As a committed Christian, I have to say that the assertion that America is a Christian nation troubles me, rankles my faith, and in many ways leaves me a bit baffled. Those who make that assertion are not making a merely demographic claim based on the fact that the majority of Americans claim to be Christians nor a merely historical claim about America’s founding. They are insisting that in some sense Christianity should define the policies of the American government and shape its laws.
I’m less interested here in how the proponents of this notion justify their belief (though that also is something of a puzzlement to me) and more interested in how they envision it actually being implemented.
The U.S. Department of Christian Theology and Policy?
I can’t see any way for the laws and policies of the U. S. government to be “Christian” without the government assigning to itself the power to decide whether a law or policy is or is not Christian. In other words, some government official or some government agency would have to be given the job of defining what is and isn’t acceptably “Christian”.
I can’t see any way for the laws and policies of the U. S. government to be “Christian” without the government assigning to itself the power to decide whether a law or policy is or is not Christian.
Let that thought sink in for a moment. What Christian in their right mind would want the government to decide what is and isn’t “Christian”? Would there not have to be some sort of U. S. Department of Christian Theology and Policy created to oversee the “Christian-ness” of the government’s operations? Would there not have to be created a branch of the judiciary to adjudicate whether some law passed theological muster, in the way that the Supreme Court currently adjudicates questions of whether laws pass constitutional muster? Do American Christians—any American Christians—really want the government telling them what is and isn’t acceptably Christian? I certainly don’t.
This is part of why I find this matter so baffling to me. Surely the proponents of Christian nationalism have thought about this. But I find it inconceivable that any Christian would want the government of the United States telling them what to believe. But how else could this Christian nationalism be accomplished? In fact, isn’t this exactly what Christian nationalism is proposing—that the government should be in charge of defining what “Christian” means? That state of affairs would be at least as dangerous for Christians as it would be for non-Christians. Someone somewhere would be responsible for deciding on the standard by which the government would decide this issue of the Chrisian-ness of its laws and policies.
Whose Christianity?
So, how would these decisions be made? The fact of the matter is that ever president who has ever sat in the Oval Office has claimed to be a Christian. Both George W. Bush and Barak Obama are both men who claim to adhere to the Christian faith, and both have credible histories of church attendance. Yet, the policy aims of those two purportedly Christian presidents diverged widely.
Yet, here again, the policy aims of Democrat Christians and Republican Christians can hardly be reconciled. So, then, who would decide which was right?
The large majority of members of the U. S. congress claim to be Christians, and most can point to some believable evidence of some sort of church involvement. Yet, here again, the policy aims of Democrat Christians and Republican Christians can hardly be reconciled. So, then, who would decide which was right? Would there be some council of theologians or some supreme theologian as is the case in Iran? Is that the model Americans should follow? Is that a model that Americans, even American Christians, want to follow? And how would that council or that supreme theologian be chosen? These questions both baffle me and frighten me as a Christian person.
Which Church’s Abortion Policy?
Let’s play this out with the example of abortion. Not all branches of American Christianity agree that abortion is always wrong. So, how would we bring Christian theology to bear on determining the U. S. government’s policies on abortion? Should the view of the Roman Catholic Church and the Southern Baptist Convention define the government’s policies on abortion? Or should the views of the Presbyterian Church (USA) and the United Church of Christ define those policies? And again, who would decide which is the “Christian” position on abortion?
