A Three-Part Series
Part 1: What Does Christian Nationalism Really Mean? Cutting Through the Confusion
The term “Christian Nationalism” has emerged as one of the most contentious phrases in contemporary American political and religious discourse. In the aftermath of January 6th, 2021, and throughout the Trump era, the term “Christian Nationalism” has sparked debate on two fronts: between Left and Right politically, and within the Christian community itself. While the Left uses it to attack conservative Christians and the Right sometimes embraces it as a badge of honor, many Christians and conservatives reject the label entirely, leading to significant internal debate about both the term and the movement. Yet beneath the rhetorical heat lies fundamental questions about the proper relationship between Christian faith and civic life that deserve thoughtful, biblically-grounded examination.
This series seeks to define Christian Nationalism as various groups understand it, identify some key players in the discussion, and chart a biblical path forward that avoids the equal dangers of cultural absorption and societal irrelevance.
I believe you will find in this 3-part series, that despite my trepidation over the direction with certain forms of Christian nationalism, I am highly sympathetic to the desire to make America a more Christianly influenced nation. But I am most concerned with how Christians should go about the worthy goal of making their country more Christian in its ways, believing that indeed this brings great blessing to any nation, per the Psalm 33:12 principle.
The central tension Christians face is how to pursue godly influence in society while maintaining our primary identity as citizens of heaven. Our call to be the “salt and light” of the world means that Christians—of any nation—must be distinguished from the world by their behavior and attitudes.
[Read the rest of the series: Part 2: Beyond ‘Jimmy Carter’ Christianity and Part 3: Salt, Light, and Kingdom Priorities].
What Does Christian Nationalism Really Mean?
The Popular Definition
There are some for whom the term “Christian Nationalism” means simply to re-inject traditional evangelical Christian values into a society and culture that once embraced such values but which over time has become dominated by a militant secularism. They may argue that the founding fathers launched America as essentially a Christian nation, since the Christian faith and worldview was the dominant thought framework at that time in history. Further they would argue that the success of the American experiment has been largely due to that Christian base, which was realistic about sinful human nature and the corrupting influence of power. Therefore it wisely divided power in government among three branches, creating “checks and balances.” For these folks, Christianity is a good thing and nothing to be ashamed of, and moreover, since it is a heritage which produced freedoms and prosperity, its ideas should be embraced again in the making of public policy.
This broad understanding of Christian Nationalism is one many Christians could agree with, yet the term has come to carry much negative baggage, making many hesitant to embrace it.
Politicians like Marjorie Taylor Greene and Josh Hawley have openly embraced the “Christian nationalist” label while conservative activist Charlie Kirk unashamedly champions what he calls “Christian values in government” and argues for the restoration of America’s Christian heritage. Many grassroots conservatives share this basic outlook, even if they don’t all use the same terminology.
While this perspective represents how many Christians understand the term, media and academic discussions have developed alternate—and more controversial—definitions of Christian nationalism. For example, the mainstream media has often presented a narrative that claims on January 6, 2021 President Trump incited an “insurrection” led by a mob connected with dangerous “white Christian Nationalism”—yet usually neglected to provide concrete proof of the alleged connection and failed to define their loaded terminology.
An Academic Definition
An influential academic definition has come from sociologists Andrew Whitehead and Samuel Perry in their work “Taking America Back for God” (2020) that strongly critiques Christian nationalism. They define Christian nationalism as “a cultural framework that blurs distinctions between Christian identity and American identity, viewing the two as closely related and seeking to enhance and preserve their union.”
Whitehead and Perry identify Christian nationalism not merely as political participation by Christians, but as a specific ideological framework that:
- Conflates Christianity with American identity
- Seeks governmental declaration of America as a Christian nation
- Demands Christian primacy in politics and law
- Promotes a particular social order where everyone recognizes their “proper” place
Alternative Perspectives – Pro and Con
While some embrace the Christian Nationalist label without hesitation, there are others concerned whether some forms of Christian Nationalism have indeed unbiblically wed the church’s gospel-driven mission with overtly political goals.
The blending of Christian mission with conservative politics is not new, of course. Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and others built their conservatism upon a certain brand of evangelical faith. Much of their intellectual framework came from Francis Schaeffer, whose cultural analysis in works like “How Should We Then Live?” and “A Christian Manifesto” profoundly shaped evangelical thinking about Christianity’s relationship to culture and government.
Schaeffer’s emphasis on “True Truth” (i.e., objective, absolute truth that exists independently of human perception or opinion) and his demonstration of the connection between worldviews and their cultural outcomes provided the theological foundation for much of the Christian Right movement. However, Schaeffer himself was not seeking to divert the Christian gospel into political endeavors. Rather, he argued that biblical principles inevitably impact society when Christians live faithfully according to Scripture. The distortion came when later leaders took his insights about Christianity’s cultural implications and applied them in more superficial, explicitly political ways that Schaeffer likely would not have endorsed—prioritizing political victories over gospel transformation. If Schaeffer were alive today he likely would have avoided the term Christian nationalist to identify himself, fraught as it is with imprecision and negative baggage.
