religion & politics

Christian Nationalism is a term coined and often used by far-left or left-leaning sociologists and political scientists to discredit, label, and denounce policies or ideas that aim to interpret our political reality from a perspective of Christian tradition and exercise it within the constitutional limits. It is a derogatory term often used to generalize and categorize Conservative Christianity as inherently biased, bigoted, racist, intolerant, theocratic, ideological, and ultimately totalitarian. In other words, it "is an amorphous concept that is primarily used to tar Christians who are motivated by their faith to advocate for policies that critics [do not] like."[1]

While the primary goal is to deconstruct the radical elements of Evangelical Christianity, they perfidiously and eclectically interpret and exaggerate non-pivotal examples to prove the idea. It is a polemical interpretation rather than an objective study based on factual data. However, that does not assert that radical and far-right ideas are not present in Conservative Christianity in the United States, and such should be deemed irrelevant, but my goal is to follow on Hall’s assertion that such elements are not existential threat to US democracy, and that there is a difference between Christian patriotism and nationalism. Balance became a scarce word in the academic and political reality of the United States. We live in a highly polarized society where neither side abides by its principles and has no middle ground. Either we are against or for specific ideas, black or white, and there is little to no tolerance for the opposite views. The truth is that balance commonly abides in the murky, gray waters. We have to run deeper in order to find it.

A general stance of the academia on the notion of Christian nationalism is overwhelmingly focused on the Jan 6  event as a climax of decades-long intertwining of religious and political striving of the far-right. Pamela Cooper-White, a professor at Union Theological Seminary, carefully constructs a narrative on Christian Nationalism around the event of January 6th, stating that: "there is no doubt that this anti-democratic protest was planned and fueled by Trump and his minions across the country. The mob size and fervor testify to the impact of conservative social media, such as the right-wing site Parlor and other platforms, then or still operating openly or underground."[2] She further asserts that the optics of the protest blatantly display a fusion of racial and Christian symbols, indicating the fact that Christian Nationalism is inherently a "white evangelical" project. While she refers to BLM protests as "mostly peaceful," she underlines a violent nature of January insurrection.

Without any intention of legitimizing the January 6th events, it is evident that the interpretation of events is intentionally biased and exaggerated to assert, along with other scholars or journalists, that Christian nationalism is a threat to US democracy. Sociologists Andrew Whitehead and Samuel Perry define the new phenomenon as "cultural framework—a collection of myths, symbols, narratives, and value systems—that idealizes and advocates a fusion of Christianity with American civic life."[3] While carefully evading the trap of using terms such as "white conservative Protestantism" as "theological interpretive positions",[4] they further define that Christian nationalism "includes assumptions of nativism, white supremacy, patriarchy, and heteronormativity, along with divine sanction for authoritarian control and militarism. It is as ethnic and political as it is religious."[5] Few other scholars, unfortunately, are far-fetching the possible ramifications of such a framework: Goldberg asserts that "the ultimate goal of Christian nationalist leaders [is not] fairness. It's dominion. The movement is built on a theology that asserts the Christian right to rule."[6]

