Paul Huxley points out what the conversation around Christian Nationalism has missed, and explains what it really means for us to desire a Christian nation
For months, theologians and pundits have been picking up the clicks writing and speaking about Christian nationalism.
Despite the many pixels spilled, very little of the conversation has got us further than where we were when we started. So, as I wade in with my contribution, it’s my sincere prayer that, in as few words as possible, we can get a little bit closer.
‘Christian nationalism’ was initially a slur
In its recent usage, ‘Christian nationalism’ really has its origins as a slur against all American Christians who wanted to see the nation run according to Christian principles.
Michelle Goldberg’s Kingdom Coming – The Rise of Christian Nationalism was published in 2006. Its concerns were not focused on ‘nationalism’ as we typically think of it in a European context. It critiqued various groups who rejected secularism and wanted to see a Christian nation. Many different groups and initiatives were mentioned with quite different beliefs about this, but ‘Christian Nationalism’ was fundamentally about whether the nation should be Christian, not questions of patriotism and national superiority.
The discussion didn’t go much further until the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States. But when it did, again it was not about covering nationalism with a Christian veneer – it was fundamentally about issues like the overturning of Roe v Wade.
If you wanted to see an end to the mass killing of unborn children through abortion – or any real restrictions at all – you were a Christian Nationalist.
I am making much of this point for this reason: the vast majority of people who might read this article would qualify as Christian Nationalists in this popular conception. Whether we want to define ourselves as this or not, some people will undoubtedly call us Christian Nationalists of some kind.
The UK context is different
As with so many issues, this US debate has been imported to Britain, where it has been deployed in very different ways.
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is explicitly Christian already. We recently had a coronation that expressed this with the utmost clarity. We have established national churches in England and Scotland. The pro-life movement does not have the traction or influence it does in the US.
However, there is one issue that is much more of a live political issue in the UK: mass Islamic migration. And several of the leading figures campaigning for measures to slow or stop this – including Nigel Farage and Tommy Robinson – have called for some kind of more muscular Christianity as part of a solution. This too is sometimes called ‘Christian Nationalism’, but has a very different shape to its US counterpart.
Problematic punditry
Countless critiques of Christian Nationalism have failed to untangle any of these complexities.
Others really have tried to distinguish between these different movements but there are so many theological and cultural questions wrapped up in it, that they never seem to quite land anywhere.
Recently, though, Rev. Kevin DeYoung wrote 6 Questions for Christian Nationalists, written with his characteristic fairmindedness.
His article starts by saying “I am not a Christian Nationalist, but I almost could be.”
And although he questions or challenges some aspects of Christian Nationalism as he defines it, DeYoung makes several statements that many UK readers might find surprising.
He is in support of:
- Christianity having a prominent, even privileged, place within the nation
- “… prudential policies and good laws that flow out of the best of Christian political thought”
- Civil authorities gently promoting Christianity through calls to fast and pray, ‘fireside chats’, chaplaincy and tax breaks
- Recognising that every political leader is accountable to Jesus Christ for their actions. [1]
While DeYoung disagrees with some stronger forms of ‘promotion’ [2], he is willing to see a much more explicitly-Christian state than many critics of ‘Christian Nationalism’.
Many critics of Christian Nationalism write as if public life is meant to be lived on a purely secular, ‘neutral’ basis but DeYoung says:
“I am entirely in agreement with those who want to recover an originalist understanding of the establishment clause and push back on the mistaken notion that the Constitution meant to excise religion from public and political life.”
He also acknowledges what, for me, is the most fundamental point in this discussion:
“Every political leader must give an account to Christ of his beliefs and behaviors. That is true for all human beings.”
Jesus Christ is the one with all authority in heaven and earth. All political leaders, whether they realise it or not, should govern in line with Christ’s rule.
I fully acknowledge there are different understandings of what that means in practice for a King, President or Prime Minister, from ‘principled pluralism’ to Puritanism.
I would just like us all to be clear that if Jesus Christ is the King of Kings, then every ruler is subject to Jesus Christ and should be supported or critiqued on this basis, not by some other standard.
Meaningfully Christian nations
My point is not to gloss over the differences DeYoung has with the Christian Nationalists he is questioning.
For example, antisemitism. Some self-declared Christian Nationalists on the American scene are explicitly and outrageously antisemitic and pro-Nazi. DeYoung is right to seek explicit rejections of all this.
But my focus here is simply to highlight that by other definitions, he very much is a Christian Nationalist (as he admits).
