This primer on Christian nationalism grew mainly out of discussions on X. The term “Christian nationalism,” as I use it here, has become something of an umbrella term for conservative/traditional Protestants who want to see Christian influence on national life and culture. Obviously, some see problems with the label – I do as well – but it’s the current term, and it’s being applied to conservative Christians whether we like it or not, so I use it broadly here. Because I am using the term in a generalized way, there are many versions of Christian nationalism and my aim here is to look at some of the major differences amongst those to whom the label can be applied. I am seeking to give the lay of the land for those who are interested in figuring out what Christian nationalism is and where, if anywhere, they land on its map.
We’re All Christian Nationalists Now
Most any conservative Christian who speaks up politically is likely to be branded a “Christian nationalist” by others, if he hasn’t already self-adopted the label. Even something as simple as advocating for the criminalization of abortion can get one labelled a “Christian nationalist” by the media. The label became especially common as a slur against Christian Trump voters after the January 6, 2021 capitol building incident. While the intellectual leaders of the Christian Nationalism (CN) do not seem married to the term, it’s sticking at least for now, and many conservative Christians have embraced it (or been tagged with it), even if it might not have been their terminology of choice.
Each part of the CN label is important. Advocates want a distinctively Christian politics, rather than a secular one (or one animated by some other religious tradition). They want a social order in which God’s Word and Christ’s church are recognized for what they are. They believe the nation has a moral obligation to recognize and obey the Triune God. Of course, a nation that is officially Christian will not impose Christian faith on people – though civil law would impose a generalized Christian morality on people’s outward behavior because all civil law is imposed morality (e.g., marriage laws, abortion laws, welfare laws, property laws, etc. would reflect biblical teaching). Faith cannot be coerced, and all Christian nationalists believe in sphere sovereignty, namely, the view that church and state are distinct institutions with their own jurisdictions, officers, and roles. CNs are decidedly anti-statist. While some accuse CNs of trusting in political power, or the sword of the state, these are slanders; nothing could be further from the truth. CNs do not look for salvation in the state; rather, they want Jesus’ salvation and reign to shape the way the state operates. CNs want a limited government and low taxation in order to maximize ordered liberty for individuals, families, and businesses; they generally stress personal responsibility and reject the nanny (welfare) state; they do not want the state to usurp the role of fathers as protectors and providers, but they do want policies that encourage lifelong monogamous marriage and large families; they reject socialism and crony capitalism; they want sound money that cannot be easily manipulated; they want education taken out of the hands of the state and put in the hands of parents; they reject the managerialism and bureaucratic bloat that makes government unaccountable; they respect the right of civil disobedience in certain cases, and the role of lesser magistrates to resist tyranny; and so on. The CN political agenda is not radical by historical standards; it will be very familiar to anyone who is well acquainted with traditional conservative principles of civil government. A Christian nation is not a nation with an established church or a favored denomination (though Christian nations have had establishment arrangements at times, it is not necessary or always desirable), but it is a nation influenced by the church and respectful of the church. A Christian nation is not a nation in which every individual is a Christian. A Christian nation is a nation in which Christian faith is deeply pervasive, even as leaven permeates a whole batch of dough. It is a nation in which Christian faith is twisted into the constitution and culture of the people.
Further, CN advocates believe that God has generally organized humanity into nations, and so they oppose the globalist, multicultural order progressives push for today, and instead favor one rooted in the particularity of national cultures; hence the nationalism part of the label. While “nationalism” has some negative connotations, it can be thought of in this context as an intentional and directed kind of patriotism, seeking the good of one’s nation and fellow citizens. Nationalism is simply the love of one’s country and one’s countrymen. Nationalism is animated by gratitude for our culture, heritage, and the land in which God has providentially placed us. Nationalism means civil rulers should protect the interests of their own nation, rather than serving a globalized order or prioritizing immigrants above their own people. Nations might have their identity shaped by propositions and ideas (this is certainly true in the case of America), but nations are fundamentally constituted by a people, with bonds to one another, a shared memory of their past, and a common language and culture. Nations are rightly concerned with the productivity and prosperity of their own people, but nations are not merely marketplaces or economic zones. Nations are not families, but they have a familial quality and their civil rulers are rightly regarded as father figures, after a fashion.
