UPDATED: The Various Christian Nationalisms

Theologies of Glory vs. Theology of the Cross

By Brad Isbell

There’s another way of understanding certain Christian movements today: those with a biblical theology/gospel of the cross vs. those with a worldly theology of glory/prosperity gospel. This distinction has existed since Jesus battled the nationalist-zealot tendencies of his followers and since Paul opposed the “Super Apostles.” Luther, a theologian of the cross, spoke of it as well, and it is arguable that both the papists of the 16th century and the anabaptists were earthly glory seekers.

Here are three groups on a right-left spectrum that might tend toward a theology of glory/prosperity/transformationalism. All are diverse—these generalizations do not apply to every last adherent of the associated philosophies…for want of a better word.

• The progressive Christian center-left often manifests transformationalist ideas about redeeming or renewing cities, communities, or nations. They range from liberal to orthodox doctrinally, are “Reformed”¹ in some sense, and are often post-millennial. A number of evangelical churches (including many megachurches) are tending left socially and have adopted this framework. Their focus can be very “here and now” and material. A similar movement in the late 19th and early 20th centuries was the original Christian Nationalism in North America.

• The “Hee-Haw” wooly Christian middle-right might also be called “The Bat-Wing” since many seem to be batty, aka crazy. These include the TBN word-faith crowd and the Charismatic-Megachurch-Dominionist types (mentioned in the article below), which are rife with theological and practical problems…many are arguably pagan. This group includes the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) people and “Seven Mountains Mandate” teachers. Amazingly, this group may have the most money and power at the moment and seem to have real political access and influence.

• The Christian Nationalist/Dissident Christian Right focuses on earthly political power. It has unfortunate tinges of antisemitism, opposes aspects of the US Constitution, devalues traditional civil liberties, and leans into ethnic issues. Some proponents want a “Christian Prince”² or magistrate with extraordinary powers and admire political thinkers who advocate for an “unbound executive.” Some admire certain 20th-century dictators.

Here’s an attempt to place some groups/figures on an X-Y chart:

AVERAGE NAPARC was not supposed to be on there twice…mentally delete the lower one.

December 9, 2023 post:

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-NAR³ 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)⁴ 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 a strong 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 HW is another that would require the 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. Often Kuyperian in one way or another

2. A magistrate (of some sort) who could (per Stephen Wolfe’s book) fund churches and ministers, discipline ministers, determine religious controversies, execute heretics, etc.—a curious blend of the princes of the Holy Roman Empire with Puritan Massachusetts.

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

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