This tension continues today among Reformed Christians who genuinely desire faithful cultural engagement. Consider the recent debate between Kevin DeYoung of The Gospel Coalition and critics at The Dissenter. DeYoung argues that pastors should focus on “textually careful, biblically rich, theologically deep, church-focused gospel ministry” rather than becoming political pundits who offer “hot takes” on current events. He warns that constant political commentary dilutes pastoral authority and distracts from the church’s primary mission.
The Dissenter’s response represents the opposite concern: that DeYoung’s approach represents “cowardly theology” that fails to equip Christians for the real spiritual and ideological battles they face. They argue that pastors are called to be “warriors” who apply biblical truth “with force against the strongholds of the age,” not “librarians of theological trivia” who avoid confrontation.
Both sides raise legitimate concerns. DeYoung rightly warns against reducing Christianity to political activism or allowing cultural commentary to eclipse gospel proclamation. The Dissenter correctly observes that faith divorced from cultural engagement can become an “ivory tower exercise” that leaves Christians unprepared for the battles they actually face.
Contemporary Advocates
On the defending side, figures like Douglas Wilson have embraced the Christian nationalist label while attempting to distinguish their approach from more problematic versions. Wilson argues that all societies are inherently “theocratic”—governed by some sacred standard—and advocates for what he calls “Mere Christendom,” where biblical principles would govern civil society. He envisions “Christian America 2.0,” restoring what he sees as America’s historical Christian foundations through “theocratic libertarianism.”
Wilson has explicitly distanced himself from racialist elements through documents like the Antioch Declaration, positioning his approach as rooted in historical Protestant confessionalism rather than ethnic nationalism or kinism (the false teaching that God ordained racial separation and that different races should remain separate). However, his vision raises significant theological questions for some. As scholars at Mid-America Seminary note, Wilson’s approach lacks clear biblical warrant for mandatory Christian political order. John Calvin for example rejected the idea that Scripture mandates any specific forms of government. The Gospels report that Christ’s “kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36; see also John 17:14-16; Philippians 3:20). This suggests that Christ wasn’t seeking to create earthly Christian nations, but to call his people to become citizens of a transcendent heavenly kingdom that at the same time impacts life on earth now.
Stephen Wolfe’s widely-discussed “The Case for Christian Nationalism” offers a sophisticated academic defense of Christian nationalism that attempts to ground it in Reformed theology and natural law, though it has generated significant criticism even among those sympathetic to his cultural concerns.
Perhaps the most biblical path lies between the extremes: faithful exposition of the gospel naturally equips Christians to think and act biblically in all areas of life, including politics and culture, but does not mandate making political or national transformation the church’s primary mission. The gospel’s mission is not merely cultural or moral advancement. And yet, Francis Schaeffer observed:
Truth carries with it confrontation. Truth demands confrontation; loving confrontation, but confrontation nevertheless. If our reflex action is always accommodation regardless of the centrality of the truth involved, there is something wrong.
—Francis Schaeffer, The Great Evangelical Disaster
The true mission of the church is that souls would be saved by the loving yet bold proclamation of the gospel and that believers, living by eternal kingdom values, would positively impact society until that last glorious day when Jesus returns to establish a new heaven and a new earth (Revelation 21:1). As we will see, our mission does not seem to necessitate Christian cultural primacy or creating earthly Christian nations, but does call all Christians to actions that bring heavenly impact to earth. In order to do this successfully, we must carefully and faithfully delineate an accurate gospel and the nature of kingdom Jesus calls His followers to. We will strive to accomplish these important tasks in the rest of the series.
Coming in Part 2: “Beyond ‘Jimmy Carter’ Christianity: Reclaiming Prophetic Witness“
We’ll address inaccurate and misleading misconceptions about what Christian witness should look like in public life, define the authentic Gospel, and explore whether America was founded as a Christian nation.
Coming in Part 3: “Salt, Light, and Kingdom Priorities: A Biblical Path Forward“
We’ll explore what faithful Christian cultural engagement actually looks like when it’s grounded in biblical priorities- the kingdom of God as Jesus defined it- rather than merely political strategies.
Read the Complete Series:
Part 1: What Does Christian Nationalism Really Mean? Cutting Through the Confusion (You are here)
Part 2: Beyond ‘Jimmy Carter’ Christianity: Reclaiming Prophetic Witness
Part 3: Salt, Light, and Kingdom Priorities: A Biblical Path Forward
Follow @TrueTruthToday for more Reformed cultural commentary.