The CN discussion is not just about America, though it is taking place primarily in an American context right now. American CNs do not just want America to be a Christian nation; we want all nations to be thoroughly Christianized. There is nothing provincial about CN. CN can be understood as the outworking of the Great Commission. To say every nation is to be discipled (Matthew 28:16-20) is to say every nation should be Christianized. This is not about American exceptionalism — indeed, there are no exceptions. Every nation has the same obligation to King Jesus. When enough nations have been Christianized, we call the result Christendom. Many CNs are postmillennialists (or optimistic amillennialists) and therefore believe Christendom is the future. But even aside from views about the future course of history, all CNs recognize that Christendom (however imperfect or incomplete) has been a historical reality. Nations have been Christianized on a wide scale in the past and our hope is that they will be again.
All CNs recognize that Western civilization in general and America in particular arose out of the Christian faith; our peoplehood and our way of life were birthed by the gospel and make no sense without it. Our culture, customs, and constitutions are rooted deep in the soil of Scripture; cut off from trust in and obedience to God’s Word, those traditions wither and die. The crisis of identity experienced by Western nations today is due to widespread apostasy and cannot be reversed without a repentant return to the faith that formed our national identities in the first place. The history of the West was, until quite recently, largely synonymous with the history of Christendom and the only way for the West to become great again is to restore and renew Christendom.
Maybe the best way to get at the usefulness of the CN label is to compare it to alternatives. If not a Christian nationalism, then what kind of nation do we want? Secular? Progressive? Islamic? Buddhist? There is no religious neutrality. Every nation has a G/god, which serves as the source of order and the standard of morality. Obviously, Christians will (or should) desire the Christian God to be our society’s source of law and meaning. What else could Jesus have meant when he commanded us to make the nations his disciples, and to teach them everything he commanded (Matt. 28:16ff)? Every nation is being discipled into the will of some G/god. Which will it be? Every society is intrinsically religious. What religion do we want to prevail? If we believe Jesus is King of kings and Lord of lords, then the answer should be obvious.
We can make the second part of the CN label multiple choice as well. If not a Christian nationalism, then what? Tribalism? Globalism? Individualism? Imperialism? Obviously, Christians should want to see the Lord Jesus honored in all of life and culture – I want to live in a Christian home, with a Christian family, on a Christian street, in a Christian neighborhood, in a Christian town, in a Christian county, in a Christian country, on a Christian planet, in a Christian cosmos. But there is no question biblically that God has generally organized humanity into nations. This is not to discount the reality of smaller gatherings (like states or tribes) nor deny the possibility of larger groupings (like an empire), which can be sanctioned in various ways at various times. But the Bible has quite a bit to say about nations – in Genesis 10, Scripture gives a table of 70 nations that came out of Babel; God promised to bless all the nations of the earth in Abraham’s seed; in Psalm 2, the nations rage against the messiah and get inherited by the messiah as his redemptive possession; in Isaiah 60, the nations and their kings bring their peculiar treasures into God’s the kingdom; the Great Commission is structured in terms of nations; in Revelation, there are hints that national identities will continue to exist in the final new creation; and so on. Nations in the Bible might not be identical to the modern nation-state in every respect, but they are identifiable people groups that typically have their own language and culture, their own governments and borders. Nations are covenantal entities, in that God blesses and judges nations as nations. Nations are the objects of Christ’s redemptive work and the church’s missionary efforts. God recognizes nations because they are his providential creations (Acts 17:26). While “nationalism” is an infelicitous term in a lot of ways, with plenty of baggage, in this particular context, it is quite useful. We live in a nation and we are called to disciple our nation.
