Reflections on Postliberalism
Part 3, Defining Christian Nationalism
Before we push on with these reflections, it would be good to reflect a bit about what we mean by “Christian Nationalism” and how I’ve been using this term.
I’m put in mind here of an article by my colleague Brad East in Christianity Today. In his 2024 article “How (Not) to Talk About Christian Nationalism” Brad suggests that the label “Christian Nationalism” has lost its descriptive usefulness and is now mainly used as a slur. To make the case, Brad helpfully describes how Christian faith relates to politics in ways that are normal but get hysterically branded as “Christian nationalist.” Brad delineates six practices and beliefs that he believes should not be described as “Christian nationalist” and I quote a bit of Brad’s essay to help you see the point he is making. For Brad, the following should not be described as Christian nationalism:
1. Putting God into politics: “In the United States, people of all faiths and none are welcome to bring their deepest convictions into the public square. No one has to pretend. This is not France. No Christian, Jew, or Muslim is wrong—morally, theologically, or constitutionally—to bring faith into democratic debate.”
2. Putting politics into church: “The gospel makes public claims that pertain to the world outside the walls of the sanctuary. These claims concern Christ’s sovereign rule over the nations and his passionate affection for the poor, the marginal, and the vulnerable...Worship of a crucified Messiah can never truly be apolitical...”
3. Supporting Christian candidates for office: “Humanly speaking, there is nothing more natural than the desire for representation in democratic assemblies. Christians are not unique in wanting to vote for people who share our faith, and that tendency isn’t worth worry.”
4. Believing divine providence guides America: “I wish fellow Christians would give up this belief...And yet there is nothing more American than American exceptionalism. From our founding onward, this belief has always been with us, often with religious overtones. Christians who disagree with me on this issue aren’t radicals. They’re ordinary Americans.”
5. Believing America is, or should be, Christian: “Like American exceptionalism, the notion of an informal “Christian America” is deeply embedded in US history, culture, and law...[Arguing that America should be Christian] is no less American than arguments for a secular America. Both deserve a hearing.”
6. Doubting liberalism, democracy, or American order. A surprise here! And Brad admits that this is “the sticking point” in his argument. The word carrying the weight here is “doubting.” As we’ve described, postliberal theologians have raised a lot of “doubts” about liberalism, and those theologians don’t support Christian nationalism. As Brad writes, “Dorothy Day, Jacques Ellul, Ivan Illich, Wendell Berry, Alasdair MacIntyre, Cornel West, and Stanley Hauerwas have each placed a question mark next to some modern shibboleth: liberalism, democracy, human rights, capitalism, industrialism, the nuclear family, digital technology, American empire—whatever it may be, they’ve put it in the dock and interrogated it.” Point taken. Lots of people raise questions and express doubts about liberalism, democracy, and the American order. And many of those, like Stanley Hauerwas, have been postliberal theologians. So raising questions or doubts about liberalism, democracy, or America doesn’t automatically make you a Christian nationalist.
Before turning to my working definition of Christian nationalism, let me point to some of the good points Brad has raised, especially in his first three points. If we believe that democracy involves a rough-and-tumble debate where citizens bring into those debates their values, beliefs, and faith commitments, then we cannot tar Christians as “Christian nationalists” for showing up to that debate as Christians and arguing for Christian outcomes. Abortion is the obvious example. A committed Catholic, for example, who votes for pro-life policies and candidates is not a “Christian nationalist.” You might disagree with this Catholic voter, but you have a right to disagree and express your disagreements, loudly and passionately, as a part of the democratic process. And the fact that this debate is often angry and harsh does not make it any less democratic. Far too often, Christians behaving like Christians within the liberal, democratic order are described as “Christian nationalists.” Well, let me be more clear: Far too often, Evangelical Christians behaving like Evangelical Christians within the liberal, democratic order are described as “Christian nationalists.” I think liberal and progressive Christians need to take this to heart. Evangelical Christians are allowed to be Evangelical Christians as they engage the liberal, democratic project, just as you are allowed to express and vote for your own values and worldview.
So what is a Christian nationalist? Taking a cue from Brad, it has got to be more than raising questions about the health of the liberal order. So here is my definition of Christian nationalism: Christian nationalists are those who believe that the government should use illiberal and authoritarian means to create and control a Christian political and cultural order. Christian nationalists are those who view the liberal, democratic order of America, and the pluralism it produces, as a political obstacle that must be overcome. According to Christian nationalism, the pursuit of a Christian vision of the good must take precedence over the preservation of freedom and liberty. Hungary's Viktor Orbán put the postliberal political vision this way: "The new state that we are are building in Hungary is an illiberal state, a non-liberal state."
