Jonathan's Headspace

I’ve decided I am fine with calling myself a Christian Nationalist. This is a recent development for me having spent most of my life as a staunch classical liberal, and my exact views are still fluid. But I’m at a point now where I think it takes some serious mental gymnastics to maintain the position that classical liberalism (the ideological heritage of modern American conservatism) is a viably Christian political theology. Since Christian Nationalism is a highly controversial term in my own social circles, it is worth explaining what I mean when I use the term and in what sense I use it to identify my own views.

Defining the Term

If I were to boil it down to a thesis statement, I would say this: Christian Nationalism is the belief that “In Him all things hold together,” and the “all things” includes the nation.

If I were to expand on it, I would say this: Christian Nationalism recognizes that the person of Jesus Christ is the rightful and legitimate authority over all the nations of the earth, and therefore every nation should conceptualize and express itself in a way that recognizes and subjects it to the authority of Christ. This means the governors of a nation should understand their authority to be a derivative authority and be self-aware of their own subjection to Christ and govern accordingly. Christian political and social engagement should be directed to that end.

It should be noted that what I am describing here is different from saying merely that the government or society should “uphold Christian values” or function “according to Christian principles” in some generic sense that is disconnected from an explicit identification with Christ. In apologetics we often criticize atheists for trying to borrow Christian morality while denying its metaphysical foundations. In church we refer to the attempt to prosper by living according to Christian principles without a living relationship to Christ as “moralistic therapeutic deism” and rightly denounce it. Abstracting ethical principles or values from Christ’s commands and then trying to give them an institutional expression that is not connected to the actual authority of the Christ who gave those commands amounts to political and cultural atheism, or what I would call Christless conservatism.

That, I think, defines the “Christian” part of “Christian Nationalism” and I expect it would be mostly non-controversial among across the various factions that identify with the term.

When I use the term nationalism, I am referring to the idea that the nation is the highest earthly level of human social organization and that the government and institutions of a nation are primarily responsible to their own people. It does not mean a nation should have no regard for or interest in the well-being of other nations or that it should have no relationships or dealings outside of itself. It does not mean members of one nation should hate members of other nations. It does not deny the equal humanity of people across nations.

Nationalism is distinguished from globalism in that it affirms a nation’s authority over and responsibility to its own citizens rather than sharing that authority and responsibility with other nations under some multinational organizational entity. It is distinguished from imperialism in that it respects its own boundaries rather than trying to absorb other nations into itself or bring them into subjection through expansionist conquest.

If you can affirm the preceding paragraphs, then congratulations, you’re a Christian Nationalist in my book. So, what’s all the fuss about?

The heart of the controversy

I believe most conservative Christian opponents of Christian Nationalism are more opposed to the way that certain Christian Nationalists define nations. This is also why there is division among self-identified Christian Nationalist groups—nobody agrees on the details of how a nation coheres as a nation.

Generally speaking, it can be agreed that a nation is visibly identified by the people and the institutions they form (especially governmental structures) within a certain geographical space. Thus, a nation is a “people and a place.” Marking the boundaries of a place is straightforward, but what about defining a people? What binds a people together as a people and distinguishes them from another people? This is not an easy question to answer.

Shared history, cultural heritage, language, ideology, values, ethnic identity, etc. are all common features used in defining a people. The problem is while these things may be real and meaningful, they are also fluid. Each of these are subject to change over time, as well as conflicting interpretations and emphasis even among people within the same society.

You cannot absolutize any one of these factors, or any combination of them, without descending into a tyrannical oppression—in fact I would define tyranny as the attempt to absolutize something that is not in fact absolute. But you also cannot deny their legitimacy and reality without losing the ability to cohere together as a people, which I would argue is the fatal flaw of enlightenment liberalism.

I would argue that for Christians, it is far more important to learn how to understand and articulate each of these earthly identity axis in an explicitly and distinctively Christian way than it is to advance any specific combination of them as our idea of a nation.

In other words, Christianity needs to be asserted not just as one of many cultural identity markers but rather the framework within which we understand, interpret and relate all other cultural identities to one another. If we can do that, then I don’t think we actually have to insist on any particular set of lower order identities when defining ourselves as a nation. Earthly identity categories and their role in defining a society can be left free to develop naturally over time as those societies progress without that development having to be the product of conflict between different groups defining themselves in different ways coming into contact with one another.

I recognize that this view distinguishes me from many prominent self-identifying Christian Nationalist figures who heavily emphasize the importance of ethnic identity in defining a nation.

Some objections answered

Objection: “The idea that government should be explicitly Christian goes against the constitution.”

Answer: Yes, I know. That is not an argument against it.

Objection: “Jesus said His kingdom is not of this world.”

Answer: Yes, but His kingdom is on the earth, and it brings itself to bear on the world. Scripture repeatedly and unequivocally asserts his legitimate kingship over the nations of the earth, and that is not and never has been understood to refer only to select people living in nations.