The Genealogy of Christian Nationalism
But CN is really just the latest in a long string of attempts to bring about a renewal of Christian politics from within the Reformed tradition. While Wolfe generally likes to distance his Christian political project from others in more recent history, there are definitely links and similarities with prior attempts to do the same. For example, in the 1970s and 1980s, the Christian Reconstructionist (CR) movement arose as a way of seeking to shape American politics in a distinctively biblical way. The goal of CR was to reconstruct all of society in accord with biblical law (known as “theonomy”). A recent post by Wolfe on X sought to put a good bit of daylight between his views and those of the Reconstructionists. But while CN and CR certainly have their differences (which we will come to shortly), it’s not surprising they would be lumped together by many, especially outside observers who will not pick up on all the nuanced differences between their positions. CRs have been more or less absorbed into the CN discussion. Let’s consider some connections.
Wolfe’s book was published by Canon, which is associated with Douglas Wilson. Canon’s penumbra has always been theonomic. Wilson and many associated with him have embraced their own version of CN, but they were generally considered theonomists/reconstructionists in years past. While Wolfe and Wilson obviously do not agree on everything, there is also some broad family resemblance in their positions. Canon has played a huge role in morphing the CR/theonomy discussion into the CN discussion. CN really just a new label for a new phase in a discussion that has been ongoing for over a generation. For the purpose of this paper, those who align with Wolfe and those who trace their theological genealogy back through the CR movement may all be considered CNs, albeit of different varieties. Of course, there are also CR advocates that come from outside the Reformed tradition altogether.
Further, while the theonomists and reconstructionists were generally regarded as biblicists, they were interested in historic Reformed political theology every bit as much as Wolfe. Like contemporary CNs, they pointed to the Reformed confessional tradition (especially chapter 23 of the Westminster Confession and chapter 36 of the Belgic Confession). Following Abraham Kuyper, who was following John Calvin, CRs were all about pressing the crown right of King Jesus into every sphere of life, including the political realm. The CRs interacted extensively with the primary historical sources and tried to bolster their biblical arguments with appeals to history. For example, The Journal of Christian Reconstruction republished Cotton Mather’s “An Abstract of the Laws of New England” in 1979, showing that Mather wanted to implement biblical law in the New England colonies. A lot of JCR essays over the years were historical in nature, aiming to show that theonomy had at least broad precedent in the Reformed tradition. A 1991 Biblical Horizons Conference on “Calvinism and Theocracy” included detailed lectures on Althusius’ Politica. While Wolfe makes use of Althusius’ work, CRs were interested in his plan for a Christian political order over 30 years ago. CRs often also cited Martin Bucer’s De Regno Christi, his book written to provide wisdom to King Edward VI about governing a Christian realm. Gary North, a leading CR voice, complained decades ago that Reformed publisher Banner of Truth was creating an entirely inaccurate picture of Puritanism by republishing their works on piety but not politics. North himself had a hand in getting some of Calvin’s more intensely political sermons republished in the book The Covenant Enforced. R. J. Rushdoony and North both published detailed studies of America’s political origins and the role of Christian faith in shaping our nation (though they came to very different conclusions about the extent of Christian influence on the founders). Doug Kelly was closely associated with CR and theonomy, and he published one of the best historical studies of Calvinist politics, The Emergence of Liberty in the Modern World, in 1992. David Chilton’s works from the 1980s often made sweeping and historically insightful claims about the influence of Christian faith on Western civilization, from the medieval period through the Reformers. And so on.
But the connections between CR and CN go beyond a shared interest in old books. When contemporary CNs critique modern liberalism, much of what they say sounds almost exactly like what CRs and theonomists of various stripes were saying back in the 1970s and into the 1990s. The critique of liberalism from the Christian right is nothing new. Modern liberalism assumes society is a marketplace of ideas, and the state’s role to make sure competing factions battle it out on a level playing field. But this assumes a kind of theoretical neutrality that is impossible in actual practice. Indeed, CRs regularly attacked “the myth of neutrality” – everyone is trying to impose their particular vision of what the nation should be on society as a whole. Some CRs (and their heirs) have been (or have become) staunch defenders of classical liberalism (e.g., Andrew Sandlin). But what do they mean by “classical liberalism”? They mean the liberalism of the American founding and the American Constitution in its original form. Classical liberalism is certainly distinguishable from modern liberalism, and seems quite illiberal by the standards of modern liberalism. Classical liberalism is quite compatible with many features of the CN project since at the time of America’s founding, numerous states had established churches and religious tests for office, sodomy and blasphemy were criminalized, and Christians norms normed society as a whole.
