Over the past few years, I've become increasingly interested in the public discourse in the United States around Christian nationalism. Since the riot at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, it's become more of a topic of conversation, with much disagreement on both sides of the aisle regarding how to define the term and who, exactly, counts as a Christian nationalist. Given this state of affairs, I've been looking for a resource that would precisely define Christian nationalism and address it from "within the camp," so to speak, as an evangelical.
Because of this, I was very pleased when Michael W. Austin, Christian philosopher and current president of the Evangelical Philosophical Society, announced that he would be releasing his new book, American Christian Nationalism: Neither American Nor Christian. This gave me the chance to read about the topic and publish some of my thoughts - not just on Christian nationalism but on Christian engagement in politics. I've given these controversial issues much thought over the past several years, and I'm excited to engage in this discussion among brothers and sisters in Christ.
The purpose of a book review is to provide a clear summary of the content of the book and a critical evaluation of the claims and arguments made in the book. The structure of a book review is twofold. The first part of a book review is a detailed summary of its content. The second part of a book review is a critical evaluation of that content.
To be frank, I've refrained from wading into this controversial issue because, in part, I'm nervous. The topic is complex and should be treated with great care, since many brothers and sisters in Christ disagree on this issue. I found myself agreeing at times with Austin and disagreeing at other times with him. For this reason, two disclaimers should be made.
Disclaimer #1: Michael Austin is a brother in Christ, as far as I can tell, and any critique that I give is intended in a spirit of brotherly love. I have no doubt that he has made his arguments out of a sincere desire to love God and love others. Where I agree, I want to do so joyfully. Where I disagree, I want to do so charitably and graciously.
Disclaimer #2: I am not a Christian nationalist. In fact, I am even skeptical of whether American followers of Jesus should be patriotic. This is important to clarify early in the review because some might think that any disagreement of mine with Austin constitutes support for Christian nationalism. That does not follow, and I'll explain why in my critical evaluation of the book.
Without further ado, let's get started!
Summary of Contents
American Christian Nationalism is a short book, whose content fills only 78 pages. It has five chapters.
In the Preface, Austin presents what I take to be the thesis of the entire book (xi):
"American Christian nationalism damages our witness for Christ, hinders our growth in the character of Christ, and contradicts the gospel of Christ and his kingdom."
In part, he says that his book is "for the person who might not be sure what Christian nationalism is" (xi), and this means that he must also define Christian nationalism. In the first chapter, he defines Christian nationalism. While granting that it "can be difficult to define" (6), Austin draws from primary sources for and against Christian nationalism and identifies American Christian nationalism with five "features" or claims (7-12):
American Christian nationalists believe America was formed as a Christian nation.
American Christian nationalists believe the government of the United States should promote a particular kind of Christian culture.
American Christian nationalists believe that American Christians should pursue political and cultural power in order to take dominion over America.
American Christian nationalists believe that American Christians should prioritize American interests over the interests of other nations.
American Christian nationalism fuses the American and Christian identities of its adherents.
These features broadly characterize, to Austin, American Christian nationalism and each of its major adherents, with whom he interacts throughout the book. These adherents include Stephen Wolfe (The Case for Christian Nationalism) and Andrew Torba and Andrew Isker (Christian Nationalism: A Biblical Guide for Taking Dominion and Discipling Nations).
In the second chapter, Austin assesses American Christian nationalism in light of three central American values: liberty, equality, and service. He defines "liberty" as "the freedom to direct our lives and respond to what life brings us, with the best that is in us" (16). He notes that proponents of Christian nationalism like Torba, Isker, and Wolfe have advocated for restricting positions of political power and leadership only to Christians, a position which Austin argues violates Article VI of the Constitution (17-18). In a particularly shocking passage, he cites Wolfe, who argues that dissenters of Christianity should be liable to receive punishment for their views, even up to and including the death penalty (18). These authoritarian measures, he argues, violate the Constitution and the American value of liberty.
Austin defines "equality" by citing the Declaration of Independence (19):
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights."
These natural rights, given by God and recognized by the state, extend to all human beings. Equality, in this context, is to be defined as an equality of inherent worth or value that the state recognizes in its administration of justice. The state likewise recognizes these rights by applying them to all citizens, no matter their other distinguishing features. Again, citing Torba, Isker, and Wolfe, not just in their books but in their social media posts, Austin notes that Christian nationalists often profess views that deny the equality of all persons. He notes how Wolfe, for instance, uses racial categories to distinguish Christian nationalism from other worldviews (21). This suggests that Christian nationalists think of the world and culture in ways that are prejudicial, even racist.