I would encourage you to read Laura Field’s Furious Minds: The Making of the MAGA New Right for an intellectual tour of postliberal political thinking, along with related intellectual movements from Christian nationalism to Catholic integralism. There are thinkers, with Ivy League credentials, who are arguing for an illiberal politics on behalf of their vision of the common good.
But other examples of Christian nationalism are closer to hand. For example, any and all Christians who supported the “Stop the Steal” narrative, participated in or supported the January 6th insurrection at the US Capitol, and who continue to endorse and propagate the Big Lie about the 2020 presidential election meet my definition of Christian nationalism. That is to say, these Christians supported the rejection of a legitimate democratic election in order to keep Donald Trump in power. Political illiberalism was embraced to further the pursuit of a Christian nation. If creating a Christian nation required an illiberal reversal of an election, then so be it
Now, some might respond that many (most?) of these Christians actually believed there were electoral shenanigans going on in the 2020 election. True. But let me connect some dots here.
Christians who came to believe in the Big Lie found the prospect of a Joe Biden win intolerable, precisely because of their Christian commitments. They faced, however, an electoral loss. Democratic reality and Christian desire (even Biblical prophecy!) came into conflict. That outcome was so tragic it became unbelievable. And yet, these Christians were Americans who claimed to value freedom, liberty, and democracy. Consequently, to make their dream come true these Christians could not consciously and explicitly embrace an illiberal politics, denying the will of the people to keep Trump in office. These Christians experienced what psychologists call “cognitive dissonance.” To resolve that dissonance, these Christians were psychologically motivated to view the 2020 election results as fraudulent. By embracing the Big Lie they could reject the democratic outcome of the election, thereby making their presidential dream come true while still believing they were true Americans who championed liberty and “We the People.” We might call these Christians “Unwitting Christian Nationalists” or “Functional Christian Nationalists.” An unwitting, functional Christian nationalist is a Christian whose desire for a Christian political outcome is so powerful that it overwhelms and biases their perception of political reality, allowing them to reject democratic outcomes while still believing themselves defenders of democracy. And for my part, these unwitting and functional Christian nationalists are just as worrisome as the explicit and self-conscious Christian nationalists Fields describes in Furious Minds.
I'm a little confused there. People believe the election was stolen, rightly or wrongly... how in the world does that make them Christian Nationalists? I suspect there were a number of secular, functionally secular, and non christian people involved in stop the steal. Many of the most radical and worrisome in the post liberal right are not Christian at all, rather adopting pagan frameworks. Even then - the stop the steal people are not even necessarily post liberal. Most of them are poor folks who were down on their luck, putting all their eggs in Trump's basket.
I was hopeful about this series, but this is poor analysis Dr. Beck.
Christian Nationalism, as it was understood until it became a political weapon of the Left, was the integration of Church and State power. Maybe some of the integralists meet that definition. Vermule certainly bothers me a bit. And Dominionists are obviously disturbing and increasingly a problem since they seemingly are working hand in hand with Netanyahu - but most people use Christian Nationalism as a cudgel, just the same as the definition of racism and all the "phobias" are expanded as a weapon to silence any who disagree with leftist political conclusions.
As one who, from the other side of the Pond, has read several analyses of the unholy alliance between Evangelicals and the Republican Party (especially Trump), but remain perplexed as to how such an alliance could come about, I find your post interesting and helpful. The cognitive dissonance is a dimension I hadn't come across before.
However, concerning the January 6 insurrection, my view starts with the undisputed fact that Donald Trump is an extreme narcissist. Just as (much less seriously) he couldn't bear the thought of the crowd at his inauguration being less than that at Barack Obama's, he couldn't thole the possibility of losing the 2020 election. But he is (or was) more cunning and devious than he is often made out to be, and he had enough wit to realise that he might lose, so he started planting the seeds of the Big Lie well ahead of the election. This prepared his followers to believe it.
As for whether the insurrection was Christian Nationalism, I respond: Nationalism - yes. Christian - not on your Nellie (as we say in Scotland). No way is a violent event based on an untruth Christian. And even for those who were conned or brainwashed into believing it to be true, it was still violent. But your analysis is probably the first I have read by a psychologist, and that perspective definitely sheds light on the mentality. (See also my reply to David Lipscomb, below.)
Christian nationalism remains alive and well (although past its prime) in Northern Ireland. I'd see it as more "Christian" than the USA version, as it has more of a theological (Protestant Reformation / Calvinist) basis than anything I see in the USA. And yet I still reject it as a true expression of Christianity. I know of no better commentary on the Northern Ireland situation than Runrig's song "Eirinn" (google it!), the last verse of which is:
Now one world window opens wide and demons they show face
Some of your men have taken seeds of truth and planted fields of hate.
This way has never won a war, and I fear that when harvest comes
You'll see your freedom fall on stony ground and the green all overgrown.