Christian Nationalism


Recently I read an article related to the term “Christian Nationalist.” It seems that … “A year ago, calling someone a Christian nationalist was an insult.”

In fact, after the debacle of January 6th, when rioters spoke of their cause as a religious crusade and wielded crosses and bibles and banners with scripture, many pastors pushed back on any suggestion that the actions were related to Christian Nationalism.

Some even remarked that linking the term to American evangelical Christianity was “deeply dangerous,” and one leader claimed it was an unfair “accusation.”

Oh how times have changed.

In June, this same leader commented thus: “We have the left routinely speaking of me and of others as Christian nationalists, as if we’re supposed to be running from that.” He then added: “I’m not about to run from that.”

He is not alone. As many are aware, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene declared in a Tweet: “I am being attacked by the godless left because I said I’m a proud Christian nationalist. (My emphasis.)

We also hear such remarks as: “This is just a tactic on the part of liberals and the left to smear good, patriotic, and godly Americans.” and “Christian nationalism is what we’re supposed to do.” (My emphasis.)

What has become a concern is that those who affirm the label are becoming more radicalized, more militant, and more open about it, claiming that if this is who they are, they’re going to embrace it.

“Christian Nationalism” is actually an academic term that encompasses different degrees of intensity. It includes the more harmless, everyday God-and-country white evangelicals who believe politicians and courts should eliminate barriers separating church and state, but it also identifies the violent extremists willing to tear down democratic processes to bring about their vision of a white Christian nation.

Several Republican individuals currently vying for positions in the government do support and promote the idea of Christian Nationalism; however, due to its negative connotations, they are now using the term, “Christo-fascism” when referring to the violent, extremist form of Christian nationalism seen during the Jan. 6 insurrection. Essentially, however, it is nothing more than an effort to direct attention away from their support for Trumpian extremism that has become “inextricable from some parts of white evangelical power in America.”

A Yale professor was quoted as saying that “A hallmark of fascism is this idea of regeneration through violence.” So one can’t help but wonder if the terminology even matters because, at the core, it’s the actions that speak the loudest and will determine the end results.

Image by Darelle from Pixabay

55 thoughts on “Christian Nationalism

  1. Talk about anti-American… that is what Christian Nationalism is. CN is the opposite of being patriotic to the nation. How do we know this? Because nowhere in the Constitution is there ANY link to Christianity, just the opposite: freedom from any establishment of religion or religious test to hold public office. Office holders can be religious but the holders cannot import personal religious beliefs to the exercise by the office. It’s actually unconstitutional to do so. Religious people who believe otherwise try to get around these facts by pretending the Christian religious belief was implicit or presumed versus the stark reality that it is a secular document through and through and, historically, for very good reasons: the desire for religious freedom. To advocate for a Christian Nationalism is to advocate for destroying religious freedom. It’s for these reasons that Christian Nationalism is deeply anti-American and unpatriotic. Anyone who believes otherwise does so for reasons other than what’s true.

    Liked by 9 people

    • Because nowhere in the Constitution is there ANY link to Christianity, just the opposite: freedom from any establishment of religion or religious test to hold public office.


      Now how on Earth did so many hundreds of thousands (millions?) of multi-generational American citizens here get taught as grade-schoolers, teenagers, or adults that this nation was religious or ONE religion/faith? How did they become so misguided and cognitively challenged over the last 147 years? How did they just turn plain wicked and against EVERYTHING our Five Codified Founding documents (1774–1875) spell out in sufficient clarity by a nation of laws, especially spelled out with regard to grievances against our federal, state, county, or municipal governments and what protests are lawful and unlawful.* These facts/laws are in no way difficult for any ordinary American citizen to find, study, comprehend, and abide by. More importantly these peaceful processes are every single American’s Constitutional right, BUT peacefully. Furthermore, I’m quite sure that their supposed Lord & Savior of the New Testament (the Greek Christos) would unequivocally demand the legal protests be totally peaceful (Mark 12:17 and Matthew 22:21)! Now THERE’S a novel concept by their supposed Lord & Savior: Separation of Church (the heavenly kingdom) and State (the Earthly kingdom)!