And that brings us to the deep and broadest commonality shared by these various approaches to Christian nationhood, whether of the CR or CN variety — they all want Christian norms to norm the nation’s politics and culture. They all want some version of Christendom. They want everyone to live under the Christian gaze. At this point, the CN label describes a broad and loose coalition of Christians who want to see historic Christian faith politically and culturally influential. Wolfe has laid out the argument for Christian nationalism this way:
“(1) All moral entities ought to acknowledge the true God in word and deed.
(2) Nations are moral entities.
Therefore, (3) nations ought to acknowledge the true God in word and deed.
(4) The true God is the Triune God.
Therefore, (5) nations ought to acknowledge the Triune God in word and deed.”
Elsewhere, he summarizes it this way:
“Christian nationalism refers to a Christian nation being conscious of itself as such, seeking its temporal and eternal good by means of law and custom. Nationalism is resolute patriotism.”
These ways of framing the issue should have wide agreement amongst CRs and theonomists. Indeed, any who want to stand in the Reformed political tradition should find them uncontroversial. CRs may get to these conclusions differently than Wolfe, but the conclusions (and goals) are very much the same.
Fault Lines Within Christian Nationalism
But that’s not to say there are no matters of controversy even among those who are favorable to a “Christian nationalism” program. There are at least three main fault lines within the current CN discussion which must be sorted out if the movement is to have staying power and make a tangible impact on American politics: the role of the Bible, the role of the church, and the role of race and ethnicity. I will not try to completely resolve these issues here (I’ve written on each of them elsewhere), but I will attempt a summary of each of these areas of disagreement, point out some of the key questions that have to be answered, and suggest a way forward in each area:
1. The Bible
What role does the Bible play in the CN project? Many have pointed out that that Wolfe’s book is almost entirely devoid of exegesis (though it does use many theological concepts that can be considered the fruit of exegesis). Of course, Wolfe is primarily writing a work of political philosophy so perhaps the lack of Bible content is understandable. Some versions of CN appeal almost entirely to natural law, relying on a nature/grace dualism. CRs and theonomists by contrast tend to rely almost exclusively on Scripture. Both want God’s law to shape the law of the nation – hence they can both fall under the broad CN label – and they generally arrive at many of the same ethical conclusions even if they arrive at them by a different route.
Natural law CNs and biblical law CNs may not be as far apart as it would seem on this issue since natural law and biblical law are obviously compatible and complement one another. God designed general revelation and biblical revelation to form a single system of revelation. A commitment to sola Scriptura does not exclude the use of extra-biblical wisdom and traditions; it simply requires everything to be tested by the standard of Scripture (including our interpretations of natural revelation). Wolfe is not averse to the use of Scripture in dealing with political matters and most theonomists recognize that the Torah was not a complete lawcode and therefore requires civil magistrates to make prudential applications of the law’s general equity.
Sometimes the argument is made that Christians should appeal to natural law rather than the Bible in the public square because it spares us the embarrassment of appealing to a religious text that many do not respect or believe. But I would argue this is not a helpful strategy for many reasons. In contemporary culture, people who do not believe in the Bible do not believe in nature either. Natural law is really creational law; any proper understanding and use of natural law is shot through with theological (specifically Christian) presuppositions. Natural law is really the moral component of natural revelation; it is the righteousness and wisdom of the Triune God reflected in his cosmic design. Appeals to natural law are no more neutral than appeals to Scripture. And further, making arguments from nature is often at least as difficult as making arguments from biblical exegesis.
