Countering Christian Nationalism

By now many of you may be convinced Christian Nationalism (=CN) is a “well organized social movement of real people who wield enormous power over the church, our political system, and our life together.” You may also know that “adherents of Christian nationalism have been readying for conflict for sixty years (ever since it emerged as a reaction to the civil rights movement).” These quotations are from Drew J. Strait’s book, Strange Worship: Six Steps for Challenging Christian Nationalism.

Take Turning Point USA, the organization of Charlie Kirk. It has (when Strait wrote the book) entered into 3,500 high schools and colleges, and claims to have reached one billion people. Their latest agenda is churches and pastor conferences. The “core beliefs: (1) The United States of America is the greatest country in the history of the world; (2) The US Constitution is the most exceptional political document ever written; and (3) capitalism is the most moral and proven economic system ever discovered.”  

CN cannot be dismissed as a few bloggers going viral; this is a real system with real followers and real power.

Strait believes the most important response is for resisters of CN to build people power to counter CN’s own people power. Some will question where he thinks this people power ought to take root: “The global church, I believe, is God's challenger movement against strange worship.” There is, he contends, no Plan B other than the church in God's plan for the Kingdom. “Yes, the church has many allies that participate in this work, but the church is the primary context for building people power, liturgies of resistance, and for participating in the ongoing life of God through the sacraments.”

In his “Pillars of Power” graph, he names the following institutions as the pillars: Military/police, schools, politicians, businesses, media, and churches. Each of these is propped up by people power. He contends, though I’m not sure why, that knocking down one of these pillars can make the whole thing crumble. He may be right. The argument is that “power is fragile – the powerful are dependent on the peoples’ compliance, cooperation, obedience, and consent. When consent is taken away, their power is toppled or disoriented.” That is true. But he also contends importantly that “Christian nationalism cannot flourish without churches’ and Christian influencers’ consent.” Of that there can be on question.

Like Pentecost undoing Babel, so Spirit-full people can dismantle CN. Thus, his themes are that we need a leader-full, Spirit-full, peace-full, relationship-full movement.

Drew Strait is an Anabaptist and is committed to peace, which does not mean unactive pacificism but activist peace-working. It is nonviolent, but resistant. It is Christian dissidence. He wants to form organizational power that has both vertical capacity (grassroots, mid-level, top-level leaders) and that works down from the few to the many. Presently the resisters of CN are a gaggle of ill-formed dissidents and there needs to be organization. Such persons need to brace for moments of strange worship, for moments when Constantinianism is on the rise. That is, they need to seek a deeper center than the symptoms, like January 6. Relationships will be crucial in dismantling CN.

Strait is against non-participation forms of protest. Those who opt for this – and I hear this quite often – are the privileged. He thinks the non-participants need to take a side. But activism does not need to be so politically defined, and I doubt dismissing it as privilege is sufficient. Try telling that to Harriet Beecher Stowe. So, Strait’s strategy is activist peace-fullness in the context of a relationship-full movement. I’m on board with that. Thus, “we Christians living under these empires today do  have political power – the power to vote, to organize, and the freedom to flex our dissident voice without fear of incarceration” and it is our “moral duty to participate in the democratic process to reduce violence and minimize harm to our neighbors.”

Resistance begets resistance. Amen.

Here’s where the questions could rise. For a pastor to take a side in her or his church and to speak publicly in a way that denounces Christian nationalism require courage. Politics is very difficult for churches to address. In fact, most who would use the pulpit or the platform to speak against Christian nationalism would lose congregants, lose finances, and perhaps even their position. Thus, in the world that I know of, apart from churches in which a critical mass, if not more, are already politically aligned with one party, using churches or congregations as the locus of the people's power runs risks. While one might hear criticisms of CN in mainline pulpits, or non denominational pulpits, or even in some megachurch platforms, those comments tend to be covert clauses rather than overt and sustained arguments. Mind you, I’d say a hearty “Amen!” if I heard such a public argument. Pastors are called to pastor who they’ve got, and most churches have people from both sides of the political aisle. So I wonder how many churches could become an operating base for people power to oppose CN.

Let me add this: I believe in the people power movement, and I believe Christians ought to be resisting Christian nationalism, denouncing it, and actively working against it. This series of posts about Strait’s book is one of my many ways of denouncing CN.