      Tildeb, I wish badly that a lot more Americans were as well-educated, well-spoken, peaceful, and so rational as you. For over two decades I too have been exhaustively reminding and teaching American adults, teenagers, and ambitious youth with energized hormones that our six (6) core Founding Fathers did NOT imagine, engineer and pen, nor have the least bit interest in forming a more perfect theocracy. This is absolutely confirmed by many multiple letters back-n-forth between these 6 men and their colleagues. Those letters are all preserved for posterity and us today in addition to our Five Codified Founding documents.

      But sadly, mob-rule reins when the masses are lead by irrational emotions, extreme religiosity (fundy-evangies) and violence. Their cunning Cult-leaders know all too well how to bring their ignorant, poorly educated minions and mobs to froth. 🤦‍♂️ This playbook is found all through human (civilized?) history.

      Liked by 3 people

      • The ironic and sad thing is the founding fathers (Purported tans)!who were quite theocratic had many views which were infinitely more progressive w/r/t economics and law than today’s right wing. See Harpers Magazine this month for an interested n (albeit biased and not entirely convincing) argument

        Liked by 1 person

        • The founders were “more progressive w/r/t economics and law than today’s right wing” is certainly true in light of Christian Nationalism. But they were also far more progressive than today’s ‘progressive’ left, too! Individual autonomy and authority in law (liberalism) was revolutionary at the time; today’s version of ‘progressive’ attempts to revert to group rights and privilege in law based on heritable characteristics (identity), which is why this movement today is in reality better defined as ‘regressive’ (anti-liberal). I’m not sure which – CN or today’s ‘progressives’ – is more anti-American: both cases are equally strong because both attempt to use group identity as the basis for membership.

          Liked by 2 people

    • Anyone who would prefer to be called a fascist rather than something else is definitely not in favour of democracy. As for being a Nationalist, I think Nazi would be a similar term.

      Liked by 5 people

      • And it’s almost a forgotten fact that the actual Nazis slid (slithered?) through the doors of power under the disguise of patriotic socialism… as in National Socialism, that the term fascism itself is rooted in the notion of a bundle of stick being stronger together than separate. So the threat isn’t necessarily from socialism or progressivism or religion or conservatism or whatever… but it’s ALWAYS from the loss (overthrow?) of liberalism using democratic cover.

        Liked by 5 people

  2. Hello Nan. I am not sure who introduced me to the 7 mountain religious idea but I was watching a video of a group of religious political people recite their pledge. The seven heads are seven mountains” The seven areas which the movement believe control society and which they seek to control are family, religion, education, media, entertainment, business, and government. I found it scary. These people are serious they are on a mission from their god.

    I once had a conversation with you about why Christian feel compelled to go door to door and push their religion as if no one had heard of it before. I remember being forced to do so when I was in my senior year of church school, and it was so embarrassing. You told me that it is read as a commandment from god in the bible. If so because of that these people cannot be stopped. If they believe their god gave them the mission of forcing everyone to follow him and believe as they do, then they are warriors for god which no reason or argument will deter them. Hugs

    Liked by 6 people

    • I first saw the ‘seven mountains’ in a book by R. J. Rushdoony, “Christianity and Capitalism. “The mountains are the controlling mechanisms of society, the things they need to control to take over the government.

      Liked by 5 people

  3. Christianity and Capitalism is the guidebook the Christians use today. Rushdoony had a lot of influence on the church. Falwell, Robertson, Jones, Hagy, etc.

    Liked by 5 people

  4. What you seem to have forgotten is that christian nationalist is only part of what the term really is. It is really ‘WHITE christian nationalist’ and often it is really ‘white Male christian nationalist’ because there is generally a heavy element of racism and misogyny that goes along with their beliefs. They accept women like MTG only because she is useful to help push their agenda. If their vision of America were to come about MTG would be told to shut up and get back in the kitchen if she opened her mouth, and their pet judge on the supreme court would be lucky if he’d have been allowed to learn how to read much less go to law school.

