Nationalism and the Promise of Pluralism
The Danger of Christian Nationalism to American Democracy
Since the beginning of Donald Trump’s populist campaign for President of the United States in 2015, there has been a notable rise in the popularity of nationalism among right-wing individuals and institutions in the United States. This trend certainly didn’t find its origin with Donald Trump; in fact, populistic and nationalistic political leaders began to rise around the world during the same period, as a reaction to the socialist-oriented globalism that had dominated the global geopolitical landscape for the decade before. However, Donald Trump intentionally harnessed the disillusionment of many working-class Americans in a unique way, combining their religious fervor and values with a nationalist agenda and message, giving rebirth to American Populist Christian Nationalism.
In a 2022 poll conducted by Pew Research, 45% of Americans said that “America should be a Christian nation,”[1] and among those respondents, around 30% believed that the federal government should declare the nation to be officially Christian and overtly advocate for Christian religious views. Though these numbers represent only one-fourth of the national population, the influence of this powerful minority is outsized. Through far-right media outlets and extremely vocal political leaders, the message of Christian Nationalism seems to dominate American political discourse and appears to be growing beyond a mere political perspective—towards a belief that many are willing to act on to make it a reality.
Georgia Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, for instance, boldly declared that the Republican Party should be “…the party of nationalism and I’m a Christian, and I say it proudly, we should be Christian Nationalists.”[2] At the same time, Florida Governor and potential Republican presidential candidate Ron DeSantis has begun using overtly religious language in his political stump speeches and has been called out by the Miami Herald for “flirting with Christian Nationalism.”[3]
This political support of the ideology of Christian Nationalism has also emboldened many fundamentalist and evangelical leaders to begin explicitly advocating for their congregations to support and work toward establishing America as a Christian nation. A group called the “Black Robe Regiment” has emerged—Christian pastors whose mission is, in part, “to restore the American Church in her capacity as the Body of Christ, ambassadors of Christ, moral teacher of America and the world, and overseer of all principalities and governing officials.”[4] At the same time, books like The Case for Christian Nationalism have shot to the top of Amazon’s bestsellers lists, arguing that “Christian nationalism is not only the necessary alternative to secularism, it is the form of government we must pursue if we want to love our neighbors and our country.”[5]
As Populist Christian Nationalism continues to grow in influence and popularity, a serious challenge is being posed to the democratic pluralistic ideology that forms the groundwork of the American experiment. The First Amendment of the Constitution[6] lays out the freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and freedom of speech—in other words, the ability for a wide array of diverse peoples with diverse worldviews to live peaceably together within the borders of the United States of America. These values are widely regarded as the cornerstone that holds all American democracy together. Yet the growing influence of Populist Christian Nationalism now poses a unique threat to these core American values by seeking to privilege Christianity as the official religion of the United States and to enact laws based on a conservative Christian theological paradigm. This would certainly violate the moral and religious values of over half of the country, which does not identify as Christian.
Standing in the midst of this inflection point, which may either make or break the American experiment once and for all, I will seek to explore the core arguments of both the religiously rooted nationalist and the pluralist regarding religious freedom, in order to articulate a case for democratic pluralism as the best direction for America to continue to move in to ensure our country’s flourishing and influence for generations to come.
Defining Pluralism and Populist Nationalism
Pluralism is a political theory which suggests that the public, organized into various groups, organizations, and coalitions, should hold the ultimate power of governance within the United States.[7] These groups are made up of a diversity of people, with diverse beliefs, values, and interests, who advocate for their own needs and exert influence over elected officials. Pluralism ensures that various diverse groups can seek representation within the government and relies on the skills and abilities of each group to organize, influence, and enact their own political agendas.
Nationalism has been said to be “notoriously difficult to define.”[8] The general consensus is that it is a political theory suggesting that individual citizens of a particular nation come together around a common national identity and, through that identity, seek self-determination.[9] When combined with populism, nationalism becomes a political ideology that views citizens of a particular national identity as being at odds with an “elite” or ruling class, and seeks to oppose and overturn such a ruling class because it does not represent the identities or interests of “the nation.”[10] The Oxford English Dictionary defines a “populist” as “one who seeks to represent the views of the mass of common people,”[11] which is precisely the sort of rhetoric that has emerged from modern American populist political leaders.
Other scholars have worked to distinguish between what they call “chauvinistic nationalism,” defined as “the view that one’s own in-group and country are unique and superior,”[12] versus “patriotic nationalism,” which is “the love for and pride in one’s people and country.”[13] For our purposes, the version of nationalism being embraced in modern America is the former: chauvinistic nationalism, which privileges one religious group over and against all other groups in the United States.
