There are at least 4 different definitions of Christian nationalism floating around so I want to provide something of a taxonomy for the discussion:
First, the progressive definition. Progressives treat “Christian nationalism” as synonymous with racism/white supremacy, fascism, Nazism, religious coercion, etc. Of course, this is how progressives have labeled all conservatives for a long time now. The name-calling is a form of false accusation. Progressives use the “Christian nationalism” label as a slur and a scare tactic – they want to associate the label with vile things to drive people away from conservative political candidates and policies. Thankfully, the effectiveness of the name calling is waning as more people recognize that progressives really don’t have good arguments for their positions (how could they when their positions are at war with reality?). Progressives will call anyone who wants to prohibit abortion a misogynist. They will say you are Islamophobic if you don’t want to hear the muezzin sound out over your city and transphobic if you want to stop the genital mutilation of children. They will say you are a bigot if you believe two people of the same sex cannot marry. They will claim Christian nationalists want to impose their beliefs on others and persecute unbelievers. And so on. It’s basically an extreme caricature at best, and outright lies at worst. I do not know of anyone who fits the progressive definition of Christian nationalist, though maybe there are a few out there. Progressive use of the label should be dismissed as slander.
Second, there is the syncretistic definition. This is the group of conservatives who conflate America with the kingdom of God; Christian nationalism is Americanism. This group puts the American flag in the sanctuary and sings the “Star Spangler Banner” in worship. These Christian nationalists have a low view of the church and a high view of America; they tend to replace the church with America in their understanding of God’s purposes. America becomes a “Redeemer nation” and “the world’s last best hope.” The Constitution is treated as sacred and the founding fathers their ultimate heroes. The 1980s “Moral Majority” and “Religious Right” tended in this direction to varying degrees. This form of Americanism has been a genuine problem in our nation’s history. I have addressed it at length in my three part series “A Compact Road Map to American history (available here: https://tpcpastorspage.com/essays/) so I won’t say anything else about its problems here.
Third, there is the ethno-centric version of Christian nationalism. These Christian nationalists are really ethno-nationalists. They share the left’s race consciousness and racial identity politics. They argue America was founded by white Christians and should be a nation primarily for white Christians. They argue for low or no immigration, and only immigrants who will assimilate. They argue that racial homogeneity is necessary for cultural cohesion. They see their Christian nationalism program as the answer to the acid of the multiculturalism and globalism which have conspired to create the anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-male postwar consensus. They are very concerned with anti-white policies, such as DEI and affirmative action. They are opposed to American foreign aid, especially to Israel, and often (though not always) see the Jews as the root problem in the West, especially since Jewish academics pushed our universities towards cultural Marxism. They generally argue for a top down reformation of the nation led by a Christian prince. These kinds of Christian nationalists are nationalists in the older sense of the term, focused on people and place, blood and soil. Ethno-centric Christian nationalists are more likely to use natural law than biblical law. They want Christian faith and heritage to shape customs, culture, and public policy. These Christian nationalists definitely get some things right (eg, immigrants do need to assimilate), but have very significant problems, especially if racialization is taken to extremes. I have dealt with this view in various places (eg, https://tpcpastorspage.com/2025/05/22/john-knox-and-liturgical-nationalism/ ) so I will not address it further here.
Fourth, there is ecclesiocentric Christian nationalism. This form of Christian nationalism recognizes that, generally speaking, God has organized humanity into nations (Acts 17:26), and nations do need cultural cohesion. But this form of Christian nationalism sees the church as the central institution in God’s purposes and shared Christian faith as the key factor in cultural cohesion. To be sure, shared religion alone is not enough to bring about cultural cohesion, but it’s still the central binding agent in any cohesive society, especially one that (like America) will continue to be multiracial. The church is to seek the good of the city and nation in which it finds itself (Jeremiah 29:7), as God defines the good in his law and gospel. Christian faith cannot be coerced by the magistrate, but it can be protected, promoted, and privileged. Christian and biblical principles can inform and shape both civil law and cultural customs. This view stresses that the church has a mission to disciple the nations so that each nation can bring its peculiar treasures into Christ’s kingdom (Isaiah 60). Ecclesiocentric Christian nationalists believe the preaching of the Word of God faithfully, the right administration of the sacraments, public and private prayer that reflects the whole counsel of God (including imprecatory prayers found in the psalms, prayers for rulers like Paul commands in 1 Timothy 2:2, etc.), and the diligent application of church discipline are the key weapons in our cultural and spiritual warfare, and will drive the reformation of the nation. This includes teaching nations and their magistrates the wisdom of God’s law as it applies to social and political questions. The ecclesiocentric approach to Christian nationalism can foster patriotism, but recognizes that loyalty to Christ and his people outranks loyalty to one’s nation. It can say, “It’s good to be American” but also, “It’s even better to be Christian.” I have written about this more elsewhere (eg, https://tpcpastorspage.com/2025/06/05/two-kinds-of-ecclesiocentrism/ and https://tpcpastorspage.com/2025/10/17/note-on-ecclesiocentric-christian-nationalism-a-discussion-in-the-early-stages/).
TPC Pastor's Page 