Though Austin does not define "service," he describes it as (in summary) the unique American capacity to sacrifice of one's own for the sake of another person. He cites multiple examples of charitable giving on the part of Americans to demonstrate their generosity (23). Here, he criticizes Christian nationalists for thinking that we should "prioritize the welfare of our nation and its citizens over the welfare of the citizens of other nations" (23). Rather, he argues that American Christians have the means and responsibility to provide for needs of others across the globe, irrespective of national boundaries.
In the third chapter, Austin contrasts American Christian nationalism and certain Christian values, namely, fleeing from idolatry, imitating Christ, and making disciples. First, by mixing Christian and American identities, Austin argues that Christian nationalism is often guilty of idolatry by placing country over love of Christ. I quote the passage below in full because it is revealing for what Austin thinks of Christian nationalism (29):
"[Christian nationalism] bow[s] at the altar of power, disregard[s] the needs of the weak, and emphasize[s] the desires of the strong. Christian nationalism leads to the exaltation of nation over God, of our obligations to our fellow Americans over the broader obligations of Christian ethics. It not only worships power, but at times it worships the nation itself as a god. This is idolatry. This is not the way of Jesus."
So, for Austin, there is a significant danger of compromise in love of country, one which confuses Christian and American identities. After citing multiple instances in which the two were blended, or even in which American identity supplanted Christian identity, he calls this blend a "spiritually lethal mistake" (34).
Second, by injecting worldly thinking, Christian nationalists distort what it means to follow Christ. In particular, according to Austin, they misinterpret the Great Commission (Matthew 28:16-20) by taking it to imply that Christians ought to "take dominion" over America's political seats of power and "disciple" other nations; here, Austin cites Torba and Isker (35). He goes on to cite multiple examples of how this ideology distorts Christian nationalists' understanding of the Scriptures and Christ's teachings.
Finally, Austin argues that Christian nationalists, by misinterpreting and misapplying the Great Commission, damage their witness for Christ. He contrasts the church's role as "conscience of the state," which he thinks is right and good, with the Christian nationalist's desire to use the state as "an agent of discipleship for the church" (44), as a coercive measure for imposing Christianity on the population. This, Austin argues, is not the state's role. He ends the chapter with this statement (49):
"Discipleship happens in and through the church, not the government."
In the fourth chapter, Austin contrasts Christian nationalism and Christian virtues, namely, faith, humility, and love. Faith is "a disposition to entrust ourselves to God" (52). To Austin, Christian nationalists lack faith by failing to trust God to change the world in and through the means He has established for changing the world. Here, he notes especially the isolationist tendencies of Christian nationalists - a tendency to look inward rather than practicing a faith that is "for others" (53). Instead, Austin argues that Christians should work within the society in which God has placed us to bring hope and transformation (55).
Humility is a self-sacrificial care for the interests of others over our own interests. To Austin, nationalism violates humility by caring for one's own interests over the interests of others, since one's own interests are seen as more important (55). For Austin, this is connected with the church, which is a "worldwide entity," meaning that Christians "have special obligations that extend beyond the borders of our nation" (58). Humility demands that we give self-sacrificially for the needs of others, whether or not they are Americans.
Love is related to the Great Commandment: to love God and love neighbor. Austin argues that Christian nationalism violates the commandment to love one's neighbor in a way similar to the lawyer questioning Jesus, asking, "Who is my neighbor?" Though granting that governments have greater obligation to care for its citizens (63), Austin argues that the category of "neighbor," for the Christian, extends to all people, irrespective of nation. We ought to "seek to be a neighbor to all whom God brings across our path" (62).
In the fifth and final chapter, Austin puts forward an alternative vision for society, which, while grounded in Christian values, is open and inclusive to all who happen to live in that society. Following Martin Luther King Jr., he calls this the "Beloved Community" (68). It is the "ideal human society," not restricted to any particular religion as long as that religion "values humanity, works to foster the common good and the flourishing of all, and has good reasons to work toward the creation of this community" (69). In fact, so inclusive is this community that "there is also room for people of no religion" (71). As Austin says (70):
"The Beloved Community includes all people: people of every race, ethnicity, class, nationality, and religion."
In another passage, he notes that the Beloved Community is one in which people's needs are met (70):
"Justice, including economic justice, is important for human flourishing. A healthy and just community will have no economic exploitation, nor will people lack for their basic material needs. In such a community, God's will that all people have both the physical and spiritual necessities of life is realized. The basic needs of all are met. There is racial equality and justice. No human being is left behind or pushed aside."