But the abortion issue isn’t even as simple as I’ve just laid it out. The position of American Christians on abortion hasn’t been stable over time. The Southern Baptist Convention is a telling case in point. According to the SBC’s own Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, prior to 1970 neither the convention itself nor any of its agencies took any position on the issue of abortion. A document on the commission’s website states this: “For example, a poll conducted by the Baptist Sunday School Board in 1970 found that 70% of SBC pastors supported abortion to protect the mental or physical health of the mother, 64% supported abortion in cases of fetal deformity, and 71% in cases of rape.”[1] Thus, in the view of the large majority of SBC pastors at that time, fetuses that had deformities or were the result of rape were not human persons and could, therefore, be terminated. The SBC called for the legalization of abortion at its annual meetings in 1971, 1974, and again in 1976.[2]
At the meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention in 2021, a resolution on abortion was passed. It was unambiguous in its condemnation of abortion without exception. Here is an example of its language: “RESOLVED, that the messengers of the SBC meeting in Nashville, Tennessee, June 15-16, 2021, do state unequivocally that abortion is murder, and we reject any position that allows for any exceptions to the legal protection of our preborn neighbors.”[3] The resolution goes on to call for laws that will reflect these views on abortion and urges government officials to repent of any departure from the SBC’s position. The resolution does not for some reason call upon the SBC itself to repent for its earlier unbiblical position.
Who would decide which is the “Christian” position on abortion?
So, a Christian nationalist approach to government would not merely be faced with the challenge of deciding whether the position of the pro-choice Presbyterian Church (USA) or the pro-life position of the SBC is the “Christian” position. It would also be faced with the challenge of deciding whether the current anti-abortion position of the SBC or the earlier pro-choice position of the SBC was Christian.
Similar differences can be found both across the broad spectrum of American Christianity currently and over the course of history on such issues as slavery, race, gender roles, economic policy, immigration, poverty relief, and many others. How exactly should the Christian faith guide the policies and law-making of the American government on these matters? Exactly where could the government look to find that sort of guidance? Who could authoritatively provide that guidance?
The Voting Public Can’t Be Trusted with Christian Government
Let’s bring demographics back into the conversation, which will lead us to the second problem with the assertion that America should be a Christian nation, namely the instituting of these “Christian” laws and policies will have to be done through non-democratic, ultimately antidemocratic, means.
Example #1: Abortion Again
Again, take abortion as an example. There is no consensus among Americans as to when during a pregnancy, if at all, an abortion might be permissible. That is not only true of the American population as a whole but even among those who claim to be Christians. According to a Gallup survey published in May 2023, 52% of American respondents consider themselves to be “pro-choice”. In that same survey, 69% of respondents believe that Abortion should be legal during the first trimester of pregnancy.[4]
A Pew Research survey published in May 2022 explored the views of various American religious groups on abortion. Americans who identified themselves as white evangelical Protestants, white Protestants (not evangelical), Black protestants, Catholic, and unaffiliated were asked their views. A majority of respondents in all categories, including believed that abortion should be legal in “all/most cases”. The only exception were white evangelical Protestants who asserted the belief that abortion should be illegal in “all/most cases” and that by a wide margin.[5] It would seem that there is, among those who claim to be Christians, a diversity of opinion as to what constitutes the “Christian” view on abortion. Who would decide which “Christian” view is truly “Christian”?
Of course, the politics of abortion are complex and are still being played-out in these days following the Supreme Court Dobbs decision. Legislative decisions on abortion are currently being made at the state level. But on a national level, a rigid ban on all or almost all abortions could be imposed only against the will of the majority of the American people.
Example #2: Same-sex Marriage
Much the same dynamic would be at play with regard to same-sex marriage. A Pew Research Center survey published in May 2019 found that 61% of respondents approve of the legalization of same-sex marriage.[6] If the genuine “Christian” view is opposed to same-sex marriage, as I suspect most proponents of Christian nationalism believe, then presumably a national ban on same-sex marriage would have to be imposed on the majority of Americans against their will.
Democratic Decision-making Could Not Be Allowed
Another way of saying this is that democratic decision-making could not be permitted in such cases as abortion and same-sex marriage and no doubt on many other issues as well. So, who do Christian nationalist propose should make decisions like these for the American people, since certainly the American people themselves could not be trusted to make such decisions? To be sure, the coercive power of government could not be left in the hands of the American electorate. Instead, it would have to be seated with some person or persons who would claim to act in the name of Christ.
