In Democracy’s Discontents: America in Search of a Public Philosophy, Michael Sandel warns of a tendency to a fundamentalist mindset that “would banish ambiguity, shore up borders, harden the distinction between insiders and outsiders, and promise a politics to ‘take back our culture and take back our country,’ to ‘restore our sovereignty’ with a vengeance.[1] The recent insurrection at the US Capitol has put the spotlight on this fundamentalism on the religious right which takes the form of white (Christian) nationalism. What is it? How prevalent is it? What are its dangers?
What is White Christian Nationalism?
Every year, thousands of churches across the U.S. have July 4th “worship” services, variously referred to as “God and Country,” “Celebrate America,” or “Freedom” celebrations. In these patriotic services the entire congregation will “pledge allegiance” to both the American flag and the Christian flag; sing patriotic hymns and listen to choirs that do the same; and corporately lament the failure of our nation to follow God’s laws. Pastors often give sermons in which they describe our nation’s Christian roots and call for America to come back to God. Only by “reclaiming America for Christ,” they proclaim, will we once again experience God’s blessing.[2]
These July 4th services express a specific vision of Christianity’s relationship to America’s identity and civic life. The idea of America as a “Christian nation” is strongly associated with the rise of the Christian Right in the early 1980’s. It is sharply at odds with the thinking of most Americans. Yet even today, according to sociologists Andrew Whitehead and Samuel Perry, data from the 2017 Baylor Religion Survey (BRS) indicate that 29 percent of Americans agree that “the federal government should declare the United State a Christian nation;” 46 percent agree that “the federal government should advocate for Christian values;” and 42 percent agree that “the United States is a part of God’s plan.”[3]
In their book Taking America Back for God: Christian Nationalism in the United States (2020) Whitehead and Perry use data from the 2017 BRS to examine the presence of Christian nationalism and its influence in American social, cultural, and political life. These authors are not talking about simple patriotism. They define Christian nationalism as “a cultural framework—a collection of myths, traditions, symbols, narratives, and value systems—that idealizes and advocates a fusion of Christianity with American civic life.”[4] They underscore the fact that Christian nationalism “isn’t localized primarily within particular religious traditions but is undergirded by a combination of conservative political ideology, belief in the Bible, apocalyptic visions of societal decline, and divine militarism.”[5]
As these authors further explain, Christian nationalism is not a matter of religiosity or religious commitment. “In fact, the great paradox is that Christian nationalism and religiosity often influence Americans political views in the exact opposite direction.”[6] In many ways, Christian nationalism is diametrically opposed to biblical Christianity and its ethics in that it does not encourage high moral standards or the value of self-sacrifice, peace, mercy, love, justice, and so on. Love of neighbor, for example, is not a high priority. Liberals often paint conservative beliefs regarding sexuality as indicators of “Christian nationalism.” But, significantly, these authors also find that acceptance of traditional gender roles and negative attitudes toward same-sex marriage and divorce among conservatives are also shaped more by their faith than by Christian nationalist beliefs. In other words, “Those who exhibit greater religious commitment . . . even if they are not strong Christian nationalists, may still favor more traditionalist interpretations of gender, family, and sexuality.”[7]
The primary concern of Christian nationalism is with political power and group privilege—setting physical and social boundaries to exclude “others” (Muslims, immigrants, and racial minorities) perceived as threats to continued cultural dominance and “social order;” and using the power of the state to support a fusion of American identity with a particular (mostly white) understanding of Christianity. In sum, “Christian nationalism idealizes a mythic society in which real Americans—white, native-born, mostly Protestants—maintain control over access to society’s social, cultural, and political institutions, and ‘others’ remain in their proper place. It therefore seeks strong boundaries to separate “us” from “them,” preserving privilege for its rightful recipients while equating racial and religious outsiders with criminality, violence, and inferiority.”[8] White Christian nationalism is often associated with (although it is not synonymous with) attitudes of “white supremacy,” which can take two forms. “Hard” white supremacy is the intentional building and maintaining of white power or white privilege. “Soft” white supremacy is more covert. It involves making whiteness and white culture the normative standard or canon by which things are evaluated or contested.[9]
How Prevalent is Christian Nationalism?
