judah listened to the ear-tickler and suffered worse than if they had listened to Jeremiah. This also somewhat resembles our present situation.

      Collapse
  2. Laurie

    I loved this. I think many of us who have called ourselves evangelicals over the years are sorting through our beliefs and deciding what to hold fast to, what to throw away, and what to fight for. I was glad to see Curtis settle on the "us vs. them" understanding of these times. I do think that explains a lot. I have heard Christians distinguishing between believers and nonbelievers my whole life, and now I am noticing "liberals" replacing "sinners" in the speech of many, as if God's line of demarcation on judgment day is your voter registration. As for the religious extremism we are witnessing, for those of you who don't speak church, so many Christians say, "the Holy Spirit is telling me...". (For example, just this month an athlete said after achieving a major goal that God had told him beforehand it was going to happen. But Jesus never told anyone that some earthly good would happen to them. In fact, it was usually the opposite- that hardship was coming and to be on guard). MY will must be God's will, right? I want my guy to win, so God does too. We all want America to be great, so it must be God's will. But as John Piper said, making America great is not a priority of Heaven. God is interested in the souls of men.
    As for CRT, yes to everything said here. Those most invested in America's future greatness seem the most committed to ensuring we all think it was always great. As David said (Eddie Glaude Jr. writes this too) learning stories of treachery in our nation's past is like finding out that a favorite relative is not who you thought they were. But we need to reckon with these facts truthfully. It's called being an adult and putting away childish things.
    So my husband and I are having the same conversation about what it means to be a patriot. Do we have to think America is super-duperly awesome all the time and 100% The Best? Or can we just love it as home? Should we as Christians even say the pledge of allegiance? Can I please not have to refer to police officers collectively as heroes as my friend always does? We are literally rethinking everything, and I am glad to see from the thoughtful comments here that others are too.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Jesse

    I really appreciate this podcast, the insight David and Curtis bring to the subject and the effort to engage with these issues in an honest and productive way. I admit I was someone who bristled a little at David's piece last Sunday, though perhaps not for the same reason as others. I'm fully on board with the idea that churches getting involved in MAGA politics is a problem, and that Christian nationalism is a real and dangerous force in our society.

    No, my issue was more with the uncritical linking to Whitehead and Perry's book on Christian nationalism, and to the Christians Against Christian Nationalism "report" on January 6. These sources are very ideologically motivated and make a lot of strong claims based on weak evidence. The scholarship on Christian nationalism adds more heat than light to the conversation, the exact opposite of what scholarship is supposed to do. Whitehead/Perry define Christian nationalism as "a cultural framework...that idealizes and advocates a fusion of Christianity with American civic life...it includes assumptions of nativism, white supremacy, patriarchy, and heteronormativity, along with divine sanction for authoritarian control and militarism. It is ethnic and political as much as it is religious." In their work they argue that Christian nationalism is a (perhaps *the*) major driver of pretty much everything unpalatable on the right. (And as Whitehead and Perry are unabashed progressives, "unpalatable" describes basically the whole right half of the ideological spectrum.) But their claims are based entirely on a scale built from six Likert survey items, which David and Curtis review in the podcast, and I'll repost here:

    1. The federal government should declare the United States a Christian nation
    2. The federal government should advocate Christian values
    3. The federal government should enforce strict separation of church and state (reversed)
    4. The federal government should allow the display of religious symbols in public spaces
    5. The success of the United States is part of God’s plan
    6. The federal government should allow prayer in public schools

    These questions don't line up very well with the sinister-sounding definition of Christian nationalism I quoted above. In general, they lend themselves to various interpretations, many of which reflect a more basic religious conservatism at least as much as Christian nationalism. In addition to its poor face validity, there are statistical problems with the scale I won't get into here. But based on this one little scale, Whitehead and Perry have basically spawned their own cottage industry of Christian nationalism research. This work has been received with far less criticism or scrutiny than it warrants, because the idea that everything rightward in politics can be traced to some nebulous, nefarious force called "Christian nationalism" is one the academic social science community finds quite agreeable.

    After listening to this podcast, I'm comforted to learn that David recognizes some of these issues. But I wish he would take the next step and push back against them, or at minimum, offer some kind of disclaimer before linking them in his newsletters. It makes it very difficult to have a serious and productive conversation about Christian nationalism when so many of the participants in that conversation are using the concept as a broad political smear wrapped in a thin social-scientific veneer. David stated the reason quite eloquently last week:

    "So we have to be careful. When dealing with a potentially insurrectionary subculture, it’s important to separate it from the population. Wrongly tie them to the mainstream, and members of the mainstream may wrongly see the insurrectionists as allies."

