Christian Nationalism

There's much talk in our contemporary culture about the rise of "Christian nationalism" with seven books on the topic having been released in the last few years.

This has become controversial because, fairly or unfairly, Christian nationalism has become conflated in the popular mind with "far-right" ideologies like that of the Proud Boys or the extreme reaches of the MAGA movement. As such it has about it the odor of the disreputable.

The controversy has prompted sociologist of religion Ryan Burge to examine some data from a Baylor study to see if Christian nationalism is rising or fading.

The reader is invited to go to the link to see a list of the seven books and also to see a breakdown of the Baylor data. My concern in this post is not with the books or the data so much as it is with two other aspects of the study.

First, as Burge acknowledges, there's a lot of debate over exactly how to define Christian nationalism. For the purposes of his discussion, Burge sets that concern aside, but I'm not so sure how meaningful the data he cites are if we don't know what we're talking about when we use the term.

My second concern is that the Baylor study seeks to pin down the status of Christian nationalism by means of a series of statements, with which the respondent is asked if he or she agrees, disagrees, or is unsure. Agreement is considered indicative of an affinity for Christian nationalism, but the statements Baylor uses are just too imprecise.

The questions are as follows:

1. The federal government should advocate Christian values
2. The federal government should allow prayer in public schools
3. The federal government should allow the display of religious symbols in public spaces
4. The federal government should declare the United States a Christian nation
5. The federal government should enforce strict separation of church and state
6. The success of the United States is part of God’s plan.

If a respondent answers "yes" to #1 that indicates a predilection toward Christian nationalism, but it seems to me that "yes" is the only answer many reasonable persons could give to #1. After all, what are Christian values but the mandate to help the poor and the needy, to serve others, to seek peace, to speak the truth, to love our neighbor, and so on.

There's nothing in ancient Roman or Greek paganism that mandates these, nor is there anything in Islam, Hinduism, or secularism. To the extent that others have adopted these values they've borrowed them from Christianity, or Judeo-Christianity. So why should almost all Americans not answer "yes" to question #1?

If a respondent answers "yes" to #2 that also suggests that the respondent leans toward Christian nationalism, but what is meant by the word "allow"? Does it mean that the federal government should permit students to pray in school? If so, then of course, they should. How can they stop them?

One might very well think regarding #3 that Christmas creches, for example, should be permitted in public spaces and that individuals in public schools should be allowed to wear a cross on a necklace or a shirt with a religious message without having such symbols banned by the authorities.

Such opinions don't make one a "Christian nationalist," whatever that is.

Again, the problem with #4 lies in what is meant by the word "declare." If the word is taken to mean that the government implicitly or explicitly should acknowledge that the nation was founded by men, Christian or otherwise, who were steeped in Christian values then such an acknowledgement is only stating the obvious. It hardly makes one an extremist of some sort to recognize that.

The ambiguity in #5 arises from the word "strict." How strict should the separation of church and state be? One might believe that there should be a separation of the two without believing that the state should use its power to completely banish religion from the public square. Does that belief make one a "Christian nationalist"?

Finally, #6 prompts the question of what's meant by the word "success"? Is success defined here as economic? Military? Cultural hegemony? Suppose someone were to believe, as some of my liberal Christian friends do, that "success" should be understood as achieving racial harmony and socio-economic justice. If these left-leaning friends believe that this is God's plan does that make them "Christian nationalists"?

The fact is that Christians who are politically middle of the road could answer "yes" to each of these statements and thus be considered Christian nationalists. That being so, studies like the Baylor study that employ such vague indicators don't really tell us much.