To those who are skeptical of whether the Beloved Community is achievable in this life, rather than at the return of Christ, Austin at least suggests that the Beloved Community could be reached in this life (76):
"Some, including King, have enough faith in humanity's potential for goodness and the power of love that they think the Beloved Community can be a reality in this life."
Austin, however, is clear that the Beloved Community, even if realized in this life, is not identical to the new heavens and new earth. Rather, he claims that the Beloved Community "mimics" that future state (78).
Critical Evaluation
For this section, I'll begin with praise before moving on to points of critique. First, I appreciate how well-written and well-researched the book is for such a short introduction to the topic. For this reason alone, I recommend the book to anyone, especially Christians, curious about Christian nationalism and arguments against it. Second, in particular, I appreciate how much Austin interacted with primary sources in favor of Christian nationalism, such as Wolfe and Torba and Isker. As far as I understand it, Wolfe is especially prominent for his defense of the ideology, so it was refreshing to see Austin critique him on his own terms.
It is necessary to critique these authors on their own terms because Christian nationalism has, especially in the mainstream media, become sort of a catch-all term for "any Christian conservative whose views I don't like," and this is very unfortunate for at least two reasons. First, if there is something dangerous about Christian nationalism as defended, for instance, by Wolfe, then we need to define his views and formulate clear objections to them. Likewise, it would be helpful to do so because Christians, like me, could clearly differentiate their views from his and oppose his views. I fear that to many conservative Christians like me, Christian nationalism has become so bloated with possible meanings (a process called "semantic overload") that it has become effectively meaningless. If everyone is a Christian nationalist, then almost no one is. Second, the term has become a tool for demonizing conservative Christians. In effect, I've seen the following argument made repeatedly in mainstream media sources:
Person X argues for policy P because X believes that P is grounded in X's Christian values.
Christian nationalists advocate their views because they think that those views are grounded in their Christian values.
Therefore, X is a Christian nationalist.
This form of argument is thrown around quite a bit in our culture, and it is very poor reasoning. (In fact, if the argument above is valid, then Michael Austin is a Christian nationalist.) It points to an incidental similarity between a person and something perceived to be bad and saddles that person with all of the bad connotations of that thing, simply because of the similarity. The joke I've heard goes something like this:
Person X likes sausages.
Hitler liked sausages.
Therefore, X is like Hitler.
To be clear, I do not think that Austin is trying to do this. In fact, and this is my third praise, I appreciated that he seems to go out of his way to avoid doing this. In the first chapter, he takes on the difficult task of defining Christian nationalism. I take issue with some of his conclusions in that chapter, but I appreciate deeply his attempt to be precise in this way.
Finally, I agree with many of Austin's arguments against Christian nationalism, especially where it is clear that he is criticizing the views of Wolfe, Torba, and Isker. I think that many readers who may not be aware of what self-described Christian nationalists actually say about their Christian nationalism will be shocked by what they read cited in Austin's book. In my view, a key difference between many conservative Christians and so-called "American" Christian nationalists is that the latter, ironically, desire a different country from the one we have in the United States. As Austin points out, many of the policy prescriptions of Wolfe, Torba, and Isker actively violate the Bill of Rights of our Constitution. It is because our system of government is grounded in the Judeo-Christian worldview that it is pluralistic, that it divides powers among many fallen human beings rather than placing all powers in the hands of one human being. If you value that system of governance, as I do, you shouldn't affirm Christian nationalism as defended by Wolfe, Torba, and Isker.
Now, on to points of critique. First, while I appreciate Austin's attempt to be precise, the first chapter still demonstrates that Christian nationalism is subject to much semantic overload. There is still a danger here that evangelical conservatives will be saddled with the label of Christian nationalism, while disagreeing strongly with the claims of Wolfe, Torba, and Isker. To illustrate this point, consider again the five features of Christian nationalism cited by Austin:
American Christian nationalists believe America was formed as a Christian nation.
American Christian nationalists believe the government of the United States should promote a particular kind of Christian culture.
American Christian nationalists believe that American Christians should pursue political and cultural power in order to take dominion over America.
American Christian nationalists believe that American Christians should prioritize American interests over the interests of other nations.
American Christian nationalism fuses the American and Christian identities of its adherents.
Let's consider each of these in order. Austin does not address Feature #1 in the book; in fact, he says that he won't (8). Is it, however, necessarily a mark of Christian nationalism to affirm Feature #1, especially as it seems to be a historical claim? If someone believes Feature #1, is he or she obviously a Christian nationalist? I don't think so, but Austin doesn't seem to clearly address this. As far as what I believe, I don't know what to make of the claim that the United States was founded as a "Christian" nation. It was certainly founded on Judeo-Christian values; this is clear historically, and I think Austin would agree with this claim. But if someone were to argue that the United States were founded to be the kind of nation envisioned by Wolfe, I'd disagree strongly.
