CHRISTIAN NATIONALISM OR WHAT?
—Mark W. Pfeifer
For many years, the assumed alternative to Christian Nationalism was considered to be Personal Freedom.
The thought process went something like this…
The idea of Christian morals being imposed upon society through legislation is a threat to personal freedom; something akin to a Christian version of the Taliban.
But is that dichotomy accurate?
In the United States, it’s been easy for people to criticize Christian Nationalism because our democracy seemed so stable, the culture so moral and the alternative so clear. Why would anyone want to impose Christian values through legislation when the alternative positions, personal freedom and liberty, seemed so much better?
Many Christians joined the public chorus saying, “Thanks but no thanks” to ecclesiastical leaders crossing the sacred line between Church and State.
But is this position still relevant?
Is it consistent across time and around the world?
What are the actual alternative positions to Christian Nationalism?
Do Christians in other nations have the same opinion about Christian Nationalism as many Americans do?
My guess is that Christians in nations like North Korea, China, Vietnam, Cuba and Laos, might think differently about Christian Nationalism. In these nations Marxism as a nationalistic ideology has led to the persecution of millions of Christians. Our brothers and sisters living in those nations might be wishing they had some Christian Nationalism to give them a voice.
In nations like Afghanistan, Somalia, Libya, Yemen, Iran, Pakistan, and Nigeria where Islamic Nationalism is responsible for the deaths of millions of Christians, many of them might appreciate the luxury of Christian Nationalism, but they would be killed for it.
Which leads me to something I often think about…
If an idea cannot be replicated under multiple conditions and remain consistent in various cultures across time, the truth of that idea must be questioned.
So, we must honestly ask:
Is the assumption that Christian Nationalism is inherently negative actually rooted in Scripture?
Does the warning against Christian Nationalism resonate cross-culturally?
Has the negativity towards Christian Nationalism been a consistent position of the church throughout history?
Is the negative spin surrounding Christian Nationalism uniquely American?
Is Christan Nationalism a threat to civil liberties or is it a label used to dissuade Evangelical Christians from exerting influence in the political process?
What I am questioning in this article is not the existence of Christian Nationalism. What I’m exploring is the assumption that the alternative position to Christian Nationalism is personal freedom...
…when the likely alternative to Christian Nationalism is another form of Nationalism.
Other forms of Nationalism might include Atheistic Nationalism, Hedonic Nationalism, Marxist Nationalism, Secular Nationalism, Islamic Nationalism, Postmodern Nationalism, Ethnic Nationalism, Imperial Nationalism, just to name a few.
People have always been nationalistic.
There will always be some form of nationalism in the nations.
The question is, which one will we choose?
It seems that in the church, many of us persist in branding fellow believers as Christian Nationalists, criticizing them for engaging in the political process, while barely taking notice of the rise of Anti-Christian nationalistic ideologies emerging all around us.
While the case should be made that Christians can hinder the cause of Christ by immersing themselves too deeply in forms of Christian Americanism, Christian Republicanism, Christian Populism and Christian Trumpism, those who reflexively label Christians who involves themselves in the political process of being a Christian Nationalist might consider the true alternative they inadvertently espousing.
I seriously doubt that socialist podcasters and Islamic clerics are accusing leaders like Zohran Mamdani of being an Islamic Nationalist.
Why? Because they understand the rules of engagement.
Islam makes no bones about it. Islamic Nationalism is baked into the religious system. The Qur’an encourages national governance, giving guidance on how their religion should exercise social warfare, dress codes, education, taxation, military, jurisprudence, economics, morality, family life, social order, etc.
This is not to say that every Muslim is an Islamicist.
This is not to say that Muslims are not patriotic.
This is not to say that every Muslim is a threat.
They are not!
This is to say that the religious system they embrace has a nationalistic framework that naturally extends itself into governmental affairs.
This is also the reason why we don’t see socialists throwing stones at their own adherents who seek influence in public office. Marxism is an ideology has intrinsically governmental ambitions. Historically, it has sought influence nations by revolution, introducing chaos into the system through a vocal and sometimes violent minority to obtain political power strategically.
The void that will be left in the public square by Christian leaders who are shamed into silence under the accusation of being Christian Nationalists is going to be happily filled by others who do not hold the same Biblical values that Western democracies have instantiated into their cultures for centuries.
What many people don’t understand is that Christianity is the basis of our constitutional liberties and personal freedoms. Without a moral foundation rooted in Biblical convictions that serves society with personal ethical restraints, democracy collapses into tyranny.
John Adams may have said it best, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
In his 1796 Farewell Address, George Washington warned that a free republic could not endure without moral foundations, declaring, “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.”
In “Democracy in America,” Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville concluded that Christianity functioned as a stabilizing moral force in America, essential to sustaining the health and endurance of American democracy.
Without Christianity as a moral compass, constitutional liberties and personal freedoms become a license for immoral people to practice lawlessness. Which means that civil liberties are not the alternative to Christian Nationalism; they are allies.
Therefore, the true alternative to Christian Nationalism, in my thinking, is not civil liberties, but other forms of Nationalism, like Marxist Nationalism, Imperial Nationalism, Atheistic Nationalism, Global Nationalism, Secular Nationalism, Islamic Nationalism, Postmodern Nationalism, Hedonic Nationalism, etc.
The question is what kind of Nationalism do you prefer?