American pluralism and populist nationalism are diametrically opposed to one another because a pluralistic worldview values a multitude of identities and backgrounds coming together to form the so-called melting pot of the United States of America. In contrast, populist nationalism argues for a common national identity which, in the case of Christian nationalism, excludes those who are not Christian and do not hold to a Christian moral and ethical worldview. Pluralism encourages debate between diverse groups as they vie for power and influence, reflecting democratic ideals. Each group seeks power, money, and influence from the citizenry. Populism, however, usually relies on a single sector of the population to appoint leaders who advocate for their interests and perspectives, regardless of the desires, beliefs, or identities of the rest of the national population.
Pluralist and Nationalist Views of Religion
Each of these perspectives also has a unique view of how religion should function in society and government. Scholar Roger Brubaker has described four different kinds of interactions between religion and nationalism, the fourth of which appears most aligned with modern Christian nationalism. Brubaker writes: “There is a distinctively religious type of nationalist program, which represents a distinct alternative to secular nationalism,”[14] and describes this religious nationalism as one that advocates for a clear set of values and laws based strictly on the creeds and doctrines of a particular religious denomination. He concludes, “Nationalist politics can accommodate the claims of religion, and nationalist rhetoric often deploys religious language, imagery, and symbolism.”[15]
Religious nationalism should be distinguished from theocracy, where the political leadership of a nation claims to derive its authority directly from God. Instead, religious nationalism uses religion as a tool to solidify a common national identity. If such an identity is realized, the religion will have great influence on the policies and practices of the nation, but it is not the formal source of governmental authority.
From this foundation, the concept of religious freedom becomes obscured. In countries with religious nationalism as the framework, there often exists overt religious persecution or, at the very least, clear religious bias and discrimination. When a national identity is formed around a specific religious identity, those who do not share that identity are likely to be marginalized. This would constitute a fundamental assault on the American principle of the “freedom of religion” as defined by the First Amendment, because the government would, in theory, create laws that “respect an establishment of religion,”[16] resulting in an unfavorable position for all who do not align with the favored religious group.
Pluralism, on the other hand, treats all religions as neutral aspects of a citizen’s identity and encourages the expression and advocacy of various religious beliefs and values—just as any group might advocate for a specific policy area. The Aspen Institute defines “religious pluralism” as “the state of being where every individual in a religiously diverse society has the rights, freedoms, and safety to worship, or not, according to their conscience.”[17] This definition reflects the core ideology of pluralism in general—the embracing of diversity, the freedom of individuals to express their beliefs or lack thereof without fear of government penalty, and the preservation of this freedom as a core aspect of a nation’s pluralistic identity.[18]
The philosophy of religious pluralism is widely regarded as having reached its apex in American democracy from the very founding of the nation, where various people of diverse religious perspectives formed a government that did not favor one belief system over another but centered on common, universal rights and freedoms extended equally to all citizens (at least in theory).
From the perspective of religious pluralism, it is religious diversity that is valued as good, and in America, this diversity has increasingly been centered as part of our national identity—though this has not always been the case. In the Federalist Papers, John Jay writes, “Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people—a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs.”[19] This suggests that at least some of America’s founders desired to create a unified national identity out of diversity. The “melting pot” metaphor is apt here. Yet as America has moved into the modern era, the language of unity in the midst of diversity has replaced the pursuit of a singular religious and cultural identity.
Indeed, Dr. Eboo Patel, the founder of Interfaith America, has argued that it is time for America to move from the “melting pot” metaphor toward that of a “potluck,” where individual identities come together to create a rich feast of experiences rather than one blended, uniform culture.[20]
The nationalist and pluralist views of religious freedom could not be more different—one leans on a singular religion to form national identity, while the other makes space for broad diversity, centering diversity itself as the core of a country’s identity. In this moment of deep political division, only one of these visions can shape America’s future—the two cannot coexist within a singular national structure.