    Absolutely. The problem is that a lot of commentators seem quite happy to tie the insurrectionary subculture to the mainstream, and since these commentators are generally embraced on the left and ignored on the right, I haven't seen much in the way of serious engagement or pushback. There are few people better situated than David French to walk the tightrope of calling out the ugly or dangerous aspects of the Christian right *and* combat the exaggerations and distortions coming from the left. A first step would be to stop acknowledging work which is ideologically-driven and empirically questionable as "authoritative."

    Relatedly, I'm curious what David thought of this piece in National Review today:
    https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/02/how-not-to-think-about-january-6-and-christianity/

    Anyway, this podcast is a strong step in the right direction. Please keep exploring these issues!

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Tawnya Kordenbrock

    This episode reminded me of what I encountered in the 80s and 90s while homeschooling in Kentucky. All my church friends were very much into the writings of David Barton. There was also a popular curriculum that promoted very strong beliefs that our forefathers were Christians and that God had his hand upon the formation of our country.

    While I do not doubt He was involved in many ways, I don’t buy into the belief that the United States is set apart by God.

    I can still see the thinking of those days fueling those visceral reactions some of those friends are having today.

    That said, what David French explained rings true for what I see in many of the Christians around me.

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Amy

    I enjoyed this podcast a lot but found myself wishing for a little more examination of the relationship between patriotism and immigration. It's true that Lewis's definition of patriotism leads to a benign attitude towards foreigners in general, but not necessarily immigrants. After all, if love of home and the familiar is so natural to us, why leave it? The passage you quoted acknowledges that some people have multiple homes over a lifetime and can love all of them, but doesn't directly address the question of what might be appropriate reasons to move from one to the other.

    I say this because I've long suspected that anti-immigrant sentiment is partly fueled by the sense that immigrants either a) really do think their country is better than ours, and so seek to make American more like their homeland, or b) are guided mostly by what Lewis calls "family selfishness," and so are attached to a place only inasmuch as they and their families are personally thriving. The third possibility is that immigrants really do think that the American government, economy and culture are better than any other country's, but that's kind of what Lewis was warning against, right?

    I should also note that this isn't necessarily driven by any notion that "they" are different from "us" -- after all, the first white immigrants to American both anglified (or hispanicized, or Dutchified) their new homeland, and also frequently made a fortune doing it. So I think what I'm left wondering is: how do you square love of home with leaving home, or having multiple homes? I realize your time is limited but I would love to hear more about this.

    Collapse
  6. Adam Shields

    I think there is some value in exploring why in Perry and Whitehead's more socioloigcal definition and tests they seperate White and Black respondants. Roughly, according to Perry and Whitehead it appears that generally Black Christians point to some of these nationalist ideas as their attempt to point the nation toward the ideal of the nation in the way that David is suggesting in his talking about the tension between 1619 and 1776.

    On the other hand White Christians tend (this is a tendancy not a mandate which is one problem with people talking about sociology) to be exclusivist in their use of the same nationalistic ideas. So while MLK may point to the promisory note that has not been fulfilled, the Plessy and the Dred Scott decisions both suggested that Black people in the US either were not citizens or the country had no obligation to treat them in the same way. That legacy continuese to characterize a lot of White people in the US who fundamentally understand the country as a place that is culturally white, so that others can be citizens, but only if they meet the cultural requirements by their understanding of what it means to be American (ie, white protestant and conservative)

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    The rest of a nuclear sub is not its ability to perform fully crewed, in friendly waters, with full capability. It’s the ability of the sub to execute its mission undercrewed (without producer Chris), in foreign waters (a hotel room), and without all capabilities at 100% (floors in hotel not good for podcast). I think this metaphor is really gaining depth! So to speak…

    I think it’s safe to say we can raise the threat level up a code for Christian Nationalism, but that we still face greater threats. Something to be aware of, but not something to lose sleep over. We don’t have to start aiming the torpedos yet.

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Will Roberts

    I appreciated the analogy between family life and national life. The analogy of a good father who is found to be cheating is a good analogy to the sins of the United States. Should such a thing change our entire view of personal or national character. Whether it should it often does. People have a hard time holding things in tension. even on marriage it is recommended to say five positive words for every one negative word just because people's egos are so sensitive. I do think liberals are often to negative about America and conservatives are not willing to discuss it's faults. I don't know why this should be the case but it is.