Similarly, Cooper-white underlines the opinion that Christian nationalists are on their crusade to "dominate and be in control - and all in this blessed name of Jesus"[7] In a broader sense of defining a religious nationalism, McDaniel, Nooruddin and Shortle define it as a phenomenon “which seeks to shut down our secular thought and reasoning.”[8] Whitehead asserts that this phenomenon is not a frivolous occurrence in the evangelical movement, but just the opposite: “Christian nationalism is at the very heart of contemporary evangelicalism, not on a fringe.”[9] Seidel takes a more manichean approach as he describes Christian nationalism as “unholy alliance, an incestuous marriage of conservative politics, and conservative Christianity”[10] as it stems from the conservative novelist Tim LaHaye. Cooper-White underlines the racial aspect of the entire movement: “Christian nationalism really means white nationalism and stands opposed to virtually everything Jesus thought.”[11] Whitehead and Perry are fairly separating the meaning of Christian nationalism and theocracy: “while theocracy often implies that religious leaders, even clergy in certain manifestations, play a central role in governance”, Christian nationalists are more prone to keep the governance in the hands of politicians, not clergy.[12] It is important to stress that Whitehead and Perry are distinguishing soft and hard proponents of the Christian Nationalism, where soft are defined as Accommodators, and strong proponents as Ambassadors.[13] The same author in a different publication refers to Jan. 6 as a pivotal event, the outcome of what was preparing for decades[14], while Christian nationalism itself is one of the “oldest and most powerful currents in American politics.”[15] Author goes even further and asserts that same ideology inspired our famous novelist, Cormac McCarthy to write “The Road” or to emerge movies like “Captain America”[16] Gorsky and Perry, however, distinguish between patriotism and nationalism, where “patriotism is animated by love, while nationalism by hatred.” Furthermore, they differentiate, and rightfully so, the difference between Christian patriotism and Christian nationalism: “So long as patriotism is understood in terms of constitutional ideals and democratic institutions, and citizenship is not based on racial, ethnic, or religious identity. But if you pledge allegiance to your ethno-cultural tribe, and place them above the rights of your fellow citizens, then you have crossed the line into white Christian nationalism.”[17] Djupe, Lewis and Sokhey assert that Christian nationalism “defines citizenship narrowly on group-basis; it articulates the right aims for public policy, which are to work overtly to benefit Christian groups and individuals. The right groups - Christians are elevated, while outsiders are marginalized.”[18] Along with other authors they mark Jan. 6 insurrection as a pivotal event that depicts the violent force behind this partisan initiative.[19] Cooper-White observes that since the 90’s, there is a shift from the “extreme version of theocracy” to “premillennialist and theonomic character [...] of Christian nationalism”, which is also getting traction in contemporary conservative education to “produce ever increasing cadre of graduates to strengthen the influence of Conservative christian beliefs, on the practice of law, the judiciary, and the national government.”[20] Stewart underlines the fact that the public is not well informed about the phenomenon as it has been “misunderstood and underestimated”[21]. Furthermore, Stewart is stressing the perilous and anti-democratic and political nature of the movement and its quest for power and dominion: “It’s not a social or cultural movement. It’s a political movement, and its ultimate goal is power. It does not seek to add another voice to America’s pluralistic democracy, but to replace our foundational democratic principles and institutions with a state grounded on a particular version of Christianity, answering to what some adherents call a “biblical worldview”.[22] She continues her definition by underlying the manipulative nature of the movement: “Christian nationalism is also a device for mobilizing (and often manipulating) large segments of the population and concentrating the power in the hands of a new elite. [...] It actively generates or exploits cultural conflict in order to improve its grip on the target population.”[23]


There is an overall consensus among the mentioned scholars that Christian nationalism stems from "white Evangelicalism" and Protestantism. Its primary goal is to dominate the political realm with legislative actions that will serve the "white" religious right and ultimately replace democracy with authoritarian theocracy. January 6th, 2020, is described as a pivotal element that reflects just how far and serious Christian nationalism could be if not taken seriously. However, is that the case? First and foremost, one event is instead the exception rather than a rule by which one can build a plausible narrative. Furthermore, the event was not a display of Christian nationalism, as some authors referred to it as Christian symbols that were relatively scarce. Mark David Hall asserts that "one Christian flag among the rioters is one too many, but the presence of one flag does not mean Christian flags were everywhere."[24] Just the opposite, Christian symbols were so rare that the committee assigned to present the report on the riots wasn’t concerned too much, to even mention them: “If Christian nationalist symbols were as ubiquitous among the January 6 rioters as critics claim, it is surprising that the House Select Committee charged with investigating the incident didn’t discuss them. Indeed, the committee, which consisted of seven Democrats and two Republicans, mentioned ‘Christian nationalism’ just once in its 845-page report.”[25]


By watching available January 6 footage and the protests before the insurrection, one of the most comprehensive compilations from Vice[26], it is clear that the dominant iconography consisted of USA, Maga, "Do not Tread on Me," and some Confederate flags. Christian symbols were so rare that they should be deemed irrelevant. There is one footage that shows women shouting, "Christ is our king, and Trump is our president.", but few individuals do not make the rule. Nevertheless, it is important to stress that insurrection was an unconstitutional act of violence instigated by the unhinged mob who had very little to do with Christianity. Still, relating the Christian element to insurrection is far-fetched and biased. However, Christian nationalism does exist, but not in how its critics portray it. Mark David Hall describes the movement as more benign than most critics: "American Christian nationalism, as I define it, is a relatively benign phenomenon. This is not to say that it is entirely harmless, as I discuss below, but it does not pose 'an existential threat to American democracy and the Christian church in the United States.'"[27]