Thus, I would argue that Christians should not hesitate to bring the Bible to bear on questions of public policy. Our culture at large might no longer believe in Christ, but we are certainly a Christ-haunted culture — and so appeals to Christ’s Word can stir our corporate memory and conscience. Even progressives will make appeals to Scripture when they think it suits their purposes because they know there is still an implicit reverence for God’s Word in many quarters. In addition, as Christians, we know that God’s Word has a power that appeals to nature lack. When God’s Word goes forth, it does not return void. Scripture is the sword of the Spirit. Natural law is not a substitute for Scripture but a supplement to Scripture (since Scripture does not address every ethical question directly; sanctified reason and wisdom are necessary) and a complement to Scripture (since it helps us understand why God has given the commands he has issued in his Word). Obviously, as we make arguments for goodness, beauty, and truth in the public square, we should use all the resources God has put at our disposal — our ethical reasoning should take into account what we learn about God’s world from experience, observation, and investigation, as well as biblical teaching. Sociological studies often confirm the wisdom of God’s Word. Folk wisdom and tradition, the accumulated wisdom of the generations, often reinforces what Scripture teaches. All of these are fair game, provided we test everything against a biblical standard. But it would be foolish to leave the sword of the Spirit in its scabbard; we should unsheathe the Word of God and hack away at the lies progressives are telling. We cannot build a Christian nation without using the Christian Scriptures. To disciple our nation is to biblicize our nation. Ultimately, a Christian nation is one that finds its identity in terms of the biblical metanarrative; it is a nation that understands itself in terms of its place in God’s kingdom. A Christian nation is a Bible-shaped, Bible-saturated nation, in which the stories and symbols of Scripture dominate the national consciousness.
2. The Church
Wolfe has made it clear that, as a general rule, he does not want pastors meddling in politics: “Corporate worship ought primarily (though not exclusively) to address souls and administer sacred things for heavenly life….Pastors should concern themselves mainly with sacred things.” But this reflects a set of philosophical and theological dualisms that CRs will not accept. CRs will contend that the Bible is not just a salvation book but a political book and thus the faithful pastor cannot help but preach political sermons and make political applications. CRs point not only to the rich political wisdom found in Scripture, but also the long history of political preaching in the church, including the vital role the “black robed regiment” played in the American War for Independence. Of course, a lot of political preaching has been both bad preaching and bad politics. But, in principle, CRs always argued that the pastor has a duty to apply the Word of God to both citizens and magistrates. How else will they learn their God-assigned political duties if not from a pastor who expounds such duties from Scripture? It seems that the rise of the “spirituality of the church” doctrine in Presbyterianism and privatized pietism in evangelicalism actually aided and abetted the rise of secular progressivism precisely because they led the church to abandon political discipleship. Such approaches have kept many good Christian men on the sidelines when they should have been engaged in the culture war. Such an approach left a void that was all too easily filled by wokeness and other forms of anti-Christian politics. Pastors do not need to address every piece of legislation that comes up or endorse specific candidates from the pulpit, but they do need to preach and teach the whole counsel of God. Yes, the primary message of the pastor is always the way of salvation in Jesus (and Wolfe is right that should be the focus of the preacher’s message), but the salvation Jesus brings is comprehensive; he came to make his blessings flow far as the curse is found, and that certainly includes politics, economics, family life, and everything else. We must bring the Word of God to bear upon everything.
But there is a deeper difference here, one that is palpable even if difficult to pin down. Wolfe sees the “Christian prince” as the key to implementing the CN program. He wants to use political power to bring top-down political reformation. The mantra, “You can just do stuff,” captures this approach. Christians should seek political power and use it to achieve their ends. We need to have a resolute will and determination to accomplish our goals in the public square. Those who take this approach can point to times in biblical and church history when a king or magistrate led the way in correcting and reforming church and society.
Others (including many who came out the CR movement and especially those in the Biblical Horizons/Theopolis vein) are much more ecclesiocentric, and hold that the church is the engine that drives political and social transformation. Political and cultural transformation are the fruit of ecclesiastical reformation. The church is central to God’s plan for history and society. As Chilton once put it, the rivers of living water do not flow out of the capitol building, the school classroom, or the family hearth, but out of the sanctuary/temple that is the church.