Feature #2 is similarly strange. What does it mean to "promote" a kind of Christian culture? One can imagine a kind of government that promotes that culture in various ways, including coercively. It is clear that Wolfe, for instance, is in favor of coercively imposing that kind of culture, but Feature #2 does not indicate how that culture is to be promoted. And, based on the fifth chapter, it looks like Austin wants to promote a particular kind of Christian culture. Shouldn't the Beloved Community be promoted by the government? If so, then he turns out to share this feature with other Christian nationalists even if he objects to their methods.
Feature #3 is, I think, termed somewhat prejudicially, although I understand that the "take dominion" language is used by Christian nationalists. But what if I believe that Christians called by God to public service should seek it for the good of everyone in American society? Should Christian politicians promote the Beloved Community and pursue elected office to promote it? "Take dominion" sounds more authoritarian, but power is power. If Austin believes that Christians called to public service ought to pursue it to promote the general good of others, motivated by a Judeo-Christian vision for society, then he agrees with Feature #3, even if the "take dominion" language comes off a little strong.
Feature #4 is interesting because it says that American Christians, rather than the American government, should prioritize American interests over the interests of others. I think that this is a complex and difficult issue ethically, so I'll leave it to the side for now. Suffice it to say that I can easily imagine a Christian agreeing with this claim without being a Christian nationalist in the spirit of Wolfe (I'd need to consider this issue more to be able to tell whether I agree with this claim).
Feature #5 is clear enough, but it also gets into issues of whether Christians ought to be patriots. I think that there are examples of Christians who mix identities, in a way that I find problematic, without thereby being Christian nationalists in Wolfe's sense. I've actually seen this at one Baptist church, which was relatively liberal on some issues, but in which American patriotic songs were sung during a worship service for the Fourth of July. The members of that church would find Wolfe's views morally repugnant, but they mixed American and Christian identities nonetheless.
My point is twofold. First, it is not clear to me that any of these features are determinative of one's being a Christian nationalist. In fact, in each case I can find examples of a Christian affirming that feature without affirming Wolfe, Torba, or Isker's form of Christian nationalism. With respect to some features, Michael Austin himself, it seems to me, agrees with those features. So, the danger is still that American Christians who, like me, would find Wolfe, Torba, and Isker's views morally repugnant and biblically wrong could get saddled with all of their views simply because we have some features in common. Second, Austin could have avoided the "semantic overload" problem by clearly distinguishing how Christian nationalists want to achieve their vision for the United States. Throughout the book, Austin doesn't so much dispute the features themselves (though obviously, he takes issue with Feature #4 and Feature #5 directly) as the methods proposed by Christian nationalists for achieving their goals. Take Feature #2, for instance. Austin clearly takes issue with how Christian nationalists want to promote the culture they want to promote - that is, through coercive government action - rather than that they want the government to promote a culture. Presumably, according to Austin, it'd be a great thing for the American government to promote, in a non-coercive way, the Beloved Community. So, the problem is evidently with method, not Feature #2 itself.
Second, throughout the book, there is no clear distinction between the church and the state. To be clear, Austin mentions them as separate entities. He argues, for instance, against Christian nationalism's desire for the church to master the state (44). Yet, especially in sections on service, humility, and love, he seems to promote government policies on the basis of Judeo-Christian commitments. Take, for example, claims he makes about the duty to serve others (23, emphasis is my own):
"When we have the means and opportunity, we should help the children of other families and the citizens of other nations. Service dictates that we should not only welcome the stranger but also help those who are suffering outside our borders."
Austin says this in the context of Christian nationalists' claim that "a nation should prioritize the welfare of its citizens just as a parent prioritizes the interests of his children" (23), so it's reasonable to assume that he intends this claim about service to apply not just to the individual American Christian, but also to the American government. Thus, the American government has a duty, on his view, to welcome strangers from outside the country and provide for their needs.
Aside from the irony of claiming that the government has a certain duty because of one's commitment to Judeo-Christian values (that service is an American value is grounded in its Judeo-Christian foundation), how is the government to act to fulfill this duty? Any government must raise money for its operation through taxation. Taxation is, by definition, a coercive act of government. If you are an American citizen, you are legally required - coerced - to give a portion of your money to the government, even if that money funds programs to which you're opposed. If you refuse to pay your taxes, you will go to prison for many years. So, what Austin is promoting is tax-funded service to non-citizens, which, by definition, must be paid for through coercive means, even from those who disagree with Austin's claim about the American government's duty to welcome foreigners into the country and render them aid. He might then argue that such service is a duty because of the Judeo-Christian worldview. But then that means that he is in favor of promoting coercive government policy for the sake of achieving some Christian aim, whether or not everyone in the nation is a Christian or would agree with his policies. So, in an ironic twist, Austin's position is not too far from that promoted by the Christian nationalist in practice. He has a different vision, and rightfully so, but coercion is a part of promoting that vision once the government gets involved.
