Some questions for those who throw the term Christian Nationalist around. Direct, specific, relatively concise answers only.
Question 1: What exactly do you mean by Christian Nationalist?
Question 2: Was Martin Luther King Jr. a Christian nationalist?
Question 3: Were the abolitionists Christian Nationalists?
Question 4: Have you ever applied that label to a Democrat (why or why not)?
Question 5: Do you really believe we shouldn't "force our morals" on others?
I personally believe that this is another on of the terms (any of the "ist" or "ism"s) that are used as a weapon against people rather than something that is honestly descriptive. It's one more example of a term that changes meaning as needed and simultaneously means everything and therefore nothing.
8 comments:
Question 1: What exactly do you mean by Christian Nationalist?
From Britannica:
"Christian nationalism, ideology that seeks to create or maintain a legal fusion of Christian religion with a nation’s character. Advocates of Christian nationalism consider their view of Christianity to be an integral part of their country’s identity and want the government to promote—or even enforce—the religion’s position within it. "
That's what I mean. Usually (at least in the US), it is a specifically conservative Christian worldview is what is intended by Christian nationalists.
Question 2: Was Martin Luther King Jr. a Christian nationalist?
No. He was specifically opposed to Christian nationalism doctrine.
Question 3: Were the abolitionists Christian Nationalists?
Not that I'm aware of, not as it is typically defined.
Question 4: Have you ever applied that label to a Democrat (why or why not)?
No. Because it doesn't fit the definition. As a reminder: At least in the US, Christian nationalism is specifically about promoting a specifically conservative Christian worldview by the force of law and a hyper-dominant culture.
Question 5: Do you really believe we shouldn't "force our morals" on others?
No, I don't believe that. I believe it is rational and important to force a respect of human rights so, those who would do harm to others, that should not be allowed. But that is not "christian nationalism" in any way at all.
Agreed?
According to the people at Christians against Christian Nationalism:
Christian nationalism is not the same as Christianity, and it can be defined and understood in a variety of ways. In this campaign, we define Christian nationalism as “a political ideology that seeks to merge Christian and American identities, distorting both the Christian faith and America’s constitutional democracy.”
Some people may conflate Christian nationalism and Christianity because they both use the symbols and language of Christianity, such as a Bible, a cross and worship songs. But, Christian nationalism uses the veneer of Christianity to advance its own aims – to point to a political figure, party or ideology instead of Jesus. At Christians Against Christian Nationalism, we sometimes refer to it as “white Christian nationalism” to emphasize its frequent overlap with white supremacy.
https://www.christiansagainstchristiannationalism.org/learn-more
I will say that "christian nationalism" is loosely defined with a range of beliefs, not all of which are problematic. Hoping/working for a society that is more loving, welcoming, just and inclusive is working for God's realm on earth... but it's not trying to legislate specific Christian values. The Christian nationalism that people are rightly concerned about is trying to make a "sharia christian" nation (as conservative Christians often speak of Islam).
1. Who is a well known politician who you specifically can you name that is advocating for this formulation?
Do you, or have you , ever used the term "Christian Nationalist" to apply to someone who has not specifically expressed convictions that match your definition?
2. So, when MLK used his position as a pastor, his influence in the church, and scripture to advocate for civil rights, he was not using the tactics used by "Christian Nationalists", is that your position? How was MLK's advocating for rights based in Scripture different?
3. Similarly, the most compelling voices in the abolitionist movement were arguing from a Scriptural/Biblical position for the basis to end slavery. I'm confused as to how specifically this is significantly different.
4. Interesting. Your "definition" does not include this bit of information. I'm confused, are you suggesting that the definition above is wholly incompatible with a progressive christian pushing their view of christian doctrine as the basis for public policy?
I get that you are answering with your personal opinion, but as a general rule excluding an entire option a priori, and without proof isn't necessarily a good idea. I seems as though you've simply constructed an addendum to your definition that fits your personal presupposition and excludes any other possibility.
5. So you do not believe that passing laws is "imposing" the morals of the group in charge on others? Given the simple reality that significant segments of the world do not precisely agree with your opinions about what "human rights" are and which ones should be codified into law, can you see how inconsistent this could appear? Is not "forcing" people to adhere to a law or standard with which they do not agree, exactly what you don't believe in?
So, if certain "Christians" advocate for laws based on their Christian beliefs (For example anti Slavery laws, or laws against prostitution) you would argue that those laws are an example of "Christian Nationalism", correct?
If certain "progressive christians" chose to advocate for laws based on their christian beliefs (unlimited, unfettered immigration or drug legalization), then you would argue that they were not acting as "Christian Nationalists", correct?
When other religions within the US or Europe, establish a parallel "justice system" based solely on their chosen holy text, religious law, or tradition, is this not the practical equal of "Christian Nationalism"?
If leaders of a non Christian religion or sect openly advocated for the replacement of US or European law with the laws of their religion or sect, would that not be the equivalent of "Christian Nationalism"?