Is the Christianization of a nation more likely to happen from the top down or from the bottom up? Do we get the Christian ruler, leading to transformation, or do we have healthy churches that work hard at discipling the nation, until that process finally reaches its capstone with a converted king or president? We have examples of both in Scripture and in church history. But as a general rule, more lasting reform comes when a faithful, growing church has deeply permeated society with the leaven of the gospel. Besides, godly magistrates do not just fall from the sky; they must be formed and molded, and the church is part of that. There are some in the CN movement who seem hostile to the church — as if the church is dead weight, standing in the way of political change. The frustration and disappointment with many evangelical and Reformed pastors is fully understandable; many pastors have failed to be faithful and put their cowardice on full display during COVID, in how they reacted to the Black Lives Matter movement, in how they have catered to feminism, and in how they have obviously allowed themselves to be steered and manipulated by what Joe Rigney has called “the progressive gaze.” But that does not change the reality that there cannot be a lasting Christianization of the nation without the church as the church pulling its weight. As the pastors, so the church; and as the churches, so the culture — these proverbial slogans remain inescapably true.
Wolfe has expressed misgivings about the slogan “worship is warfare” – and it’s true that some Christians have used worship as a substitute for political action instead the foundation of political action. But we should not underestimate the power of the weapons Christ has given to his church. The church preaches, prays, and psalm-sings her way to victory. She suffers and serves her way to triumph. There’s really no political shortcut that I can see around that. Even when kings brought top-down reforms in old covenant Israel, they usually did so because they listened to the Word of God through a prophet. Constantine’s conversion launched medieval Christendom, but only after the church had endured centuries of off and on martyrdom. The Reformation depended on magistrates to further and protect their cause, but those magistrates only did so because they heeded the teaching of faithful Protestant pastors and teachers who risked their lives to recover public proclamation of the gospel. A clergyman, John Witherspoon, was instrumental in shaping the worldview of America’s “founding fathers.” And so on.
Further, we must beware of thinking of politics as only a human endeavor. We must not demythologize politics. The reality is that demonic influence – what Paul calls the principalities and powers – infiltrates our politics all the time. There are no political counter-measures to Satan. If we want to subdue demonic influence, if we want to exorcise our politics, we will have to use the appropriate weapons. We cannot vote Satan out; we must preach and pray him out. Ecclesiocentric forms of CN recognize these realities and thus have a larger toolbox with which to work in the task of discipling the nation. Liturgical activism strengthens and supports political activism.
Or to come at this same reality from a different angle, the problem in Western nations is not just that they have been hijacked by a progressive ruling class that hates the heritage of Christendom. The problem is not just that Western elites are full of guilt and self-loathing (covering our lands in the blood of millions of innocent children slaughtered in the womb can do that, among our many other sins). Many of the disastrous policies of the left (which clearly aim at civilizational suicide) are attempts at self-atonement; they cannot be explained any other way. The problem is not merely one of policy — as if better immigration policies and economic policies, or even marriage and family policies, could fix what ails us. The real problem is that we turned away from our first love. Western nations have rebelled against Jesus and so now Jesus is smashing them with his rod of iron. We have made Jesus angry and his wrath has flared up against us. Sins like abortion and sodomy do not merely bring judgment; they are the judgment. They cut us off from the future; they foster a culture of death. Declining marriage rates and birth rates are not just demographic disasters; they are symptoms of a deeper spiritual problem — a people who have no clue how to properly order their lives and who have no hope. There is only one way out of this mess: repentance. And this is why the ministry of the church is so crucial. Judgment begins with the house of God, but repentance and reformation do as well. The church must lead the way in repentance and must call our nation as a whole to repentance. There is no other escape. We need to repent so we can be forgiven so perhaps even greater judgment can be averted. Of course, this will not be easy. The Western church has lost it saltiness, and so we are being trampled underfoot. We are in desperate need of a church that will function as salt and light. Now is the hour for the church; where is the church for the hour? Pastors must boldly rise to the occasion.
Finally, while different versions of CN see a different role for the church to play, all agree that church and state must ultimately work together in the Christianization of the nation. The state’s primary role is civil justice, but the state can indirectly promote the spiritual well-being of the people; likewise, the church’s primary role is the proclamation of the gospel in Word and sacrament, but the church in more indirect ways contributes to the temporal good of the social order. This is fully consistent with the Reformed confessional tradition.