The Compatibility of Christianity and Nationalism
Despite its colonial and imperial past, Christianity has also been credited as one of the ideologies that birthed the modern Western notions of both religious freedom and pluralism. The impulse for a separation of religion and political power can be traced back to the words of Jesus himself when he proclaimed, “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s.”[29] Despite Jesus’ later command to “go into all the world and preach the Gospel,”[30] modern Christians have generally understood the principles of Christianity to be pro-democracy, pro-pluralism, and anti-theocracy. Even in expressly “Christian nations” such as the modern United Kingdom, laws that restrict the freedom of religious expression, punish blasphemy, or require adherence to a state religion have largely been done away with.[31]
Since its conception, Christianity has been expressly an anti-imperial religion, originally founded as a messianic movement seeking to overturn the oppressive Roman Empire and establish Jesus’ vision of the “Kingdom of God,” which he articulated in terms of a subversive ordering of the world where all people—especially the poor and marginalized—have an equal place in society. This original anti-imperial message was carried on throughout the writings of the Apostle Paul and in the early Christian movement. Tatha Wiley explores this anti-imperial message in her chapter Paul and Early Christianity, asserting that for Paul, “Christ will destroy every ruler, every authority and power,”[32] which in the view of the early Church was Rome. The entire Jesus movement is juxtaposed against the crude power of the authoritarian Roman Empire. It is sadly ironic that a few hundred years after this anti-imperial movement launched, Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire, beginning a long nationalistic trajectory for the religion.
Nonetheless, throughout Christian history, there have been continual calls to reject nationalism and embrace a pluralistic vision of the world, in line with Jesus’ original teaching. Scholar Michael Jinkins argues that pluralism is actually the natural outflow of a proper Christian theology of a God who creates a world of diversity and uniqueness and calls it “good.” He writes, “For Christians, this otherness, the diversity and plurality woven into the very fabric of creation, corresponds to the otherness of God’s own being in communion.”[33] In other words, the Christian conception of creation, based on the Hebrew Bible’s creation myth, sees the diversity of the created order as a reflection of God’s own diversity and creativity. Thus, the diversity of humanity—in all of our different beliefs, ethnicities, perspectives, genders, abilities, etc.—is also a holy reflection of the Divine and should be embraced as such.
Even the quasi-nationalistic language of Augustine in City of God makes clear that a “happy Christian ruler” is one who “rules [all people] with justice,”[34] not one who seeks to privilege Christians and persecute others, but one who treats one’s neighbor of another faith as one would treat a fellow Christian. John Burke argues that while Augustine was deeply patriotic toward the Roman Empire, “the chief characteristics of Roman nationalism he rejected. He rejected its religion. On the gods of the Romans, he heaped scorn. He cataloged their crimes; he exposed their absurdities.”[35] In other words, Augustine was able to feel gratitude for the ability to live within a particular empire, while rejecting a nationalism that demanded his devotion—which he believed could only be rightly placed in the “City of God.” Burke concludes:
“Christians and the Church therefore could not be other than life-long enemies, not of service to Rome nor its greatness, but of Rome’s arrogant, cruel, and contemptuous subjection of all things and all people to the pagan will of the ruling class of the Roman nation.”[36]
For Augustine and many early Christians, it was clear that one’s allegiance could never be to a frail and sinful human state, but to a broader vision of the Kingdom of God which would only ultimately be inaugurated at the Second Coming of Christ. One could have gratitude for and pride in one’s state, but also remain clear about the excesses and immorality that are bound to emerge within any human government. This seems to be a clear apologetic against nationalism—one cannot put trust or hope in any human state, even a “Christian” one, because of the sinful nature of humanity. History bears witness to the fragility of empires and nations that embrace “Christian nationalism” and ultimately fall into injustice and tyranny. For the orthodox Christian, the ultimate and only hope of humanity is the divine empire—the City of God—that will be established by Christ himself in the eschaton. Until then, Christians should seek to live as lights of brotherly love and justice in society, advocating for the common good and pointing people toward the ultimate hope that is found in Christ alone.
Indeed, the great Christian philosopher Søren Kierkegaard offered a poignant critique of Christian nationalism in his own work, appealing to the fundamental Christian ethic of “neighborliness.” Stephen Backhouse summarizes Kierkegaard’s view of the neighbor, saying:
“…the neighbour is an alternative Christian category that undermines the confidence normally placed in the pagan, commonsensical (and ultimately unstable) category of the ‘compatriot’. As a way of describing the recipient or target of our love, the neighbour competes with—and subverts—the compatriot, in a way that it does not subvert the friend or spouse.”[37]
Kierkegaard understood the Christian concept of “neighbor” to transcend the concept of “compatriot” or “conationalist.” The call to love one’s neighbor is, indeed, a call to radically love those who do not share one’s nationality, beliefs, identities, or even common interests. This vision of neighborliness can only be realized in a society that embraces both pluralism and religious freedom, allowing our neighbors to express themselves and their beliefs freely and equally. Indeed, if we were to argue for a version of Christian nationalism based on this concept of neighborliness, it would necessitate the creation and support of a pluralistic democracy with religious freedom at its core—precisely how many Christian theologians and political theorists have characterized the American experiment since its inception.