    Liked by 6 people

    • Oh, I haven’t forgotten (if you were referring to me). I was just quoting/writing about what I read in the article.

      The point I found interesting is how it used to be a negative term but is now embraced. And in order for the True Believers™ to separate themselves from the former negativism, they have to come up with, what they consider, a description that sounds more foreboding and “evil” to describe those “other people.”


      • I didn’t mean to imply that you personally had forgotten. I know you are very well aware of it. I should have clarified that I meant that the media in general seems to have forgotten this. I see stories in both the liberal and middle of the road media all that time that use the term ‘christian nationalist’ as if it were purely a religious thing and fail to point out that the whole movement is tightly entwined with racism and misogyny, and even has its roots in organizations like the KKK.

        Liked by 5 people

  5. Nan,

    I’ve been in Dallas all weekend, leaving tomorrow for Kerrville. Sadly and with much disgust, I’ve been surrounded—even worse than in the Texas Hill Country—by CPAC attendants overrunning downtown Dallas and the Hilton Anatole and all nearby restaurants, bar & grills, and nearby establishments. It is all very sickening. As you know, I am an 8th-generation Texan. My maternal and paternal families were here when Texas was only a lone Republic. We know what Texas was, has been, and is today. None of what Texas is today is anything like it was from 1963–2022 (my lifetime). My two family generations ahead of me still alive, all say the same thing too. This state is unrecognizable to us now. 😔

    We are poor little lambs
    Who have lost our way.
    Baa! Baa! Baa!
    We are little black sheep
    Who have gone astray.
    Baa! Baa! Baa!

    Liked by 4 people

    • Based on many articles/reports/commentaries, Texas isn’t the only state … although it does seem to be one of the worst. As I’ve said before, it’s sad that you are so *trapped* in such a disgusting state. You and Scottie have much in common.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Yes, several of those states ironically (or not) are of the former Confederate States of the 19th-century South. Go figure. But when I researched the 1977 American Heritage Party—now known as the Christian Liberty Party—both of whom claim or associate with Christian Nationalism ideology. I was taken aback when I discovered they have chapters of all places in Washington State and Maine as well. Then came a bigger shock.

        The Christian Liberty Party on their recruitment webpage, First Steps to Statesmanship, utilizes R.C. Sproul Jr.’s “What Is A [Christian] Worldview.” –insert mine. Who is R.C. Sproul Jr.? Remarkably he is the figurative and literal prodigal son of R.C. Sproul, a frequent guest professor at my seminary: Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson, MS. Also a renown theologian within Conservative Calvinist ministries and churches, and a scholar(?) I wrote to personally about my impending deconversion from Christianity and he (Sr.) replied.

        All one has to do to find and learn about R.C. Sproul Jr., the “Prodigal Son” of the famous R.C. Sproul Sr, is Google him or read his Wikipedia page and/or his many reports of illegal and illicit practices from other reliable sources. As you might imagine Nan, all this piqued my interest a great deal as to the veracity of the Christian Liberty Party’s foundations and textbook on how to make Christian statesmen and the U.S.A. a theocratic Christian nation. The irony and suspicion for me grew even more after reading R.C. Sproul Jr.’s first paragraph of his “What Is A [Christian] Worldview?”…

        The Union soldiers were giving it everything they had. Their artillery was firing, their horses charging. They had superior arms, superior numbers. All the advantages were theirs. But the sons of the South stood firm, unmoved. Atop the hill the Union soldiers wanted to take, they spied the leader of the Southrons (Southerners). General Jackson stood impassive, as his would-be attackers confessed in admiration, “There stands General Jackson, like a stone wall.” Thus Stonewall Jackson earned the moniker that he will bear for the rest of history.

        And the irony of this and their statesmenship is/was not lost in 1865. No, it lives and breathes in other darker forms in places and people you may not suspect.

        Liked by 2 people

        • From the same HARPERS essay was a description of the original incorporating does cuments for the south (Carolina). The worst aspects of English feudal law…rigid class structure, inherited privilege, racial castes.