    For me the difference between nationalism and patriotism comes to how we check our selves in regards to favoritism. A popular quote is evil triumphs becaus good men do nothing. While this sounds nice it deceive s us from reality. There have always been good men willing to speak out against evil. It just doesn't matter because they lack critical mass. Evil triumphs because we let our friends get away with things. People trust people who don't criticize them creating bubbles and blindspots that the worst parts of our nature can shine. What we need is critical friendships. If David french could be friends with Eric metaxas perhaps more extreme impulses could be prevented. But friendships around debate and disagreement are rare

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Ed Bryant

    I really appreciated this conversation. I would suggest a few revisions. The comparison between 1619 and 1776 is also about how the 1776 event was built upon the 1619 event and the activities and institutions that were created and sustained during the 157 years between 1619 and 1776. Second, one of the things that concerns me about the current edition of Christian nationalism in the willingness to dismiss truth and facts in order to sustain its case for the pursuit of power. Finally, there is a distinction that must be made between "whiteness" and being white in America.

    Collapse
    1. Brendan Bossard

      Ed, can you clarify what you mean by a distinction "between 'whiteness' and being white in America?" It sounds like "whiteness" refers to a personal characteristic while "being white in America" refers to the surrounding culture. Do I get your gist? If so, please fill in the gaps if you can.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Ed Bryant

        In essence, there is a difference from being an adherent to so-called "white culture" and the multiple cultural "normativities" that associated with whiteness, which distinct from merely being white, especially in the US. Whiteness is really about all of the cultural assumptions that are made and assumed to be normal, but, after some interrogation, are more about a particular cultural socialization that provides advantage to those who acquiesce to what is "normal." Being white doesn't mean one hasn't experienced hardship, but in certain societies, in particular, the US, there are certain advantages to walking by the norms of cultural whiteness, even for some people of color.

        I'm a Black man and was fortunate to get a good education and have done well, mainly because a combination of things. The investment others made in me, my own hard work, and the combination of good educational and social interactions I had. Frequently, as a kid, I was asked why I was acting white, mainly because I didn't speak in Black colloquial English.

        When my white friends, especially those within some of the evangelical para-church and church situations, would sometimes mention to me that they didn't see my race or color, there was a not-so-subtle leaning into one of the tenants of whiteness - individualism.

        There are many articles that define the distinction, but basically it a way to identify the privileges that come from whiteness.

        Collapse
        1. Brendan Bossard

          Thank you for the clarification. It was very helpful. So if I correctly understand you, "whiteness" is not so much about actual skin color but how well you fit with accepted "white" norms and, hence, receive "white" benefits. Being white in America is--well, I get the benefit of the doubt until I prove I am not so "white." People do not give me that automatic benefit if my skin is black.

          Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Frank Lee

    Someone that loves their country, want to preserve its essence and knows that its essence is based on a foundation morality that derives from Judea Christian values.

    And by the way... all are welcome if subscribing to the same credo.

    Collapse
    1. Adam Shields

      Which by definition means that the country isn't pluralistic and does have a religious test violating seperation of church and state if only those that can immigrate to the US must meet a religious test.

      Relgious freedom that is only for Christian (or the not real idea of Judeo-Christian) isn't actually religious freedom

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Frank Lee

        Judea-Christian, the New Testament type, values are supportive of natural rights. And natural rights support religious freedoms as long as those freedoms do not threaten Judea-Christian values and natural rights.

        Collapse
        1. Adam Shields

          I know what you mean about Judeo Christian values, but that language is a relatively recent concept that was not part of the historic US context.

          Historically, both Jewish and Catholic concepts were considered outside the realm of normative. That is why the KKK and America First poltical movement of the early 20th century where not just racially motivated but also religiously discrimnatory against Jewish and Catholic people in the US

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Chany Ockert

            Having read the Enlightenment authors (Hume, Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, Burke), it would seem that the historical context shows more of the founders ascribed to the Enlightenment thought that tried to create morality apart from God. Portions of the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights seem to directly copy from these Enlightenment authors.

            Collapse
          2. Avatar photo
            Frank Lee

            People tend to behave outside of the values, that does not justify dismissal of the values. The values if practiced would never have allowed slavery. And it was the values that prevailed in the abolition of slavery.

            Humans behave badly because the human animal pursues its own selfish interests. Judea-Christian values, if practiced, are the moral guideposts to help minimize human harm resulting from those selfish pursuits.

            Collapse
Load More