It's widely believed that most of the academia in the United States aligns with the left or far-left political spectrum. Mark David Hall, in his argument, suggests that most criticisms of Christian nationalism are often shaped by political biases. However, it's essential for Christians not to be politically passive, but to be at the forefront in advocating for Christian principles in the political domain. We should trust our political preference over candidates who best represent us in the executive mansion. This doesn't mean Christian nationalism, but rather political activism. Hall asserts that such activism is a duty: "In a country like the United States, we must do so. American citizens, like citizens of other functioning democracies, have the ability to affect laws and public policies by voting, running for office, and advocating for causes we believe in. Because we can make a difference, we should do so by electing candidates and promoting policies that benefit."[28] This is an example of Christian patriotism, as long as it doesn't assume: "nativism, white supremacy, patriarchy, and heteronormativity, along with divine sanction for authoritarian control and militarism"[29] as Whitehead and Perry asserted which should rightly be labeled as Christian nationalism. Furthermore, Hall underlines the need for Christian political activism: "Politics is messy, and it is sometimes ugly as well. But avoiding politics has political consequences, whether we like it or not. [...] I'm not saying that non-Christians cannot be dedicated to helping the entire community, just that Christian involvement should make it far more likely that good leaders will be elected and that good policies will be adopted."[30]


Saint Augustin, in his work "De civitate Dei," illustrates the contrast between two realities or states depicted in two cities ("civitas Dei" and "civitas terrena"). First, the godly city is where all the angels and Christians abide. The residents of the second one are inclined to their sins, greed, and selfishness. The human inclination toward sin (libido dominandi) is placed in the very heart of the second city, while the unselfish need to serve one another is placed in the center of the godly city. This dualism depicts the ongoing tension between the career politicians who exercise politics for the sake of politics instead of exercising it for the sake of the people who entrusted their votes to them. It is in this respect that Christians are not just called, but empowered to be socially and politically responsible. They are to exercise their faith and moral standings in the political domain, becoming the catalysts for the shift in our political reality. Like in Augustin's parable, our political reality must shift from one city to another. From selfish and corrupt officials to virtue-inclined servants of the people who will make society a better place and serve its residents regardless of their religious, political, or other beliefs or inclinations. This is the part we, as Christians, are not just called, but responsible for. That is an essential part of Christian patriotism.


Project 2025 is now widely considered a political manifesto of Christian Nationalism. It is a battle plan backed up by the Heritage Foundation and 80 other conservative think tanks and tailored to fit the agenda of the next Republican president. However, the ideas presented in this lengthy 900-page blueprint are sometimes far-fetched, overly radical. It is a Rushdoony-like manuscript that resonates with theocratic tendencies and archaic religious zealotism, bringing heteronormativity to another level. However, in all fairness, it is unclear to which extent lawmakers intend to push the proposed legislation and how that will reshape the democracy in the United States. Perhaps the ultimate question that needs answering is whether it envisions an authoritarian image of political ordinance tailored for like-minded Christian supremacists, threatening the principles of a constitutional republic, or tends to restore balance into radicalized far-left dystopian frameworks that are currently in effect. Reading through this massive document, as conservative Christians, we tend to agree with many of the proposed guidelines as they align with the principles of our faith. Still, as American citizens, we should be fully aware that principles of democracy and free society extend well beyond the boundaries founded on the Scripture or the particular religious interpretation thereof and, what's more importantly, our personal beliefs.


Our forefathers wrote the Constitution to create a republic that would entail justice and liberty for all its citizens, regardless of race or religion, with no official church, even though 98% of Americans in 1791 when the Amendments of the Constitutions were written were Protestants escaping the religious persecutions in Europe. Nevertheless, they understood the value of spiritual, ethnic, and cultural diversity and its implications.[31] Though the Constitution did not define the Christianity as an official religion, undoubtedly, Christian faith practiced by the majority of the founding fathers had a significant impact on writing the founding document. In his farewell address George Washington issues a poignant statement on the importance of religion: “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and citizens.”[32] Maddison underlines the importance of God’s authority: “Before any man can be considered as a member of civil society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe.”[33] Madison understood that assuming the responsibility towards divine authority as the foundation for civic responsibility. John Adams declared in 1798 that “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”[34] For Adams, this moral foundation was essential for sustaining liberty, as it encouraged voluntary obedience to moral law and restrained destructive impulses such as greed and ambition. During his speech at the Ratifying Convention, Patrick Henry accentuated the relation between faith and morality: “Bad men cannot make good citizens. It is when people forget God, that tyrants forge their chains...”[35]