And for that to happen, profound changes would have to be made to the U. S. Constitution. Now, since under the Constitution as it currently stands no changes can be made to it except with a widespread buy in from the American electorate, Christian nationalist again face the roadblock of a currently unwilling American population. What’s a Christian nationalist to do?
Certainly the American people themselves could not be trusted to make such decisions. . .
Well, ultimately, they will have to find a way to gain control of the levers of power in the U. S. government, and then manipulate those levers of power so as to put those levers of power out of the reach of the U. S. electorate. That is the path many antidemocratic, authoritarian movements take to power. And that is, of course, what Christian nationalism is—an antidemocratic, authoritarian movement.
“Lording Over” our Neighbors—Coercive Christian Governance
As an antidemocratic, authoritarian movement, Christian nationalism is driven by a lust for coercive governmental power. More specifically it is a lust for a particular kind of power, the coercive power of political government. Christian nationalism seems to believe that the coercive power of human governments is a necessary means for the establishment of the kingdom of God, a belief that is hard to find in the New Testament.
Isn’t this just the sort of thing Jesus explicitly warned his disciples about.
42Jesus called them over and said to them, ‘You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those in high positions act as tyrants over them. 43But it is not so among you. On the contrary, whoever wants to become great among you will be your servant, 44and whoever wants to be first among you will be a slave to all. 45For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.’ (Mark 10:42-45 CSB)
There is startling naivety or crass cynicism at the heart of Christian nationalism. It is the notion that a genuine New Testament Christianity can coexist with the lust for coercive power and remain uncorrupted. Political power has a gravity of its own. That fact is such a truism of history that it’s hard to believe that I actually need to cite examples.
Take King Saul of Israel, for Example
Biblical examples abound, though. King Saul is a striking illustration (1 Samuel 9-31) When Samuel informs Saul that God has chosen him to be king over Israel, Saul seems hardly to believe it. And his initial reactions suggest that he does not welcome the news. Upon returning home from his encounter with the prophet, Saul’s uncle asks him about his conversation with Samuel. Saul mentions a minor detail of the conversation but chooses not to speak of fact that Samuel had privately anointed him as king of Israel.
A week later, Samuel comes to Saul’s hometown and calls all Israel to join him there. Samuel’s intention is to public present Saul as king of Israel. Saul attempts to hide and so presumably to avoid being proclaimed king. He is eventually found, brought before the people, and acclaimed as king.
The way of the Cross, the way of the Preacher of the Sermon on the Mount will always eventually bow to the needs and desires of political power.
Saul’s reign begins well enough, and he seems to be an effective ruler, attuned to the Spirit of God and committed to pursuing the welfare and faithfulness of God’s people. But as time goes on, his desire to consolidate and expand his personal power increases and begins to corrupt him. He moves to usurp the position of Samuel and the priesthood (1 Samuel 13). As it becomes obvious to Saul that David’s popularity rivals his own, Saul becomes obsessed with murdering him. In the end, Saul even turns to sorcery, something he himself had earlier forbidden, in an effort to retain his position and power (1 Samuel 28). From anointed, Spirit-guided king to corrupter of religion, murderer, and practitioner of sorcery, Saul pioneered the path that all but a very few Israelite kings followed after him to a lesser or greater extent.
The Sacrifice of Principles for the Sake of Power
The way of the Cross, the way of the Preacher of the Sermon on the Mount will always eventually bow to the needs and desires of political power. Loving enemies, doing good and blessing those who mistreat me, telling the truth even when it costs me, treating others as more important than myself—these are all well and good as slogans, but those who seek to gain and retain the coercive powers of government against the will of the governed cannot allow such New Testament “softness” to guide them.
