The social, cultural, and political divides in America are both real and visceral. Pick any issue: immigration, crime, energy and the climate; Ukraine, Venezuela, the Middle East; abortion; education; vaccines; diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives; etc. You will not simply find people holding views or even advocating for views. You will find people taking sides and doing so with both passion and disdain for those who disagree. The given position of an individual or organization on any of these issues is considered an existential threat to the other side in the zero-sum game of contemporary politics, thus creating a kind of war of ideologies that masks itself as a war against ideologies. There are few, if there are any, neutral parties.
One prevalent weapon of choice in this war is vocabulary. Terms, labels, and monikers are assigned with purposes other than attempting to analyze or understand. A view on any given issue has to be called something, for the purpose of discrediting that view or assigning an identifier that either warns people off or welcomes the like-minded. These words can become shibboleths that let people know whether or not they have found the right tribe, worthy associates. They also serve to brand some as pariah or villains, even enemies. In the sharply divided cultural context in which we find ourselves, this is more than mere categorization. It becomes a tactic for advancing one’s own views while undermining the views of another. Some of these titles are strategically pejorative, intended to cast those who hold a particular view in a particularly disdainful light in order to repel others from that view, to weaken it culturally and politically. Consider how flippantly people assign the term “fascist” or “Nazi” today to those who hold political or social views that are associated with conservative political ideology or policy. This is done in a way that has become an acceptable and effective way of discrediting people and inciting opposition. This is not new. It is reminiscent of the iconic 1970s character Archie Bunker, who referred to political liberals he disagreed with as “pinkos” or “commies,” personifying a generational and cultural artifact of the Cold War. This hyperbolic categorization was offensive and used to dismiss and discredit.
This approach, so prevalent in our current culture, does serve to create clear lines of demarcation between those who disagree, but it fosters a lack of understanding, if not an outright unwillingness to discuss and to disagree. It stunts serious intellectual criticism and the clarifications that actually help us come to a better analysis of any given event, policy, or issue. This strategic “labeling” weakens civil society, erodes civil discourse, and in turn, kills civility in general. This is not to say that there is no room for serious and vigorous disagreement and debate. There is a need for these things in a democratic society. There is also a need for passion and conviction. Moderation for the sake of avoidance of differences is not the solution to our divisiveness. And political victories and losses come with the territory; they should be expected and accepted. But great care should be taken in our use of words in order to actually correct what is broken, restore and preserve what is good, and fight for what we believe in a manner that honors the basis on which we believe those things.
Over the course of the past several years, the term “Christian Nationalism” has been pushed to the forefront of whatever is passing for cultural discourse in our day. For some, this is a derogatory categorization intended to label someone as irrational, hateful, undemocratic, and dangerous. For others, it has become a badge of honor worn plainly so that everyone will know who they are, while also recruiting kindred spirits who are passionate about pushing back secular ideologies and the secularization of our social institutions. Sadly, this Christian Nationalism divide is not played out only in the broader secular culture, where people of faith are pitted against secularists. It is also being played out, and fought over, within the broader evangelical community, amongst Christian thought leaders, and in the Christian media and ministries that carry the privilege of both voice and influence. It is dividing parishioners, colleagues, and family members. This is disturbing—not because we disagree, but because we are using a tactic, a weapon, that does not suit us. There is serious work to be done in honing our approach as Christians to the world, to the culture, even to politics and the nation. There is a need to discuss and analyze Christian Nationalism as an ideology, a need to differentiate the various nuanced positions associated with it, to scrutinize the theology of it, and to weigh the implications of it. There are challenges in the broader culture facing Christians on any number of issues and policies such as immigration, abortion, and human sexuality. Our own robust discussions and debates within the evangelical community on these topics might actually help Christians navigate life and raise their families in an increasingly secular and hostile context. There is serious moral evaluation to be done of current events, political rhetoric, law, and policy that requires more of us than simply taking up sides or labeling and canceling those with whom we disagree.
Nationalism is a technical term and one that needs to be understood more judiciously, particularly as the immigration crisis and cultural conflicts in nations across the globe are giving rise to it in a manner reminiscent of the last century preceding two world wars. This form of nationalism is tied to understanding Christian Nationalism, but we must be careful to differentiate between individuals who are Christians and a Christian political theory or theology. There is a need to be intentional and accurate with the use of the term itself, to understand its origins and its objectives. Author and historian Mark David Hall’s recent book, Who’s Afraid of Christian Nationalism?, is an excellent place to start and demonstrates the kind of thoughtful and careful treatment of the subject we need. The scholarly work on this is certainly one important dimension, but the personal choices made every day regarding the use of the term from what may be a limited perspective is adding fuel to a fire that is not serving Christians or the country very well. It seems that some humble personal reflection on our own understanding and use of the term “Christian Nationalism” might be a step in taking the edge off the visceral divisiveness plaguing evangelicalism and move us forward in a productive discussion and even debate over our role in this world, our relationship to the nation in which we find ourselves, and our dual citizenship as followers of Christ.
We would do well to be restrained in our use of a term we may not fully grasp. Consider how quickly assumptions are made today regarding whether someone is, in fact, a Christian Nationalist—without any evidence of stated adherence to a theology or philosophy. Is a Christian to be deemed a Christian Nationalist because they hang a flag from their porch, serve in the military, run for office, or enjoy and celebrate American history? Are they a Christian Nationalist simply because they are a political conservative or a Republican? Are they one because they believe the American founders upheld the premise of religious liberty as an essential element of a free society, or because they oppose the ideological secularization of our social institutions? Is a Christian who exhibits any degree of what we traditionally refer to as patriotism, a Christian Nationalist? Is a Christian who defends the policies and practices of the current administration, necessarily, a Christian Nationalist? It seems difficult to answer these questions in the affirmative, but some do. This is unfair. It is also not helpful. At worst, it is employing the tactic of hyperbolic categorization. At best, it is a misunderstanding and misuse of the term itself. Care should be taken by Christians in the use of words and the assigning of labels because biblical wisdom requires it. And this care is not only applied to labeling others with whom we disagree but in labeling ourselves for some political or cultural objective.
There are individuals who unabashedly identify themselves as Christian Nationalists, who have an agenda to “Christianize” the nation. For some, this even means the instituting of a theonomy or theocracy. These positions may be passionately held and even thoughtfully arrived at, yet they require analysis of the scholarly kind referred to earlier. Some Christians may find themselves embracing the moniker of “Christian Nationalist” for other personal, practical, or even impulsive reasons. Perhaps they are weary of the current cultural secularization that is attempting to force views upon them that are untenable for a biblical Christian. Perhaps they are weary of watching their fellow Christians conceding moral ground on issues such as life and human sexuality because they have an aversion to being associated with a given political party or politician. These self-identifying Christian Nationalists may be doing so with little understanding of the philosophical or theological issues. They simply do not want to see Christian influence diluted, diminished, or eradicated from American society.
Painting all Christians who have an affinity for and appreciation of the United States, its form of government, its history, and its potential for good in this world as Christian Nationalists is painting with too broad a brush. And holding in contempt those who desire America to be a good and flourishing society that honors and fears almighty God and his righteous standards seems incongruous with Christian theology and tradition. Maybe a way through the divides within the evangelical community over this issue is to tighten up our actual knowledge of the subject, control our emotions as well as our association or disassociation impulses, do the hard work of reasoning together, and remember that God’s work cannot be carried out using the world’s methods.