          Liked by 1 person

      • Oh, forgot to thank you for your genuine sentiment about my living situation here. It means a lot to me and always puts a grin on my face and a virtual embrace around my shoulders. ❤️ You, Scottie, and several others in our WP circles lift my spirits when I need it and give me hope… even from great distances. 🙂

        Liked by 2 people

  6. Oh, that is the flag….

    When I drive out to west Texas to visit family, I pass a homestead there the flag pictured above on the left (in the Pixabay photo) is flown on a single flag pole. Also on the same flagpole, but below it, flies the USA national flag. A rare case in this state where the TX flag is not to be seen. And I don’t care.

    That’s wrong and very “in your face America,” in my opinion. But it tells me what I need to know and what I suspect those folks (Christian Nationalists) of being, even though they say it regularly. They mean “my religion” (not God and not your religion or your freedom) before anything. They really do not give a damn about the USA, the Constitution, or the people. Their religion comes first, last, and only. They may say “America first” but they mean their version of the USA.

    It’s awful. Also, in my opinion, if you are anything but that kind of “Christian” you should be worried. Actually, you should be worried even if you are. I am.

    Liked by 4 people

  7. Christian Nationalism. Sounds like an innocent enough enough moniker. Except when you realize that a theocracy is what they would have for this country. If, it didn’t veer off of that path somewhere along the way, and become the new Nazi Party of America. With a different name…

    Liked by 2 people

  8. Nationalism is just a nother word for tribal moralism. It does not matter what names they give it – Christian Nationalism, Hindu Nationalism, National Socialism, or what ever – it is the same shite with different wrappings. It is the evil twin of patriotism and quite a lot of people can not make the difference between them. It is a method to take controll over the lives of others and the religious, or ideological label on the package is just a nother excuse to do so. Segragation and fear between arbitrarily labelled groups are it’s hallmarks and the driving motor. What follows is blood, because people who are hungry to controll others are never satisfied and as moralism based on nationalism bears no bounds to what you can do to the dehumanized “out group”, you get to do anything to the “in group” as well, in the name of “protecting” them from the out group. Look at Russia today. Putin is a typical Nationalist leader. The entire nation is subjected to the single effort of him holding as much power as possible. The entire purpose of the war in Ukraine is to rally loyal nationalists more fanatically under his personal banner and to lure happless patriots to his personal cause. That is precisely why the war does not make sense. It is not supposed to be of any use, exept to this one individual and those who bind themselves to him. Look at Israel and their form of Nationalism. Neither their secular, nor religious groups differ much in how they treat the native Palestinian population. The only real difference lies in rhetorics where the religious have crossed the batshit crazy far more easily.

    We have nationalists all over the globe and nothing good can be expected of them. They fear, incite fear in others, worship presentations of power, because those give them the illusion of safety and controll. They hate what they fear and nothing exept fear can stop them from trying to controll others instead of controlling their own fear and hatred. They care not of the suffering of others as long as their needs driven by fear and hatred feel satisfied. They often rely on conservatism, because they fear the future and their leaders shamelessly use their fear and abuse their hatred to create more fear and hatred. And they will tell you they are the rational ones, as if just saying it aloud first would make it so.

    Liked by 2 people

  9. Christian Nationalism, HA!! What a joke! Fake religion with a false god! Now, what we SHOULD have is Muslim Nationalism. Why? Well because 1.) Islam is a real religion. The ONLY true religion, as a mater of fact. It says so right in the Quran! 2.) Because I’M a Muslim, and my faith is the RIGHT faith! After all, how, oh how, could the Quran EVER be wrong about such a thing. Hell, when’s the last time you’ve EVER heard of a religious text such as the Quran EVER being wrong about ANYTHING, eh?! Allahu Akbar

    Liked by 2 people

  10. The 700 Club’s evangelical-Christian Gordon Robertson talked about heatwaves in Europe and U.S. while not once mentioning climate change or global warming. He basically dismissed green energy while promoting continued, if not increased, fossil fuel use in order to, among other things, generate more electricity for air conditioners.

    Similarly, Canada’s previous prime minister, the thinly-veiled-theocratic also-evangelical-Christian Stephen Harper, was unrelenting in his pro-fossil-fuel/anti-natural-environment war against science.