Finally, what if there was a "New Jacobin" movement in the US, which advocated the replacement of US law with the laws and rules which flowed out of the secular foundation which underpinned the French Revolution, would that not be the equivalent of "Christian Nationalism"?
So, with this new less definitive definition, you've considerably broadened the definition you first proposed. I'll note that the "loosely defined" loophole allows for these folx to define "Christian Nationalism" pretty much however they want and manipulate this flexible definition to their benefit.
As this raises some of the same questions as the first, I won't ask them again.
I will say, that any worldview or movement that puts anything or anyone in the position rightly filled by Jesus (Savior, Lord, etc) could reasonably defined as not Christian by virtue of that fact alone.
Again, (while I am sure that there are some fringe randos who fit these definitions) I have yet to here one serious person in a position of power or influence advocate for anything close to this.
To answer your question about Dr King's opposition to Nationalism/Christian nationalism, read his own words here:
https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/nationalism
As to this (which pertains to King and the abolitionists):
I'm confused as to how specifically this is significantly different.
Because it is.
These folk - and many today - are speaking specifically to OTHER CHRISTIANS. Saying, "from one Christian to another, THAT is not part of Christianity..."
Which is different than saying "Because I believe my particular flavor of Christianity is right, I want to legalize it..."
I DO commend you: These ARE good questions to be asking and reasonable questions. I'm just limited in time right now.
Rest assured, there are good answers to these questions. Maybe we can find some common ground here when we're all speaking about the same thing.
Noting, one Christian to another: God is a God of love and justice and freedom. To invoke God's name to promote slavery or oppression or the murder/abduction of immigrants is an abuse of God's name and not within Jesus' teachings.
On the other hand, saying to the nation at large: I believe MY version of Christianity is right and God does not WANT us to allow gay guys to marry, lesbians to adopt, immigrants to be welcomed willy nilly... therefore, because of what I think MY holy texts teach, we should implement all that as law...
These are different things. The difference between being a Christian and a Christian nationalist.
I'll address more as I have time.
To answer your first question, who is a currently in power Christian nationalist, I'd begin with Hegseth. But again, out of time:
https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/19/politics/douglas-wilson-pastor-pentagon-service-christian-nationalism
What I sense, is that you seem to be suggesting that it is acceptable to use one's Christian (or other) faith as the motivation for policy or legal changes, as long as they don't cross some non specific threshold. With this be an accurate representation?
You do realize that "because it is" is hardly a specific, direct answer do you not?
"To invoke God's name to promote slavery or oppression or the murder/abduction of immigrants is an abuse of God's name and not within Jesus' teachings."
What a strange position. You seem to be suggesting that it IS acceptable to use YHWH's name to promote (for example) refusing to enforce long standing immigration law or to advocate for eliminating immigration law/restrictions entirely. I fail to see how invoking or attempting to codify law based on what YHWH/Scripture says is problematic regardless of which side of the issue you may be on.
It seems as though you are making a fine distinction that hinges on who those beliefs are incorporated into law. It seems as though your problem hinges on imposing laws. Leaving aside that all laws impose someone's morality or worldview on the entire country for a second. It seems as though you are suggesting that some Christians be prevented from bringing their faith into the public square and advocating for laws that reflect their faith. Yet, not assuming that the same restriction applies equally to all faiths (or atheism).
I suspect that you probably should have stopped earlier as you actually had a point that we could agree on (putting anything in place of Jesus is wrong), but I'm afraid that your desire to make this one sided will lead to problems.
If you don't have time to actually prove your claims, perhaps you should refrain from making them until you do?
I''ll start by saying that I'm not a fan of many of the faith advisors floating around the Trump administration.
What that brief piece included was enough for me to question the theology of Wilson. Yet are we at the point where we punish people or restrict people from freely communicating their beliefs and opinions? Should Hegseth not be free to believe whatever he chooses, as long as he doesn't force his beliefs on others?
I kind of get your point in theory, but our country has survived 250 years and weathered all sorts of wild crap. I could be wrong, but it seems that the line would be drawn when belief becomes action. In other words, Hegseth can go to whatever church he wants, and Wilson can preach and write whatever he wants, until those thoughts become specific actions. Is it appropriate to call them out, sure, go to town. But why stop at just "Christian Nationalists"? Why not treat any and every movement with the same scrutiny?
As I noted earlier. I could absolutely see a political movement based solely on Reason, Technology, and Evolution/Naturalism/Materialism (Let's call them the New Jacobins, NJ for short) making arguments similar in nature to those you allege of "Christian Nationalists". That we should govern based solely on Reason, a Utilitarian worldview, technology, and Science. That one's utility to society should be the greatest good. While it is a different worldview driving the movement, the tactics and results would be essentially the same.
Look, to the extent there really is some serious critical mass of people who want to impose a Christian theocracy in the US, I'd oppose them being able to do so. The problem is that I would oppose ANY worldview, philosophy, or religion from imposing their peculiar "ism" on the US equally. What I see is a very focused, almost monomaniacal, obsession with "Christian Nationalism", and very little concern about any ideology that might have similar intentions.
Post a Comment