This leads us to an ontological argument that the Constitution itself was shaped by the Christian tradition. The reasoning follows a simple syllogism: if the Founding Fathers were influenced by their Christian faith, then the United States Constitution, as the product of their deliberation, necessarily bears the imprint of Christian values. As Alexis de Tocqueville would later observe in Democracy in America, religion was regarded not as a threat to liberty but as its indispensable guardian, anchoring the civic order in a shared moral horizon: “So religion, which among the Americans never directly takes part in the government of society, must be considered as the first of their political institutions; for if it does not give them the taste for liberty, it singularly facilitates their use of it.”[36] To maintain intellectual honesty, we can’t assert that the United States was founded as a Christian nation and one of the most common arguments cited in this regard is a Treaty of Tripoli (1797). Negotiated under President George Washington, signed by President John Adams, and unanimously ratified by the U.S. Senate it firmly underlines the following: “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”[37] However, most proponents of secularism which resort to this reference willfully omit the context of this document, which was a business deal and by making sure that this treaty is signed, the founding fathers resorted to a a diplomacy to reassure the Muslim rulers of Tripoli that America’s government had no religious hostility toward Islam, unlike some European powers. As Fea observes, should such a claim be correct, “somebody forgot to explain it to American people, [...] The idea that the United States was a `Christian Nation` was central to American identity in the years between the Revolution and the Civil war.”[38]


Undoubtedly, the period between the Revolution and the Civil War offers some of the strongest evidence of how seriously the early generations of Americans regarded the importance of Christianity in public life, as John Fea underlines. During these years, significant initiatives emerged that sought to more closely unite the nation’s political identity with its religious heritage. One of the most notable came in 1863, when a group of Protestant ministers, later organized as the National Reform Association, proposed a constitutional amendment that would not only affirm the divine authority of the Scriptures but also explicitly acknowledge Jesus Christ as Savior and Messiah.[39] I am convinced that had such an opportunity not been missed, the Republic might have been more resilient against the steady moral and spiritual decline of the nation — and, perhaps most importantly, against the advance of radical secularism and the corrosive effects of postmodern nihilism and “dictatorship of relativism”[40]. Contemporary cultural critics such as Rod Dreher and Douglas Murray echo this concern, noting that a civilization untethered from transcendent truth inevitably drifts toward polarization, and despair: “The greatest danger we face is not external persecution but the internal loss of cultural memory — forgetting who we are and why we believe what we believe”[41], as Dreher observes, while Murray pinpoints the essence of centuries emerging relativism: “The problem of the modern West is not that it has become too skeptical, but that it has become skeptical of everything except skepticism itself”[42]. With that said, we must assert that our nation consists of a plurality of different beliefs and viewpoints that do not identify with a binary concept that tenets of Christian beliefs postulate. In that respect, even though we may have elected power in the executive mansion, similar to our founding fathers, we must provide a framework where all our citizens can exercise their constitutional freedoms, regardless of the personal or religious beliefs of the majority. There is a substantial difference between our beliefs and the social contract on which our society stands, which is a Constitution. Yet the question remains: in the face of emerging relativism, radical postmodern secularism, increasingly open expressions of anti-American and anti-Christian sentiment, and deliberate efforts to erode the foundations of the Republic, can the Constitution’s deliberate secular character continue to safeguard liberty and Judeo-Christian values? Or, by remaining ambiguous in its relationship to transcendent truth, will the nation ultimately render itself vulnerable to collapse from within? Will the Republic — already bearing the marks of an Empire — crumble beneath the weight of its own pluralistic ambitions, much as Rome did under the strain of decadence and division? Or are we still at a point where renewal is possible, where the Republic might yet recover its moral foundations before it is too late?
________________
Bibliography
Adams, John. The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States. Edited by Charles Francis Adams. Boston: Little, Brown, 1854.
Augustine. The City of God. Translated by Henry Bettenson. London: Penguin Classics, 2003.
Cooper-White, Pamela. The Psychology of Christian Nationalism: Why People Are Drawn in and How to Talk Across the Divide. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2022.
Djupe, Paul A., Jacob R. Neiheisel, and Anand E. Sokhey. The Political Influence of Churches. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2018.
Fea, John. Was America Founded as a Christian Nation?: A Historical Introduction. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011.
Goldberg, Michelle. Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism. New York: W.W. Norton, 2006.
Gorski, Philip S., and Samuel L. Perry. The Flag and the Cross: White Christian Nationalism and the Threat to American Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press, 2022.
Hall, Mark David. Who’s Afraid of Christian Nationalism?: Why Christian Nationalism Is Not an Existential Threat to America or the Church. Nashville: Fidelis Books, 2024.
McDaniel, Eric L., Irfan Nooruddin, and Allyson Faith Shortle. The Everyday Crusade: Christian Nationalism in American Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2022.
Murray, Douglas. The Madness of Crowds: Gender, Race and Identity. New York: Bloomsbury Continuum, 2019.
Perry, Samuel L., and Andrew L. Whitehead. Taking America Back for God: Christian Nationalism in the United States. New York: Oxford University Press, 2020.
Seidel, Andrew L. The Founding Myth: Why Christian Nationalism Is Un-American. New York: Sterling, 2019.
Stewart, Katherine. The Power Worshippers: Inside the Dangerous Rise of Religious Nationalism. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2020.
Tocqueville, Alexis de. Democracy in America. Translated by Harvey C. Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.
Washington, George. George Washington’s Farewell Address. Philadelphia: 1796.
Whitehead, Andrew L., and Samuel L. Perry. American Idolatry: How Christian Nationalism Betrays the Gospel and Threatens the Church. Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2023.