    In fact, many of Canada’s leading conservative politicians are/were ideologically aligned with the pro-fossil-fuel mainstream American evangelical-Christian community and Republican Party.
    There undoubtedly is a serious potential hazard in theologically inclined people getting into high office with their dangerous disregard — and even contempt — for the natural environment.

    As another example, in the midst of yet another unprecedented Amazonian rainforest wildfire two summers ago, Brazilian president and evangelical Christian Jair Bolsonaro declared that his presidency — and, I presume, all of the formidable environmental damage he inflicts while in power — is “fulfilling a mission from God”.

    Generally shared is the belief that to defend the natural environment from the planet’s greatest polluters, notably big fossil fuel, is to go against God’s will and therefore is inherently evil. Some even credit the bone-dry-vegetation areas uncontrollably burning in California each year to some divine wrath upon collective humankind’s ‘sinfulness’.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Human beings love use by divine wrath to support their prejudices. I was ready by about ultra orthodox groups in New York who claim that the holocaust was deserved divine wrath because of the Zionist movement. No matter what one thinks about Israel as a state…my mind just shuddered.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Yes. … Horrifically, the primary implementers of a pogrom know they’re committing mass murder yet still genuinely perceive it all as part of an ultimately greater, moral good. Also, some people, however precious their souls, can be consciously or subconsciously perceived and treated by an otherwise free, democratic and relatively civilized society as though those people are somehow disposable and, by extension, their suffering is somehow less worthy of external concern. …

        As for Christianity, Jesus’ fundamental nature and teachings were/are notably different from the unambiguously fire-and-brimstone angry God of Judaism and Islam (not to mention the Biblical Old Testament’s Almighty).
        Followers of Islam and Judaism generally believe that Jesus did exist but was not a divine being.

        After all, how could any divine being most profoundly wash his disciples’ feet as did Jesus, the act clearly revealing that he took corporeal form to serve. And that he, as a hopeful example of the humility of the divine, joined humankind in our miseries, joys and everything in between.

        Even John the Baptist — who was the equivalent of today’s social activist and believed in Jesus as the savior — was left troubled by Jesus’ contradictory version of the Hebraic messiah, with which John had been raised. Perhaps most perplexing was Christ’s revolutionary teaching of non-violently offering the other cheek as the proper response to being physically assaulted by one’s enemy.

        Indeed, how could any divine being NOT be a conqueror — far less allow himself to be publicly stripped naked, severely beaten and murdered in such a belittling manner?! …

        Though no pushover, Jesus fundamentally was about compassion and charity. Therefore, Jesus may have been viciously killed because he did not in the least behave in accordance to corrupted human conduct and expectation — and in particular because he was nowhere near to being the vengeful, wrathful, and sometimes even bloodthirsty, behemoth so many people seemingly wanted or needed their savior to be and therefore believed he’d have to be.

        Thus I can see many institutional ‘Christians’ finding inconvenient, if not plainly annoying, trying to reconcile the conspicuous inconsistency in the fundamental nature of the New Testament’s Jesus with the wrathful, vengeful and even jealous nature of the Old Testament’s Creator. …

        The above is basically why I place a higher standard on those in public life who claim to be Christian yet behave nothing like Christ nor his basic teachings.

        Liked by 1 person

  11. I just started reading Gorski and Perry’s The Flag and the Cross (Oxford Univ. Press, 2022) in which they define White Christian Nationalism; When it emerged; How it works politically; and Where it is headed. There is overlap with the KKK, the John Birch Society, Christian Reconstruction, and other groups, The book is worth reading to gain perspective on just what White Christian Nationalism is all about; A few books about Christian Reconstruction are also worthwhile for understanding how this festering movement is having results in today’s political environment.


    • Welcome Professor Pupdog! (Did you know we have another “professor” that also visits my blog?) And thank you for the book reference … I’m quite sure the “other” professor would be interested in it as well. 🙂

      It truly is WHITE Christian Nationalism. And yes, it overlaps with the groups you mention. It’s a very dangerous movement … and having FAR too much success in his progress!

