The Various Christian Nationalisms

By Brad Isbell

The source of the Rob Reiner anti-“Christian Nationalism” movie is a book by a New York Times reporter which (surprise) seems to be all about Trump and the 80-something percent, not your favorite “public (meaning Twitter) theologians” or religious-political activists/thinkers. Christians who (in reaction) embrace the Christian Nationalist (CN) label make almost as great an error as the leftists who lump everyone possessing vaguely Christian conservative doctrinal and social views under the CN banner. In both cases, it's all about politics.

There are at least three types of Christian Nationalists: the highbrow Wolfeans (HW), the folk evangelicals (FE) who have always spoken vaguely of "takin' this country back," and the barely Christian, mostly charismatic/megachurch dominionist-NAR¹ crowd (I'll call them CMDs).

The self-consciously protestant HW crowd is numerically insignificant. They have the potential to make trouble in the NAPARC, the SBC, the vaguely "reformed" smarter evangelicals, and conservative megachurches. They claim the Reformed confessions when convenient. Without the Muscovite Wilsonians they would not exist. They have some connection to principled establishmentarianism and are clearly (but not thoroughly) influenced by theonomy and reconstructionism. What they really need for success is a time machine.

The most disturbing aspect of the HW crowd is their connection to and dependence upon (because the HW followers are few) the creepy Andrew Torba and ethno-nationalist online edgelord crowd. It seems the HW crowd does not know how to quit that element. In fact, their "no enemies to the right" mantra (inherited from Schmitt, a Third Reich thinker)² may make quitting the most unsavory elements in their orbit impossible. Their program (to some extent) rests on the idea that there has to be a societal breakdown for them to ascend. This is not an appealing or altogether rational ethos.

The Folk Evangelicals (FE) have always been socially conservative, but not in a very thoughtful way. This is a group of reliable Trump voters, but their reasons for doing so are less religious than cultural. Their religious views are personal and local. This group is unorganized and has influence mainly in the South. They are easily won with the right phrases and policies. They are a political factor nationally only in some red suburbs.

The CMD (charismatic megachurch dominionist) crowd is potentially more sinister. These are the types of people (including bleach-blonde lady preacher-entrepreneurs) you see laying hands on Trump. Their doctrine is barely Christian and/or protestant. They were influenced somewhat by Reconstructionists like Rushdoony but have added a lot of their own weirdness. This movement is full of bad actors and shysters. This is the crowd the left usually has in mind when they talk about Christian Nationalists.

Here's the issue for the Highbrow Wolfeans: The Folk Evangelicals have little use for them and the CMD bunch have no use for them. The CMD are larger and have real political influence now...thanks to the megachurches and charismatic media empires. The HW must be content to live online and mix with the creepy, edgelord, often pagan right wing typified by Torba and friends. The HW would have to lose much of its doctrinal emphases by allying with either the FE or CMD crowds. Pragmatism and politics go together: Which alliance will they choose? The other possible ally for the HWs is another that would require abandonment of nearly all of their doctrinal commitments: the Roman Catholic integralists. They have real political power in the US and have been at this for a long time. They are not hobbyists-come-lately like some of the HW crowd. The one constant in American religious and political life is constant change. What these groups are now is not what they will be. They'll probably look quite different post-2024 than they do today.

The question remains: What are Christian pilgrims and strangers to do with the various forms of nationalism? Embracing labels invented by bad actors is probably a bad idea.

1. New Apostolic Reformation - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Apostolic_Reformation

2. Carl Schmitt (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Schmitt) by way of Charles Haygood