- It is clear that DeYoung agrees that true religion – the true Jesus Christ – belongs in public and political life.
What would we call this set of convictions? Do UK Christians firmly agree with them?
For me, these convictions provide a vision for meaningfully Christian nations. The notion that Jesus Christ is good news for a society and that it is right for Christians to seek to influence the state. That we should pray for political leaders to obey Christ in their roles and call them to do so. That it is perfectly acceptable for political leaders to call a nation to fast and pray, particularly at moments of national emergency.
There are all kinds of important issues that are secondary to these questions which I don’t want to ignore. But I do want to seek agreement, particularly among UK Christians, that this is the starting point for all the practicalities.
Political Christianity – good or grubby?
If a few more Christian leaders could make even these basic principles clear, our work at Christian Concern could be significantly easier. But we often see people write as if explicitly Christian influence in government is a bad thing – that Christians seeking to influence politics is bad.
Sometimes people talk as if involvement with politics and power is sub-Christian. “Turn the other cheek”, “My kingdom is not of this world” and “Give to Caesar” are taken to mean that politics is grubby business none of us should be involved with. That Christ identifying with the vulnerable means that power can only be misused.
I think this is the misuse of these passages and principles. It makes theological applications that other parts of the Bible simply contradict. And any political theology needs to reckon with what happens when the political leader becomes a Christian (as many have done in history). I see no Biblical mandate to suggest they must resign their position, and the Bible contains huge portions of guidance and wisdom for lawmakers and kings. Was the King of Nineveh supposed to resign when he repented?
Others make out that although Christian influence in politics could be good, seeking it is futile. They might say there aren’t enough Christians to make a meaningful difference – change is always bottom up and we need to only think about evangelism. There are many legitimate discussions about allocation of time and resources, but I don’t think theology or history supports the notion that change only happens in this democratic way. God directly stirs up rulers’ hearts (including Pharoah and Cyrus). Societal change much more typically happens in top-down or middle-out ways. Also, a more visibly, structurally Christian society actually sets a much better cultural context for evangelism, adding plausibility to Jesus’ claims – as I believe we are currently seeing with the seeds of revival in the West.
Mere Christian nationalism
Maybe what I’m interested in here is ‘mere Christian Nationalism’, a companion to C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity.
Picture a house which contains all those who believe that nations should be governed according to Christian principles. Within the house are many rooms. One for Kevin DeYoung, one for the Kuyperians and so on. Maybe there are some really messy, unpleasant rooms that we don’t want to go in without hazmat suits.
Perhaps there are even some rooms where people only pay lip service to Christ’s authority. From outside, they look like they’re part of the house but in fact, they’re completely blocked off.
I want us to enter the house. To make abundantly clear that Jesus Christ has authority over all things, including politics. Once we’re there, agreeing to the most basic principles, we can work out which room we want to enter.
Jesus is good news for society
I can’t tell you whether to embrace or critique the term Christian Nationalism itself. I am certain though, that we need much more confidence that what Jesus Christ calls us to do is good for our nation’s life.
If we had politicians, judges and other officials who meditated deeply on the law of the LORD, we would have a much more just, thriving nation.
And that starts with us, God’s people. We can’t afford to leave politics as an area untouched by the wisdom of God. We must go deep in our Bibles, understand the issues at hand and boldly stand for what we know to be right.
Being part of the Christian Concern community is one way of many to do that.
But if we fail in this, spending too much time categorising our divisions, we will fail our prophetic calling and leave a lost people with nothing to turn to.
Many people see secularism discredited and falling apart under the Woke agenda. Many people see Islam poised to take over. Many people see some kind of Christianity as the only viable bulwark against these anti-human ideologies. They may have wrong or shallow ideas about it, but if so, all the more reason to boldly show them what a fully-fledged Christian nation would look like.
And we can’t move on to those questions until we at least get the fundamentals in place. Jesus Christ is the King of Kings, all politics is subject to him and it’s godly and loving to work towards a Christian nation.
Endnotes
[1] And implicitly, not by other authorities. Whatever we might think about human rights, for example, they are only valid to the degree that they match the teaching of God’s Word. As those who exercise our own political authority through voting, we are to base our decisions on what we understand Jesus Christ wants, not our own unsanctified preferences.
[2] In this disagreement, he mentions the original Westminster Confession of Faith, which very clearly expects civil authorities to involve itself in what are typically thought of as Church matters. Although many would now agree that this is wrong, it cannot be denied that it has been the dominant position for most of Christian history.