This raises the questions, “Who are the Christian nationalists? How prevalent is Christian nationalism?” The research of Perry and Whitehead reveals quite conclusively that Christian nationalism as not a monolithic entity. Rather, it exists on a spectrum.[10] Americans hold diverse views on this issue. Broadly speaking about 48.1% of the American population is either strongly or moderately opposed to the values and beliefs associated with Christian Nationalism. These are the Rejectors (21.5%) and the Resisters (26.6%). About 51.9% of the American population either strongly supports or leans toward Christian Nationalism. In the taxonomy of Whitehead and Perry, these are the Ambassadors (19.8%,) and the Accommodators (32.1%). This means that roughly one-fifth of the American population believes strongly that the United States has a special relationship with God, and thus, the federal government should formally declare the United States as a Christian nation and advocate for Christian values. (36) Almost one-third are in varying degrees sympathetic to Christian nationalism.
Perry and Whitehead make some further observations that may be surprising to the readers. First, among Protestant evangelicals, the majority are either Ambassadors (40%) or Accommodators (38%). However, nearly a quarter (23%) of evangelicals are Resisters or Rejectors. Furthermore, both Accommodators and Resisters are well represented across all faith traditions. “Therefore,” these authors emphasize, “it is inaccurate to assume, as many have done recently, that ‘white evangelical’ is synonymous with Christian nationalism. . . . [It] is not being evangelical or even white evangelical that matters. Rather, it is the degree to which Americans [perceive] current political conflicts through the lens of Christian nationalism.”[11] The belief of many Rejectors on the political left that all evangelicals are “evil Christian nationalists,” or that Christian nationalism is merely religious conservatism and evangelicalism coming to its logical fruition is therefore not supported by the data.[12]
Another somewhat surprising statistic is that 65% of African Americans are either Accommodators (45%) or Ambassadors (20%). This suggests that we must qualify the description of Christian nationalism as essentially about reinforcing boundaries around and defending white racial group membership and privileges. In another study, Perry and Whitehead conclude that while there is certainly evidence to show that this accurately describes white Christian nationalists, this is not true of most African Americans and other racial minorities who score higher on the “Christian nationalism” scale. Rather, their understanding of “Christian America” is different than that of whites. In other words, “identifying being Christian with being American does not operate uniformly across racial groups.”[13] We will look at this in greater length in our discussion of critical race theory.
What is the Threat of Christian Nationalism?
If there were any doubts about the dangers of Christian nationalism on the far right (and white nationalism in general) the storming of the US capital on January 6, 2021 erased those doubts. Again, it needs to be emphasized that we are talking primarily about “Ambassadors” and those “Accommodators” who identify more closely with Christian nationalism. Given the presence of many Christian symbols, it would be naïve to think that there was no association between white Christian nationalists (including white evangelicals) and the events of January 6. What is deeply troubling, then, is that according to a recent survey conducted in late January by the conservative American Enterprise Institute, roughly half of white evangelicals express support for the debunked claim that Antifa and other anti-fascist activists—not white nationalist ideology—was responsible for the January 6 insurrection at the US capitol. White evangelicals express robust support for other conspiracy theories as well. Almost two-thirds (62%) of white evangelicals believe there was widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election (despite abundant evidence to the contrary); a majority (55%) believe mostly or completely that a “Deep State” was working to undermine the Trump administration; and 41 percent completely or somewhat agree with the statement “if elected leaders will not protect America, the people must do it themselves even if it requires taking violent actions.” [14]