      Liked by 1 person

  12. I consider myself a pretty conservative (Catholic) Christian. Both back when I was a Fundamentalist and now as a Catholic, I never understood the idea of the “Christian nation” because we are a democracy and, unless everyone is a Christian, this is not and never was and probably never will be a “Christian nation.” I feel like Christians need to just accept this.

    That being said, when people tout “separation of Church and state” I feel like they often mean that I am not allowed to voice my political opinion or even lobby for laws I think correspond better with the moral values of my faith. I have every right to do so, as does any person being guided by their conscience.


    • Hello Jonathan! Thank you for stopping by and adding your thoughts.

      I totally agree with your first paragraph. However, I feel you may misunderstand what is meant by “separation of Church and state.” At its core, it simply means there should be no governmental establishment or preference of a religion. Unfortunately, what happens is those who follow the Christian religion tend to ignore this decree and attempt to insert Christianity rules/morals/beliefs into the public arena.

      There are no rules that disallow you speaking of your faith and/or supporting measures that “correspond better with the moral values of (your) faith.” The rub comes when believers want to “force” these measures upon everyone, believer and/or non-believer. To allow this is to actuate the “Christian Nationalism” that is discussed in my post … AND is outlined in the video here:

      Again, thank you for stopping by and adding your thoughts related to this topic.


  13. Oh, I think I see. After watching the trailer you linked to, I’m assuming, when you say, “the rub comes when believers want to force these measures upon everyone,” you mean “force” at the point of gun or through an insurrection or something? I am most certainly not ok with force at the point of gun. January 6 was horrendous, and I watched in shock along with so many other Americans at what happened that day. I also watched in shock as progressive extremists took over a part of Seattle earlier.

    I’m not even ok with the passage of laws that force a particular religion on another person – like forcing everyone to go to Mass every Sunday on penalty of prison time (to pull a random hypothetical situation off the top of my head). Religion itself should be freely chosen. To that extent, three cheers for “separation of church and state.”

    The point I am trying to make is that, through the legitimate passing of laws, or even through the legitimate decision-making of duly appointed Supreme Court justices, every group forces their values on another group. Nobody can get away from that. That’s just how it is. Every law ever passed is the imposition of the values of one group over another.

    As a Christian, what frustrates me (living as I do in California and not Texas) is that progressives here, at least, seem to assume that they are not doing the very same thing I as a Christian want to do: pass laws that align with my values. When it’s their values they vote for, like making California an abortion sanctuary, they are just “promoting justice.” But when I vote for what I believe to be the saving of the life of the unborn, it’s “promoting religion.” That’s more my issue.

    Liked by 2 people

    • I can appreciate the dichotomy.

      Speaking from my own soapbox, I have no problem with Christians expressing and adhering to their personal beliefs within their own lives and families. To live as Yeshua (truly) taught can be a good thing. The rub comes when believers try to “force” me, as a non-believer, to follow the same path by passing laws and regulations that support their viewpoint.

      Now you might say the same is true about non-believers. But taking abortion as an example … when it is allowed, it gives women a choice. If she is faced with an unplanned pregnancy, she can make her own decisions about what to do. Her actions are not determined by the beliefs and/or sentiments of others.

      None of us can live without some sort of governing and I think most of us accept that. The problems arise when one group (Christian Nationalists) tries to force everyone else to live by their rules. This is not democracy.

      Liked by 1 person

      • This is why the base rights and freedoms are shared by all and favours none. When those are undermined in the name of something else, that’s when the line is crossed between Church and State (substitute whatever other faith-based ideology you wish for ‘Church’) and is unconstitutional in principle regardless of how virtuous the incursion may seem.

        Liked by 1 person

  14. The reason why Christian Nationalism is dangerous is because it’s not an ideal of biblical principle but an utilization of scripture to support their own priorities. This misuse of the Bible makes Christ looks like a martyr of hatred and hypocrisy instead of the savior He is.

    Liked by 1 person

Don't Be Shy -- Tell Us What You Think!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.