is christian nationalism dangerous

Is Christian Nationalism Dangerous?

Josiah Reedy on November 16, 2022

It seems these days that any discussion of religion and the public square introduces, without fail, some mention of the term “Christian nationalism.” But what is Christian nationalism? More importantly, is it a dangerous perspective worthy of repudiation, or a helpful viewpoint to embrace?

Dr. Sean McDowell, a professor at Biola University and host of the “Think Biblically” podcast, recently moderated a discussion to think more about this subject. His guests were Dr. R.R. Reno, editor of First Things and author of Return of the Strong Gods: Nationalism, Populism, and the Future of the West, and Dr. Paul D. Miller, a professor at Georgetown University and author of The Religion of American Greatness: What’s Wrong with Christian Nationalism.

Reno began by pointing to his concerns with the idea of an “open society.” He said, “My thesis is that we have overdone the open society consensus to the point of dissolving the shared loves that can animate a people, unify it, and inspire it.” Reno criticized what he called “the culture-wide project of dialing down the temperature of people’s beliefs and commitments.”

According to Miller, on the other hand, “The open society is certainly better than its alternative.” He added, “Let’s be careful that we don’t undo the gains of an open society, especially for those who are historically on the receiving end of our worst oppressions.”

Miller argued that the idea of nationalism runs into practical complications, saying it “depends on a prior idea, that there are peoples whom you can clearly identify and demarcate from other peoples in the world.” 

However, Reno noted, “The nation-state is probably a necessary form for democracy… a degree of cultural homogeneity is necessary.” He continued, “When a society becomes too fragmented, its political culture becomes toxic,” and posed the rhetorical question, “Are we too fragmented in 2022 or too consolidated? Do we have too much presumptive trust or too little?”

In Miller’s view, “There’s simply never a situation of perfect cultural homogeneity.” He stated, “These governments that claim to be self-determining are actually practicing a form of internal imperialism.”

Miller and Reno also expressed disagreement over what kind of “consolidation” ought to happen. Miller said, “I don’t think we can reconsolidate around the old Anglo-Protestant consensus.” He characterized nationalism as “just another kind of identity politics,” adding, “When the minority does it we call it identity politics; when the majority does it we call it nationalism.”

Reno responded, “If we don’t give people a healthy and honorable kind of national identity, they’re going to be easily seduced by demagogues who will offer them something much more dangerous and potentially perverse.” He contended, “The future of our country is likely to be strongly influenced by Anglo-Protestant heritage.”

Reno and Miller’s clearest disagreement was regarding the government’s relationship to religion, with the particular example of school prayer being raised. Reno asserted, “One of the problems we have in our society is we socialize children into a purely immanent and materialist view of the world, and it would be helpful to them and to the future of our society if we gave them some kind of transcendent horizon.” He also remarked, “Good governance of the United States would be to encourage the religious life of the American people. If we did encourage it, it would be predominantly Christian.”

Miller made the case that such a view harms the church, saying, “It’s the prerogative of the church to hold the keys of the kingdom and exercise the teaching ministry, to lead the public worship of God. If we outsource that to the state, the church loses control over what’s being taught, which might explain why Americans have always been kind of Biblically illiterate.” He further stated, “There’s a problem with the state using religion for its own purposes, to create a sense of social solidarity. It harms the church’s ability to stand apart and outside from the state and offer an independent critique.”

Miller also clarified, “I’m not saying a Christian cultural heritage is bad. If you like a Christian cultural heritage, feel free to go out and cultivate it and advocate it and build it in your own institutions, but don’t look to the government to do it for you. It’s uncharitable toward our neighbors who don’t want to participate in that heritage.”

In closing, Reno mentioned the need to “make ‘normal’ normal again.” He said, “We need to help our society reconsolidate around a capacious but sane vision of what it means to be a happy, healthy, thriving citizen.”

Miller urged listeners to “learn the art of loving civic disagreement.” He concluded, “We can be faithful to the Lord by keeping distinct our loyalties here in this world and in this great country from our ultimate loyalties, which should lead us higher.”

  1. Comment by Theodore Miner on November 18, 2022 at 9:02 am

    What is dangerous? What is Christian Nationalism? It appears that when Christians advocate for laws and public policy based of God’s law and Biblical principles, then the “danger” of Christian Nationalism is brought forth. However that is what Christians should be doing. If we want to assess danger, what is the danger as a nation of ignoring God’s precepts and proceeding according to secular judgments? What we are seeing today is a revealing of God’s wrath. What we are not seeing is that we are storing up wrath for the day of wrath. What is more dangerous? A minority of the population advocating for public policy based on Biblical principles or God’s wrath against a rebellious nation? Have we overlooked the danger of the later.

    “Therefore, you kings, be wise;
    be warned, you rulers of the earth.
    Serve the Lord with fear
    and celebrate his rule with trembling.
    Kiss his son, or he will be angry
    and your way will lead to your destruction,
    for his wrath can flare up in a moment.
    Blessed are all who take refuge in him.”
    – Psalm 2

  2. Comment by David Gingrich on November 21, 2022 at 7:08 am

    Christians now advocating FOR George Soros’s evil “open society”?????

  3. Comment by George on November 21, 2022 at 10:41 am

    Christians should advocate, vote and work for good laws and governance as scripture prescribes – praying for those who bear authority, pursuing a peaceable living and freedom to share the gospel of Christ. When “Christianity” has actually TAKEN OVER government, however it has not gone well and usually wound up persecuting Jews. They have somehow missed the fact that their savior IS a Jew. Scripture tells us there is a “man” seated at the right hand of the Father in heaven and that man is “the Lion of the Tribe of Judah.”

  4. Comment by Jeff on November 21, 2022 at 10:52 pm

    In his excellent “The Stream” webzine article on Christian Nationalism found here:

    https://stream.org/robert-jeffress-is-right-its-time-to-embrace-christian-nationalism-correctly-defined/

    ..John Zmirak makes the following excellent point:

    “If you hear someone use the term “Christian Nationalism” loosely and sloppily, you might try this as a comeback. ‘Oh, so do you prefer Pagan Tribalism? Or Atheist Globalism? Because those seem to be the alternatives on offer.'”

    Zmirak’s entire article is a good read on the subject.

The work of IRD is made possible by your generous contributions.

Receive expert analysis in your inbox.