Am I a Christian Nationalist?

Posted on by T. M. Suffield

This should be a straightforward question, but to answer it we need to make a number of distinctions.

This felt like a largely American discourse until fairly recently, but the term is increasingly being used here in the UK as well. The problem is, it’s a big broad sloppy term that means as much or as little as those employing it intend it to. It was originally a pejorative against a certain sort of political theology that has become louder in the US in the last five years or so, which was then claimed by many of those it was aimed against as a badge of honour.

I don’t agree with the political theology of, e.g., Stephen Wolff, so obviously I’m not a Christian nationalist. However, it gets rather more complex. The definition of some of the media in the UK, especially more left leaning media, would make me one: I’m in their terms a ‘fundamentalist Christian’ (a fairly run of the mill evangelical who believes the Bible is true and we should do what it says) who thinks that society would be better if we followed the Bible and that our faith should affect the ‘public square.’ That, in the sloppiest definitions, makes me a Christian nationalist. I have no desire to claim that label.

My fear is that this sort of labelling itself drives people to the extremes. Either we find ourselves wanting to run away from the label and so some more left-leaning evangelicals start to reject the idea that our faith should affect society; the result being that Christianity becomes pietistic and has nothing to say to anyone. A more right-leaning evangelical sees themselves called that and so runs towards the extremes, often right past brothers whose political theology I might simply disagree with into the arms of antisemitic racists at the fringe.

The problem with terms like ‘Christian nationalist’ is that they can be claimed by people with views as diverse as:

  1. Theonomists, who think a nation’s laws should look like the Bible’s law code
  2. Nationalists, in the broad sense of ‘anti-empire,’ who are Christians
  3. Nationalists in the much tighter, protectionist sense, who are Christians
  4. Those who want a ‘Christian nation’ to be formed
  5. Those who want Christendom back
  6. Those who think it’s appropriate to consider what the political theology of a Christian nation would look like, though they might expect this to be brought into being through conversion or revival
  7. Those who are democratic post-liberals (or ecclesiocentric ones)
  8. Those who are anti-democratic post-liberals
  9. Those who are patriotic and love their nation and are Christians
  10. Christians who think that God’s word contains wisdom for running a nation
  11. Christians who think that churches should be able to preach God’s wisdom for the nation to the nation
  12. People who think a Christian nation means a white nation of ‘Anglo-Saxons.’
  13. People who think we should re-enact 17th century political theology
  14. People who like political theology
  15. People who are concerned about immigration

One of my concerns is that in my own circles people have started decrying ‘Christian nationalism’ without defining what they mean, which means that people in our churches who are, for example, at number 9 or number 15, think they’re being lumped in with number 12. We need to distinguish and clearly say what we’re disagreeing with.

I disagree with many of the positions above. I agree with some of them. Most of the ones I disagree with are worthy of respect and debate. Some of them (especially 12) are not. I’m fairly sure there are more positions that could be lumped into that list and some of those are broad groupings of belief (4 and 5 certainly are). Even the way I’ve formed them would require more definition to tell if I am, for example, pro- or anti- Christian nation and pro- or anti- Christendom.

The Bible is pro-nation, and anti-empire. To be fair the ‘nations’ you meet in the Bible aren’t the modern nation state and drawing direct lines between them requires careful parsing. Equally Revelation depicts the kingdom of God in imperial terms, so my statement is slightly simplistic.

It is a normal Christian belief to expect that the Bible contains wisdom for running a nation, but to most British evangelicals that sounds like full on theonomy. It’s alright to be patriotic. Political theology is a perfectly acceptable intellectual avenue of thought, and I respect those who want to prepare intellectually for a world that is, in the UK, a long way away.

So far all I’ve argued for is the importance of distinctions. We should demand them in writing, we should request them when people are speaking publicly, and when in conversation we should just ask people what they mean.

As is often the case these days, someone who thinks a middle of the road view (10) get branded with a label that leads them online to engaging with stronger views that aren’t outside the pale (1) and perhaps leads them into a view that is beyond the pale (12). This isn’t a straight line, I’m not claiming that all theonomists are going to turn into racists (this is clearly not true), or that one develops from the other: the point I’m making has more to do with algorithms and the nature of the internet than how one view leads to another naturally.

This isn’t a theoretical issue anymore. Any British Pastor reading this has these issues live in their church. Most likely you have significant numbers of people in your church from other nations, lots of them are scared and increasingly unsure if their churches want them here. Equally you will have people who have been putting up flags or attending the ‘unite the kingdom’ march for a myriad of reasons, some of which are well within the borders of normal political discourse that are acceptable for Christians. When everything is symbolic, but we don’t share the seem key to understanding the world, reading other people’s behaviour becomes difficult. When the keys we are given to the world through a variety of media that are themselves fractured and polarising, we are inclined to read those who are different to us in the worst possible light.

It doesn’t mean we can’t speak. It does mean what we say might offend some people. Sometimes we need to ‘diagonalise’ the issue and go all ‘third way.’ Sometimes we don’t, one side is right, and we should say so.

My readers will be entirely split on which side they think I’m referring to, and on what issue.

Of course, I don’t know any British churches who are engaging well with these questions. I’m not. We aren’t used to talking about politics. We are probably going to need to learn. This will likely involve offending some people. We might stick our foot in it. My only advice is to stick close to the Bible.

Oh, and if you were really curious, from my list above, about what I think, in classic Andrew Wilson style here’s a list of one word answers:

  1. No.
  2. Yes.
  3. No.
  4. Depends.
  5. Depends.
  6. Yes.
  7. Probably.
  8. No.
  9. Yes.
  10. Yes.
  11. Yes.
  12. No.
  13. No.
  14. No.
  15. Depends.

Which means that at least three of my possible definitions weren’t precise enough, since it does depend what I meant whether I’d say ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ We must distinguish.

I haven’t even attempted to address the question of political ‘means.’ Plenty of times I might agree with an outcome but disagree with the way we should get there. My description of appropriate means tend to involve the words ‘symbol’ and ‘imaginary’ a lot, which probably means I’m pompous, but not a Christian Nationalist. Go figure.

Photo by chris robert on Unsplash

To subscribe and receive email notifications for future posts, scroll all the way to the bottom of the page.

Would you like to support my work? The best thing you can do is share this post with your friends. Why not consider also joining my Patreon to keep my writing free for everyone. You can see other ways to support me here.