________________
[1] M. David Hall, Who’s Afraid of Christian Nationalism: Why Christian Nationalism Is Not an Existential Threat to America or the Church (n.p.: Fidelis Books, 2024).
[2] Pamela Cooper-White, The Psychology of Christian Nationalism: Why People Are Drawn in and How to Talk Across the Divide (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2022), 2.
[3] Andrew L. Whitehead and Samuel L. Perry, Taking America Back for God: Christian Nationalism in the United States (New York: Oxford University Press, 2020), 10
[4] Ibid:10
[5] Ibid:10
[6] See: Michelle Goldberg, Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism (New York: W. W. Norton, 2007), 7.
[7] Cooper-White: 2022:3
[8] Eric L. McDaniel, Irfan Nooruddin, and Allyson F. Shortle, The Everyday Crusade: Christian Nationalism in American Politics (New Delhi: Cambridge University Press, 2022), 22.
[9] Whitehead, nd.
[10] Andrew L. Seidel, The Founding Myth: Why Christian Nationalism Is Un-American (New York: Union Square & Company, 2019).
[11] Cooper-White: 2022:3
[12] Whitehead and Perry: 2020: XXI
[13] Ibid, 10.
[14] Philip S. Gorski and Samuel L. Perry, The Flag and the Cross: White Christian Nationalism and the Threat to American Democracy (New York: Oxford University Press, 2022), 2.
[15] Ibid: 1.
[16] Ibid: 6.
[17] Ibid: 9.
[18] Djupe, Lewis, Sokhley: 2023
[19] Ibid.
[20] Cooper-White, 2022: 19.
[21] Stewart: 2020: 3
[22] Ibid: 3
[23] Ibid: 4
[24] Hall, 2024: 14
[25] Ibid: 16.
[26] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hszd21sQa0s
[27] Hall, 2024: 166
[28] Ibid: 196-197.
[29] Whitehead and Perry: 2020:10
[30] Hall, 2024: 197.
[31] “Christian ideas underlie some key tenets of America’s constitutional order. For instance, the Founders believed that humans are created in the image of God, which led them to design institutions and laws meant to protect and promote human dignity.”, Mark David Hall, Did America had Christian Founding?, https://www.heritage.org/political-process/report/did-america-have-christian-founding#_ftn42
[32] George Washington, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796, in A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789–1897, ed. James D. Richardson (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1896), 213.
[33] James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, June 20, 1785, in The Papers of James Madison, vol. 8, ed. Robert A. Rutland et al. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973), 295.
[34] John Adams, letter to the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachusetts, October 11, 1798, in Founders Online, National Archives
[35] Patrick, Henry, 1788. “Speech at the Virginia Ratifying Convention,” June 5. Patrick Henry Teaparty: https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/patrick-henry-virginia-ratifying-convention-va/#utm_source=chatgpt.com, accessed August 22, 2025.
[36] Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, vol. 1, ch. 17 (“Principal Causes Maintaining the Democratic Republic”).
[37] Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary (Treaty of Tripoli), signed November 4, 1796, ratified June 10, 1797, in Avalon Project: Documents in Law, History and Diplomacy, Yale Law School, accessed August 23, 2025, https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796t.asp
[38] John Fea, Was America Founded as a Christian Nation? A Historical Introduction (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011), 4-5.
[39] Ibid, 23.
[40] “We are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one’s own ego and desires.”
(Homily before the conclave, April 18, 2005). Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI), “Homily at the Mass Pro Eligendo Romano Pontifice,” April 18, 2005, Vatican Archive, https://www.vatican.va/gpII/documents/homily-proeligendo-pontifice_20050418_en.html.
[41] Rod Dreher, The Benedict Option: A Strategy for Christians in a Post-Christian Nation (New York: Sentinel, 2017), 82.
[42] Douglas Murray, The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam (New York: Bloomsbury Continuum, 2017), 258.