Objection: “But the Bible says Satan is the god of this world”

Answer: Yes, but he is not the god of this earth. The world Satan is god over is being conquered by Christ. He is the strongman who has been bound and it’s his house being plundered.

Objection: “Christian Nationalism means using the government as an evangelistic tool.”

Answer: No, it doesn’t. The kingdom of God advances through the preaching of Christ only. Christian Nationalism concerns itself with the question of the proper relationship between earthly nations and the kingdom of God and asserts that the proper relationship is one where the nation, however it defines itself, does so in a way that is self-consciously subject to the king.

Objection: Christian Nationalism means using the government to impose Christianity on people who don’t want it.

Answer: Christian Nationalism is not just a political ideology but an entire cultural theology. I freely grant that it is untenable to have a Christian government without having a Christian people or culture. Whichever one you consider the horse or the cart, they both go together. I would argue the goal of Christians in their cultural and political engagement should be for both to be Christian.

Objection: “Christian Nationalism is ungodly because it’s just Christians seeking to seize worldly power to their own benefit.”

Answer: I would argue that this is far more true when said of liberal democracy. The entire premise of liberal democracy is that every citizen has access to participation in the politics of the nation, which is by definition the mediation of power.

Christian Nationalism asserts a specific understanding of the relationship between earthly authorities in a nation (whether governmental or otherwise) and the God from whom their authority is derived which then defines the proper purposes for which it is exercised. If you want to argue that it is inappropriate for Christians to wield or exercise earthly authority, the consistent outworking of that belief is either liberal democracy in which Christians do not participate, a non-Christian authoritarian state, or some form of anarchy.

Objection: Nations can’t be Christian, only individual people can be Christian.

Answer: By this logic there is also no such thing as a Christian school, a Christian family, a Christian book, etc. What it means for a thing to be “Christian” in this context is that the purpose and terms of its existence are understood with reference to Christianity.

Objection: “Christian Nationalism is unrealistic because not enough people are Christians.”

Answer: Whether Christian Nationalism is a valid application of Christian theology to the concept of a nation has nothing to do with your assessment of its prospects of being successfully implemented in any particular time or place. It is also worth remembering that Christianity started with a handful of followers and now has about a quarter of the world’s population identifying with it, and that growth occurred primarily before the information age. You don’t have to be utopian to assert a distinctively Christian framework for understanding a nation and live according to it. You just can’t be a pessimist.

Objection: “But in the days of imperial Christianity there was a bunch of violence between competing Christian sects.”

Answer: I believe this has more to do with imperial political dynamics than with Christian sectarian division, and I don’t believe Christian Nationalism has to imply those imperial political dynamics. I would argue there is no reason why Catholic (post Vatican 2), Protestant, and Orthodox Christians cannot coexist under common civil, social, and political structures, especially if you allow the nation to be further broken down into different states or provinces. And even if I’m wrong, I would rather live as an Anglican under a Baptist hegemony than under a secular progressive one.

Moreover, name a political structure or ideology that has not been characterized by a history of violence and social unrest in asserting itself, or that doesn’t devolve into chaos and tyranny when it breaks down that you believe is a better alternative (please do not pretend that the American Revolution and Civil War did not happen or that history began or ended with World War 2 when you attempt to do this).

Objection: We shouldn’t identify with the term Christian Nationalist because there’s no agreement on how to define it.

Answer: Then assert a definition that can be rallied around. Every ideological label has both internal and external disagreement on how to define it.

Objection: We shouldn’t identify as Christian Nationalists because a bunch of white supremacists and antisemites identify with the term.

Answer: Then assert or rally around a Christian Nationalism that isn’t white supremacist or antisemitic in its conception. If your problem is with white supremacy and antisemitism, then let your problem be with white supremacy and antisemitism.

Objection: Christian Nationalism attracts a lot of people who conduct themselves in degenerate and unchristlike ways.

Answer: So does literally every other political movement and ideological label ever. Especially ones that represent a departure from the existing ideological framework, because they naturally appeal first to people who are dissatisfied and disillusioned with prevailing conventional ideological paradigms and such people often embody that disillusionment in their personalities. If your objection is to degeneracy and unchristlikeness, then object to degeneracy and unchristlikeness.

If you are a conservative Christian and you let that inform your political or cultural engagement, you are going to be identified with the term whether you want to be or not. It makes absolutely zero sense to allow the term to be defined according to the worst people who identify with it. Doing so only further incentivizes your political opponents to stick the label to you.

I would argue that if the underlying logic of Christian Nationalism appeals to you, the best thing to do is to just take ownership of the term and then not be degenerate and unchristlike in your conduct, thereby marginalizing those who insist on doing so and providing a better alternative for those who recognize that existing in a spectrum bound by liberalism on one end and left wing progressivism on the other is untenable.

I would also add that it’s important to distinguish between who a movement attracts and what it produces. If you judged Jesus by what he attracted, you wouldn’t want to identify with Him either.