3. Race
The race question comes to the forefront in Wolfe’s book when he argues for ethnonationalism. For Wolfe, cultural homogeneity is necessary to a coherent national identity: “People of different ethnic groups can exercise respect for difference; conduct some routine business with each other, join in inter-ethnic alliances for mutual good, and exercise common humanity (e.g., the good Samaritan), but they cannot have a life together that goes beyond mutual alliance.” Wolfe points out that in order for people to share a common life, shared religious faith is insufficient; they must also share language, customs, and so forth. We are naturally drawn to people who are like us; Wolfe argues that this “like likes like” principle would have characterized humanity even apart from sin. As a natural principle, it is beyond criticism; apparently even in a fallen world, our natural instincts in this area are fully trustworthy. Further, Wolfe points out that sociology suggests that cultural diversity lowers social trust and increases social dysfunction. The current immigration crisis in many Western nations adds further proof that mixing disparate people groups (particularly those who have no intent to assimilate) can create chaos. Some in the CN movement advocate for a kind of racial identity politics, especially as a pushback against the left’s anti-white agenda (see Jeremy Carl’s book The Unprotected Class for a diagnosis of the problem, though note his proposed solutions do not require white racial identity politics). Some go even further into a kind of genetic determinism; races cannot easily mix because they have such deep biological differences. Advocating for one’s nation actually turns into advocating for one’s racial group within the nation in at least some cases – and many of these discussions online (especially on the X social media app) have turned quite ugly at times. In addition, there are also some who have adopted an openly anti-Semitic posture, arguing that Jews are uniquely evil and have worked in covert ways to subvert America’s national interests and moral fiber. They point to Jewish involvement in the pornography industry and Hollywood, the influence of modern Israel on American politics, Jews who infiltrated American universities with cultural Marxism, and so forth. Even though much of American progressivism is homegrown, and comes from whites, the ethnonationist version of CN looks for race-based and political solutions. White evangelicals are the “lone bulwark” against progressive insanity, as Wolfe likes to say — though it must be noted much of that progressive insanity comes from liberal whites. This version of CN is largely a racialized, people and place, blood and soil, kind of nationalism.
It should be noted here that the Trump administration has been able to move towards many of CN’s goals, like deporting illegal immigrants, eliminating DEI programs, and pushing back on the insanity of gender ideology, without resorting to any kind of racial identity politics. It should also be noted that the more extreme forms of racialized CN come mainly from anonymous accounts online, and so they remain very much on the fringe of the movement. It would be grossly unfair to brand CN as a whole, or even Wolfe’s version of CN, as openly racist or kinist.
Other versions of CN, especially those who trace their theological lineage through the CR movement, do not see race functioning in the same way and push back hard against racialization. They reject racial identity politics, usually on both strategic and theological grounds. They are concerned that some versions of CN are more nationalist (or racialist) than Christian. While recognizing Judaism is a false religion, they reject the scapegoating of the Jewish people. Race, as a biological category, plays very little role in Scripture. Ethnicity, which is tied to culture and nationality, plays a much more significant role, but nations (and especially empires) are definitely not always racially homogenous in Scripture. Nations, like families, might have a shared biological core (the word “nation” is related to words like “natal” which has to do with birth) but their identity has a fluidity and permeability. Races and ethnicities are not static in history; many of the characteristics of a race and ethnicity can change over time (e.g., IQ levels, testosterone levels, etc. can fluctuate within a race over the generations, based on a variety of factors). Ethnicity and race are overlapping but distinct categories; not everyone of the same race shares ethnicity/nationality, and nations can be composed of various racial and familial backgrounds. Consider: When Israel left Egypt, they did so with a mixed multitude. These foreigners got incorporated into the nation over time. Torah required strangers and aliens who entered Israel to assimilate to the demands of Torah and to not proselytize for false gods; but the same Torah also required Israel to be hospitable to strangers and aliens. There are plenty of examples of inter-racial marriages in Scripture that are obviously much more intimate than the “mutual alliance” Wolfe describes. In the early church, the gospel reconciled Jew and Gentile believers in one body; this reconciliation was not only spiritual in nature, but had social and even political consequences. People groups who had been at enmity for generations learned to harmonize their lives in the context of local congregations, with Paul helping them work through the problems that arose in several of his letters. When the Apostle Peter segregated himself from table fellowship with Gentile believers, Paul confronted him for denying the gospel. The gospel did not negate natural affections (cf. Rom. 9:1ff), but it did transform and expand them (Lk. 10:25ff, Lk. 14:26ff, Eph. 2:11ff). In the context of the multi-racial, multi-ethnic Roman Empire, the early church’s racial and ethnic unity-in-diversity stood out as a powerful witness (see, e.g., Rodney Stark’s work The Rise of Christianity). Christians saw themselves as neither Jew nor Gentile, but as a new humanity (see., e.g., the early “Letter to Diognetus”). This does not mean national, ethnic, or racial identities disappear but it does mean they are relativized rather than absolutized; a properly Christian Nationalism is not the same as a natural nationalism or a nationalism of the flesh.