Backhouse offers this poignant conclusion of Kierkegaard’s critique of nationalism:
“Against this temptation to drum up spurious nationalistic love, it seems clear that what is needed is not stronger feelings about the idea of the nation, but more commitment and engagement with real social communities, otherwise known as neighbourliness.”[38]
These sentiments are not merely Kierkegaard’s, but clearly align with the ethics of Jesus Christ and the New Testament. The impulse of nationalism is one of preserving power and privilege, of “othering” those who do not align with a common identity or set of values, and of limiting the freedom of expression—all of which lack any solid foundation in Christian scripture or tradition. Instead, the call to love one’s neighbor necessitates advocating for equal freedom for one’s neighbor, even if that freedom leads them to express different beliefs, practices, or morals than our own. To be a Christian is to value the plurality that exists among humanity as a reflection of God’s own creativity, and thus, nationalism is wholly incompatible.
Conclusion: Countering Nationalism with Neighborliness
In his book The Case for Christian Nationalism, Stephen Wolfe defines “Christian Nationalism” as “a totality of national action, consisting of civil laws and social customs, conducted by a Christian nation as a Christian nation, in order to procure for itself both earthly and heavenly good in Christ.”[39] Wolfe goes on to claim that Christian nationalism “is the ideal arrangement for Christians, and something worth pursuing with determination and resolve.”[40] Implied in this definition and the following claim is that Christians should primarily be seeking the good of themselves and their fellow Christians above all else. Ironically, this claim is outrageously unchristian, lacking justification in the teachings of Jesus Christ, who explicitly called his disciples to “love your neighbor as yourself,”[41] or the Apostle Paul, who declared, “no one should seek their own good, but the good of others.”[42] As demonstrated above, central to a Christian political ethic are the ideals of neighborliness and the common good—ideals that are incompatible with any notion of Christian nationalism.
Indeed, Wolfe admits as much, writing disparagingly about the universal values of pluralism:
“For decades, theologians have developed theologies that exclude Christianity from public institutions but require Christians to affirm the language of universal dignity, tolerance, human rights, anti-nationalism, anti-nativism, multiculturalism, social justice, and equity, and they ostracize from their own ranks any Christian who deviates from these social dogmas.”[43]
In the mind of the Christian nationalist, the key social values that form the basis of the First Amendment and Western democracy—values which arguably have their roots, at least in part, in the teachings of Jesus—are incompatible with their version of Christianity. These values do not lead to the privileging of Christianity. In fact, they place Christianity as equal to all other religious traditions and, thus, are deemed undesirable by the Christian nationalist.
Christian nationalists believe that (their version of) Christianity alone holds the truth and the keys to objective morality. Wolfe claims:
“The people of God on earth (Christians) are a renewed people… and now possess all the native gifts once given to Adam. So, as to form, they can achieve all that Adam was commanded to do with those gifts…”[44]
In other words, Wolfe believes that Christians alone have been divinely restored to pre-sin perfection to some degree, and thus Christians alone can properly order society. Adopting this exclusive perspective makes pluralism not only impossible but immoral. It also renders advocacy for religious liberty akin to evil, since it involves supporting the freedom of others to express what Christian nationalists see as damning doctrinal lies. Wolfe states this explicitly:
“The question is whether a Christian magistrate… may punish (with civil power) false teachers, heretics, blasphemers, and idolaters… Modern religious liberty advocates deny this and I affirm it.”[45]
Modern Christian nationalism is a serious threat to the pluralistic, pro-religious freedom values that form the foundation of American democracy. If it were enacted as the operating system of the United States, our country would quickly come to resemble an autocratic or theocratic regime and would cease to be the beacon of human rights, equality, and dignity that it aspires to be.
From a Christian perspective, there seems to be a strong case for maintaining a society where all people—in all of our diversity—have the same rights, and where we strive together for the common good. We must work together, to the best of our ability, to live from the value of “love for our neighbor” as we gradually transform our world—not through military force or political might, but through service and sacrifice for the common good.
For all its flaws and egregious sins, American democracy does indeed seem to be the best model of collective flourishing for our increasingly interconnected and globalized world. Writing from the perspective of a Christian pastor and theologian, it also seems to align most clearly with the ethics and politics of my own religious tradition—and indeed, with many of the world’s other religious traditions, which also value fraternity and collective flourishing as their highest aims. Because of this, I believe our democracy must be defended against the rising tide of Christian nationalism, which poses a pressing and existential threat to the most foundational principles that have allowed our country—and the modern world—to flourish.