First and foremost, Christian nationalism poses a threat to the church and authentic Christianity. As Beth Moore points out, it fails to distinguish between what is culturally pro-Christian and what is truly Christ-like. Christian nationalism is a syncretism of “Christianity” and “nationalism” that distorts true Christian faith. The marriage of national identity with Christianity undermines the witness of the kingdom of God which transcends all racial, ethnic, social, political, and national boundaries. Many white evangelicals, it must be emphasized, voted for Donald Trump in both the 2016 and 2020 elections because they could not stomach the alternatives. Yet Christian nationalism helps explain why so many conservative Christians voted for and continue to support Trump and his “Make America Great Again” agenda, despite his habitual dishonesty and overt moral failings. During his presidency, many Ambassadors and some Accommodators were in fact drawn to his xenophobic and racist rhetoric. According to Stephen Haynes, author of The Battle for Bonhoeffer: Debating Discipleship in the Age of Trump, the claims of many evangelical leaders to see the “hand of God” in Trump’s election have eerie parallels with the Nazi era, when Hitler used theological concepts like “divine providence” to legitimize his movement. Many ardent supporters of Trump continue to commit the same theological error as the German Christians did under Nazism in conforming the Christian faith to a popular political movement.[15] In the words of sociologist Philip Gorski, “[Christian nationalism] is political idolatry dressed up as religious orthodoxy.”[16]
Christian nationalism is also a threat to true pluralistic democracy and democratic institutions. Harry Blackmun, Justice of the Supreme Court, once remarked, “A government cannot be premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts that God prefers some.” Christian nationalist ideology, on the other hand, “seeks to ensure that one particular group, with a specific vision for the country, enjoys privileged access to the halls of power and has the ability to make the culture in its own image.”[17] It therefore inhibits true political dialogue and compromise. Mark Lilla observes in The Stillborn God: Religion, Politics, and the Modern West (2018) that political rhetoric in the United States is “shot through with messianic language” that threatens to give “theological sanctification of a single form of political life.”[18] Indeed, many Christian nationalists (especially Ambassadors) are willing to resort to whatever means are necessary to carry out their “divinely ordained” mission to “save” America.
One example is the effort by many legislatures in red states to place various restrictions on voting in the name of reducing “voter fraud.” When one examines these bills—such as the sweeping elections bill recently passed by the Georgia legislature—it is hard to view many, if not all, of them as anything but attempts at voter suppression designed to protect white privilege. For example, Georgia’s new voting law:[19]
Adds new strict ID requirements for absentee ballots.
Makes it illegal for elections officials to mail out absentee applications to all voters.
Drastically reduces the number of drop boxes, particularly in low-income neighborhoods.
Bars third-party groups or anyone else who is not an election worker from providing food and water to voters waiting in line.
Strips power from the secretary of state to oversee elections by creating a new chair of the State Election Board who is appointed by the Republican-controlled legislature.
Some critics have called these and other provisions restricting voting access, especially for voters of color, “Jim Crow 2.0.”
We can be easily deceived into thinking that the quest for total victory in which the ends justify the means is fully justified. “After all, if your opponents aren’t merely misguided but rather actively evil, their destruction is unquestionably a net public good. Your quest to win the culture war and drive your opponents from the public square is a fundamentally virtuous cause. Moreover, that quest can provide you with a powerful sense of meaning and purpose.”[20] But as James Madison, the architect of democratic pluralism, said: “As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed.” In other words, if liberty is to remain a central feature of political life, the quest for uniformity is both dangerous and futile.[21]
This brings us to the progressive social crusaders on the far left who also see themselves as the sole champions of social and moral progress but pose the threat of a different kind of authoritarianism and fundamentalism. To see how this is the case we must understand its relationship to a perspective on social justice known as critical theory. This will be the focus of my next two posts on the “illusion of ideology.”
[1] Sandel, Democracy’s Discontents, 350. [2] Whitehead and Perry, Bringing America Back to God, 2 [3] Ibid., 6. [4] Ibid., 10. [5] Ibid., 13. [6] Ibid., 84. [7] Ibid., 146. [8] Ibid., 118. [9] See Wytsma, The Myth of Equality, 20. [10] Whitehead and Perry, Bringing America Back to God, 25-38. [11] Ibid., 43-44; 153. [12] See Keller,” A Book Review on the Topic of Christian Nationalism.” [13] Perry and Whitehead,” Christian America in Black and White,” 22. [14] Jenkins, “QAnon Conspiracies Sway Faith Groups.” [15] Haynes, “If You Board the Wrong Train . . . ,” 110-11. See also Bucher, Hitler’s Theology, 49-56 [16] Perry and Whitehead, Taking America Back for God, 21. [17] Ibid., 161. [18] Lilla, The Stillborn God, 307-8. [19] Corasaniti and Epstein, “What Georgia’s New Law Really Does.” [20] French, Divided We Fall, 179. [21] Ibid., 19; 180.
Comments