Like any nascent political movement, Christian Nationalism is an idea that is still coalescing. For the time-being, it means some different things to different people–especially to critics who are inclined to construct straw-men decorated with a few of the worst examples they can find. But movements must either coalesce or die off. And because I don’t want “Christian Nationalism” to go the way of the short-lived “Alt-right,” I’ve found value in taking time to give the idea some specificity rather than merely a defense.
That’s why, a year and a half ago, I wrote down my first draft of what Christian Nationalism means to me–and certainly what I want it to end up being. But drafts are made to be updated. Between a year’s reflection and some feedback on another draft I recently posted on X, I found a number of points that needed some further clarification.
And so, my list of 14 points has now grown to 18. If you’re keeping score, the new ones are 4, 14, 16, and 18. These were added to answer common questions which I erroneously thought should have been clear such as “which denomination is going to rule?” (18) and “how can we tell one nation from another?” (4) I’ve also updated the language slightly on other points in response to silly but frequent criticisms, like “Christian Nationalism can’t make a perfect society” (10) and “Christians should never be separate for any reason” (6).
The Postwar Consensus has irrevocably failed; it’s not coming back. The West therefore needs a new way forward–one that stands for something more than just a rejection of what came before. There will be a new way whether we want one or not. When we consider the vile options being pushed by our elites, America could do far far worse than Christian Nationalism as defined below:
- Christian Nationalism is a political ideology informed by the Christian faith, not a religion informed by political ideology.
- The Church does not need Christian Nationalism for her wellbeing. Nations need Christian Nationalism for their wellbeing.
- Christian Nationalists understand nation as meaning a people who share common ancestry, religious heritage, language, culture, and history together. Nation is not synonymous with country or with state.
- Whether these traits are sufficiently “common” among a people to make them a nation is determined by whether they can peacefully agree on how to govern and how to be governed together. If these traits diverge to the point that they cannot agree, then they ought to peacefully separate instead.
- We put our own nation first–not because it is superior to all others, but because it is the nation of which Christ has made us a part. Accordingly, we serve it above all other nations, love it above all other nations and, when necessary, defend it against all other nations.
- We respect that other nations are likewise responsible for themselves first and therefore seek to govern ourselves separately from them but live in peace with them whenever possible–just as neighboring families live peacefully in different homes and under different rules.
- Christian Nationalists reject the incoherent religious neutrality of classical liberalism, and strive to honor Jesus Christ as King in every area of life, including government, education, and public speech.
- We understand that government is incapable of forcing conversion to Christianity because conversion depends on a faith that cannot be coerced into existence. The Church’s tools are sufficient to the task of conversion.
- Government’s purpose is not to make men righteous, but to restrain human wickedness and establish a just peace within its borders by punishing wrongdoers and commending those who do right.
- Some wrongdoing may be tolerated by government and society when legal or social suppression of an evil would lead to even greater evils. Utopia is not among Christian Nationalism’s goals; a relatively just peace among sinners is.
- Christian Nationalists distinguish right from wrong and weigh greater vs lesser evils according to Christian moral principles, and we seek to carry out the purpose of government in accordance with our principles, not others’ principles.
- Evils which must be legally restrained include, but are not limited to: clear blasphemy against Jesus Christ, murder (regardless of age), sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, and unbridled greed. A government which does not seek to restrain such evils is negligent.
- God has appointed fathers to govern their own households. National government proceeds from this household government and exists to serve it. It does not replace it and may not usurp it. Rather, government maintains peace among our many households.
- Christian Nationalism rejects the modern worship of diversity & inclusion imposed by Critical Theory. We recognize the variety of nations in the world as a strength, but national diversity under a single local government as a severe weakness.
- Immigration is tolerable only insofar as it neither unduly burdens nor harms our nation. Mass immigration is always harmful. Immigration is more harmful the more immigrants differ from our nation in terms of ancestry, language, history, culture and religious heritage.
- Because we believe our religion is true, we do not value religious diversity. Government must provide the same just peace to Christians and non-Christians within its borders, but it ought not include or commend any foreign religious beliefs in carrying out its duties.
- It is good and proper for governmental institutions to participate in religious expression so long as that expression is explicitly Christian. This includes prayers, ceremonies, holidays, and the like.
- Different Christian traditions will naturally be reflected in national government according to their presence and prominence in that nation’s religious heritage. Some traditions will work well together. Others will not.
One evil, which must be legally restrained, needs to be added to Point 12. That evil is Treason.
Treason certainly needs to be restrained. And as much as I feel that goes without saying (since government is going to try to preserve itself regardless), I already had to add a bunch of other points because of what I falsely assumed went without saying.
But since I can’t fit every evil on the list, why do you think treason in particular deserves a spot?
In his book, _The position of Christianity in the United States, in its relations with our political institutions, and specially with reference to religious instruction in the public schools_ (Philadelphia, Lippincott, Grambo, 1854, 175 pages, https://archive.org/details/positionofchrist00colw/page/n3/mode/2up),
Stephen Colwell states (pp. 20-1):
“The Christian nation which adopted this Constitution invited the people of every country to come and live under it; but in so doing they did not abdicate their Christian ascendency nor proclaim that their institutions were purged of the Christian element. They avowed toleration, and not infidelity, as their great principle. They said to all the persecuted and suffering throughout the world, Come and dwell with us and you may enjoy manifold advantages and immunities. We are a Christian people, our institutions are constructed with reference to Christianity, and are intended to be administered under its light and influences; it teaches us to offer you the largest Christian liberty ever enjoyed by a civilized people — the largest possible consistent with the existence of Christianity itself…. In offering these advantages of civil and religious liberty to the people of every creed and nation, they, our ancestors, did not concede any principle of the great work they had just finished; they did not propose to take down their fabric or fashion it to the taste of all who might take refuge within its walls ; they did not propose to place the existence of Christianity and Christian civilization in our land at the mercy of those who should make their abode with us ; they intended to extend a real Christian toleration to all people, but they did not mean that the idolators or pagans who might come among us should be regarded in their turn as tolerating Christians. They intended that it should remain a Christian land, and that the glory of its toleration should continue to be ascribed to its true origin, Christianity.”
That’s a great quote–it captures the idea of broad religious liberties without any notion of religious neutrality. Although, hindsight being 20/20, I would add that inviting too many people of every country is precisely why that idea ended up failing in practice.
For that we can thank Traitorlyndon, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, and the politicians and voters who supported such aid and comfort to the domestic and foreign enemies of the United States.