[1] Nadeem, Reem. “45% Of Americans Say U.S. Should Be a 'Christian Nation'.” Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project, Pew Research Center, 23 Nov. 2022, https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/10/27/45-of-americans-say-u-s-should-be-a-christian-nation/.
[2] Tyler, Amanda. “Opinion: Marjorie Taylor Greene's Words on Christian Nationalism Are a Wake-up Call.” CNN, 27 July 2022, https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/27/opinions/christian-nationalism-marjorie-taylor-greene-tyler/index.html.
[3] “Miami Herald Editorial Says Gov. DeSantis' Is 'Flirting' with Christian Nationalism and Warns of White Supremacy Link.” Yahoo! News, https://news.yahoo.com/miami-herald-editorial-says-gov-161107339.html.
[4] “Mission of the Black Robe Regiment.” Black Robe Regiment, http://www.blackrobereg.org/mission.html.
[5] Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism. Canon Press, 2022.
[6] U.S. Constitution - First Amendment | Resources - Congress. https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/.
[7] “Pluralism.” University of Delaware, https://www1.udel.edu/htr/American/Texts/pluralism.html.
[8] Anderson, Benedict R. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, Verso, London, 2016, p. 3.
[9] Miscevic, Nenad. “Nationalism.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford University, 2 Sept. 2020, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nationalism/#BasiConcNati.
[10] O’Rourke, P.J. “America’s Populism Problem.” Cato.org, The CATO Institute, Apr. 2021, https://www.cato.org/commentary/americas-populism-problem.
[11] “Populist.” Oxford English Dictionary, https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/populist_1.
[12] Coenders, M., & Scheepers, P. (2003). “The effect of education on nationalism and ethnic exclusionism: An international comparison.” Political Psychology, 24, 313–343.
[13] Ibid., p. 322.
[14] Brubaker, R. (2012). “Religion and nationalism: Four approaches.” Nations and Nationalism, 18(1), 2–20.
[15] Ibid., p. 18.
[16] U.S. Constitution - First Amendment | Resources - Congress. https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-1/.
[17] “Religious Pluralism 101.” The Aspen Institute, https://www.aspeninstitute.org/blog-posts/religious-pluralism-101/.
[18] Knitter, Paul F. One Earth, Many Religions. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1995, p. 56.
[19] Jay, John. The Federalist Papers, No. 2.
[20] Graham, Jennifer. “‘We Need to Spread the Good’ - A Conversation with Eboo Patel.” Deseret News, 11 Oct. 2022, https://www.deseret.com/faith/2022/10/10/23396832/eboo-patel-interfaith-america-potluck-melting-pot-judeo-christian-nation.
[27] Ibid., p. 63.
[28] U.S. Department of State. “2021 Report on International Religious Freedom: China.” https://www.state.gov/reports/2021-report-on-international-religious-freedom/china/.
[29] Mark 12:17 (NRSV).
[30] Mark 16:15 (NRSV).
[31] Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office. “Freedom of Religion or Belief: Understanding This Human Right.” GOV.UK, 12 May 2022, https://www.gov.uk/guidance/freedom-of-religion-or-belief-understanding-this-human-right.
[32] Kwok, Pui-lan, et al. Empire and the Christian Tradition: New Readings of Classical Theologians. Fortress Press, 2007, p. 59.
[33] Jinkins, Michael. Christianity, Tolerance and Pluralism: A Theological Engagement with Isaiah Berlin’s Social Theory. Routledge, 2004, p. 187.
[34] Augustine. The City of God, Book 5. New York: Fathers of the Church, Inc., 1950, p. 32.
[35] Burke, John J. “Historical Attitude of the Church toward Nationalism.” The Catholic Historical Review, vol. 14, no. 1, 1928, pp. 69–80. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25012509, p. 71.
[36] Ibid., p. 72.
[37] Backhouse, Stephen. Kierkegaard's Critique of Christian Nationalism. Oxford University Press, 2011, p. 165.
[38] Ibid., p. 238.
[39] Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism. Canon Press, 2022, p. 8.
[40] Ibid., p. 8.
[41] Mark 12:31 (NRSV).
[42] 1 Corinthians 10:24 (NRSV).
[43] Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism. Canon Press, 2022, p. 5.
[44] Ibid., p. 173.
[45] Ibid., p. 358.