We are seeing this rejection of New Testament “softness” very much present in hard right-wing and Christian nationalist politics today. Russell Moore describes it in an interview with NPR:
It was the result of having multiple pastors tell me, essentially, the same story about quoting the Sermon on the Mount, parenthetically, in their preaching — “turn the other cheek” — [and] to have someone come up after to say, “Where did you get those liberal talking points?” And what was alarming to me is that in most of these scenarios, when the pastor would say, “I’m literally quoting Jesus Christ,” the response would not be, “I apologize.” The response would be, “Yes, but that doesn’t work anymore. That’s weak.” And when we get to the point where the teachings of Jesus himself are seen as subversive to us, then we’re in a crisis.[7]
Here’s another example shared by Rob Schenk:
Rob Schenk was an active evangelical culture warrior, but he has changed his mind on a lot of things over the years. . . . In a conversation on his podcast, he told me about his attendance at a prayer meeting on the day of Donald Trump’s inauguration. Schenk bumped into a leading court evangelical and suggested that evangelicals needed to “re-calibrate our moral compass” to bring it more in line with Jesus’s words in the Sermon on the Mount. The court evangelical responded, “We don’t have time for that, we have serious work to do.”[8]
The New Testament Is a Problem for Christian Nationalism
There is among culture warriors and Christian nationalists an aversion to the Sermon on the Mount, to Peter’s command to engage the surrounding culture with “gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3:15), James’s insistence that we be “quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to become angry” (James 1:19), and to what the New Testament writers call in Greek prautes (gentleness, humility, non-domination). That aversion bears witness to the fundamentally coercive nature of their vision. They don’t trust the New Testament writers to know what they’re talking about. They don’t trust Jesus enough to obey him. They don’t trust the Holy Spirit to change hearts. They trust only coercive, authoritarian political structures to accomplish the vision of the kingdom of God. And if coercive authoritarian political structures fail, there is always outright violence, like what we saw, for example, on January 6, 2021.
Conclusion
Christian nationalism is in a literal sense anti-Christ in that while it maintains the label “Christian” it cannot tolerate the Jesus of the New Testament or his apostles. Christian nationalism retains the name of Christ as a kind of veneer, outside a thin pretense of Christianity while below the surface it is domineering, coercive, and violent. And because of that, Christian nationalism is a deadly threat to true Christianity in America and anywhere else it might arise. Followers of the crucified and risen Jesus do well to oppose it and seek to root it out wherever it sprouts up.
[1] “5 Facts about the History of the SBS and the Pro-Life Cause” published January 17, 2020, https://erlc.com/resource-library/articles/5-facts-about-the-history-of-the-sbc-and-the-pro-life-cause/, accessed March 16, 2024.
[2] “The Religious Right and the Abortion Myth,” Politico May 10, 2022, https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/10/abortion-history-right-white-evangelical-1970s-00031480, accessed March 17, 2024.
[3] “On Abolishing Abortion”published June 21, 2021, https://www.sbc.net/resource-library/resolutions/on-abolishing-abortion/, accessed March 16, 2024.
[4] “Where Do Americans Stand on Abortion?” Gallup, published July 7, 2023, https://news.gallup.com/poll/321143/americans-stand-abortion.aspx, accessed March 17, 2024.
[5] “Public Opinion on Abortion,” Pew Research Center, published May 17, 2022, https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/, accessed March 17, 2024.
[6] “Attitudes on Same-Sex Marriage,” Pew Research Center, published May 14, 2019, https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/, accessed March 17, 2024.
[7] “He Was a Top Church Official Who Criticized Trump. He Says Christianity Is in Crisis.” August 8, 2023, https://www.npr.org/2023/08/08/1192663920/southern-baptist-convention-donald-trump-christianity, accessed March 25, 2024.
[8] “Current”, June 16, 2020, https://currentpub.com/2020/06/16/a-former-member-of-the-christian-right-says-that-a-political-fundraiser-once-told-him-that-we-need-more-fear-and-more-anger-from-white-evangelicals/, accessed March 26, 2024.
Gary Chorpenning's Notebooks 
11 thoughts on “Pastor Note #129: How Would Christian Nationalist Government Work?”