America provides an interesting case study. America became a multi-racial continent as soon as the first white men got here and were greeted by the Amerindians. The importation of black slaves added to the racial diversity. Immigrants from numerous European nations, and then from non-European nations furthered our racial diversity. We can question the wisdom of America’s immigration policy at times in our history, but we cannot rewind history. The drivers of our immigration policy have changed significantly over the years; there is no question that America’s hospitality towards immigrants was the outworking of our Christian identity at certain times, while immigration has been weaponized to undermine that same Christian identity at other times. But the race issue is not only tied to the colonial era and immigration policy; the annexation of Hawaii and Alaska as states added to America’s ethnic and racial mixture, further complicating what it means to be a “heritage American” (to use the common CN phrase). And so on. All this to say: questions of race and ethnicity are built into American history in a rather unique way. Even if the Trump administration succeeds in deporting every last illegal immigrant (which most CNs of various stripes, as advocates of the rule of law, would endorse — mass illegal immigration constitutes a kind of invasion), America will still be racially diverse. It is sometimes asked why no one complains about the fact that, say, Japan is an ethno-state, while America cannot be – but this ignores how wildly different American history is. Some measure of racial diversity is simply built into the American experiment, come what may. If racially diverse nations are doomed, there isn’t really any hope for America. But if the gospel can reconcile different races, then hope abounds. The church provides a way to integrate racial diversity within the nation into a harmonious social order analogous to what the early church did with Jews and Gentiles in the context of the Roman Empire. There is a pathway forward for a fragmented America — but only if we travel the gospel road.
Conclusion: A Movement with Promise and Problems
Not everyone who gets lumped into the CN movement has to agree on all the specifics in order for the movement to gain political traction and impact American politics. CN, like every political movement, is a loose and varied coalition. Those who gravitate to Wolfe’s version of CN will continue to have their differences with those who are rooted in CR and ecclesiocentrism (as well as those who enter the CN discussion from other backgrounds). To a large degree, the effectiveness of the movement will depend on avoiding unnecessary pitfalls and unforced errors (of which racial identity politics is the biggest, in my view, since it threatens to hamstring the movement with negligible gain — CNs would do well to explicitly distance themselves from any kind of racial animosity or arrogance). The resurgence of interest in biblical political theology and the doctrine of the civil magistrate taught in the Reformed confessions is a healthy development, though it is hard to see how CN can get traction without much healthier churches than we currently have supporting it. A nation cannot become great without great churches; if we want to make America great again, we must make our churches great. It is not enough to recover a robust public theology in academic books and online discussions; to reach the man in the pew (and beyond), our churches need more biblically-grounded and holistic preaching, more glorious and reverent worship (including psalm singing), and a more robust commitment to discipleship and discipline. CN shows promise, but like all movements, CN needs to mature if it’s going to be successful over the long haul.
Rich Lusk is pastor of Trinity Presbyterian Church in Birmingham, AL.