We often criticize the New York Times (and the Washington Post) for hiring conservative opinion writers. But sometimes it does pay to read them. David French is a self-described evangelical Christian and attorney for conservative causes. So when he blasts “Christian Nationalists,” that carries more weight than if some liberal left-wing secular Jew (me, for example) does the same thing.
What Is Christian Nationalism, Exactly?
If you’re alarmed by the rise of Christian nationalism, the single worst thing you can do is define it too broadly. If you define it too broadly, then you’re telling millions of ordinary churchgoing citizens that the importation of their religious values into the public square somehow places them in the same camp or on the same side as actual Christian supremacists, the illiberal authoritarians who want to remake America in their own fundamentalist image.
The point French is making is that, while it is proper to bring one’s values into the public square — even if they are based on one’s religious beliefs — it is totally improper, incorrect, and unamerican to force one’s values onto the public square.
The problem with Christian nationalism isn’t with Christian participation in politics but rather the belief that there should be Christian primacy in politics and law. It can manifest itself through ideology, identity and emotion. And if it were to take hold, it would both upend our Constitution and fracture our society. . . .
Christian nationalism isn’t just rooted in ideology; it’s also deeply rooted in identity, the belief that Christians should rule.
French takes serious exception to this. Speaking about a 2022 document, National Conservatism: A Statement of Principles, which demands that “public life should be rooted in Christianity,” he responds:
It’s utterly contrary to the First Amendment and would impose a form of compelled deference to Christianity on both religious minorities and the nonreligious.
Which brings me to the point French is heading towards: Don’t conflate all Christians with Christian Nationalists.
I’ve spent a number of years studying the history of Christianity. I am very much aware of how much damage Christians have done through imposing their beliefs on the western world (and on as many parts of the rest of the world as Christian Europe has ruled). I trace this damage to these theological principles:
- Your life in this world is not important; it’s only a test to determine how you will spend eternity in the afterlife.
- Jesus is coming back any day now to establish eternal Christian rule over Earth.
- In the meantime, and for the sake of our eternal souls, it is the duty of Christians to rule the Earth in Jesus’s name.
What I have also learned in my studies is that, largely as a result of the Reformation, which broke the Catholic political stranglehold (though often only to replace it with a Protestant one), and the Enlightenment, which placed reason supreme over revelation, Christianity became much more diverse, and many Christians more willing to focus on this world, and to accept, live with, and even celebrate diversity and pluralism. (Yes, it’s a lot more complicated than this, but I’m writing a short diary here, not a book — at least, not this time.)
Unfortunately for Christianity, the United States, and the world at large, the voices of these many Christians tend to be softer, and so they often cannot be heard over the strident blasts and threats of violence and demands for total power from the smaller but noisier Christian Nationalists.
Even so, some are speaking out (not Just French), so it behooves us to listen when they do.
WaPo (E. J. Dionne): Mike Johnson reveres the Bible. Rosa DeLauro wants him to read it carefully.
Since Johnson’s brand of Christianity is decidedly right-wing, he has since faced much criticism and reproof — which is entirely fair for a politician who has chosen to make his religious convictions so central to his public life. But Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), whose progressivism on issues related to economic justice is rooted in her Catholic tradition’s social teaching, has another way of approaching the question. . . .
The spirit of her intervention is a reminder that Christianity is best seen as a challenge, not an identity, and a call to reason together. There’s so little of that happening that it’s a blessing when you run into it.
It’s also useful as a prod to acknowledging that no party or political movement has a monopoly on faith.
DeLauro uses her religious tradition to guide her politics, while making it clear she has no right — no more than Johnson does — to impose her tradition on politics.
Attacking all Christianity, all religion, as I have seen occasionally done on this forum, is counter-productive as well as counter-factual. We want these people on our side, not to turn them them away on the false notion that a shared religion necessarily means shared values and political intent.
Here’s French again:
Committed Christian nationalists represent only 10 percent of the population, according to a 2023 PRRI/Brookings Christian Nationalism Survey. But even members of a minority that small can gain outsize power when they fold themselves into the larger Christian electorate, casting themselves as “just like you.” That’s why we cannot conflate Christian activism with Christian nationalism. One can welcome Christian participation in the public square while resisting domination, from any faith or creed. [emphasis added]
Good advice.