Does that mean that Austin is a Christian nationalist? Of course not. He clearly disagrees with Wolfe and other proponents of Christian nationalism. My point, rather, is that by failing to clearly distinguish the church's duties from those of the state, Austin ends up promoting coercive government action in order to secure certain Christian ends. If it is wrong for the Christian nationalist to pursue this, then it is likewise wrong for any other Christian to pursue this. In the end, it would just mean that Christians must disengage from any political involvement. I often found myself agreeing with Austin when he made clear that the church bears the obligation to love neighbor, render service to those in need, etc. Those are voluntary charitable acts that, yes, are characteristic of Americans because of our Judeo-Christian heritage. But I also found the lack of distinction between church and state to be a source of category errors throughout the book.
Lastly, I must address the fifth chapter of the book, which I thought displayed an astonishing lack of self-awareness and logical consistency. Those are strong words, but I will defend them. Recall that Austin advocates for the Beloved Community as the alternative to the Christian nationalist vision. Thus, he believes that this vision is more consistent with biblical Christianity than Christian nationalism. Now, some may immediately find it puzzling that I criticize this chapter so strongly. It is not because I don't, in some ways, share this vision. I, too, desire to see a society in which all flourish, in which all needs are met, in which God's justice reigns. Amen and amen, I say to that.
However, one question is glaringly absent from this chapter. How is this vision to be enacted? Remember, the Beloved Community is a Christian ideal, though Austin claims that it is inclusive of any religious perspective that shares certain values. If this is the right vision for a just society, for all humans, should the state promote such a vision? Should we elect politicians who share this Judeo-Christian vision for society? Should we advocate for our leaders to pass legislation that promotes this vision, rather than other laws that don't? What if there are citizens in our society who don't share this vision? Should we elect them? Should we allow those people into our country, since they would endanger the realization of the Beloved Community?
Lest you think that Austin would respond by stressing that the church, not the state, should promote this vision, evidence from the chapter shows that he thinks the state should be involved. For instance, Austin quotes Martin Luther King Jr., who, in a long passage, calls for economic disparities and poverty to be "a thing of the dark past" and says that the goal of eradicating poverty should be "the first order of business on every legislative agenda" (MLK Jr.'s words, quoted in 70, emphasis is my own). Austin does nothing to qualify or further explain where he agrees with King here. In fact, he doubles down on it, saying that in such a society, "the basic needs of all are met" (70). It would be wonderful if they were to be met through mutual, voluntary charitable action, but that is not what King advocates for. He advocates for legislative action, which is, by definition, coercive, for the sake of achieving a Judeo-Christian utopian vision in this life.
Friends, this is nothing more than a thinly-veiled form of Christian utopianism. It sounds great. In fact, in some sense, it is the vision of the new heavens and new earth (absent the religious pluralism). But when we advocate for such a vision as achievable in this life, and then invite the government to enact and enforce that vision, we're well on our way to tyranny. The Communist disasters of the 20th century ought to have taught us this. And the great irony of this chapter - so great that it left me reeling as I read it - is that in order for it to be enacted, those who share such a vision must hold political office. Those who oppose such a vision must be suppressed, denied cultural and political power. Those who disagree must be coerced, as a matter of legislative priority, to sacrifice part of their income for the sake of the poor to achieve economic equality. And why should they reject such coercion? It is only Christian to serve others out of love for neighbor. The consequences of failing to clearly distinguish church and state are devastating.
In the very last section of the book, titled "Our True Home," Austin moves on to summarize critiques he has made against Christian nationalism. This passage stood out to me as particularly ironic (77):
"We should want a patriotism that focuses on our good, the common good, and is willing to sacrifice for that good in both the national and international realms. Many American Christians simply assume they have a right to a society that reflects their vision of Christian morality, coercing others to fall into line."
That is, unless the "legislative agenda," grounded in the "Beloved Community," demands economic equality as a matter of justice. That vision is worth a bit of government coercion.
Conclusion
At the end of this review, I'm left, frankly, with an odd feeling of disappointment. To reiterate my first disclaimer, I believe that Michael Austin is a brother in Christ. I agree with many of his objections to Christian nationalism. I believe that Christian nationalism, if ever enacted, would be dangerous and that Christians ought to oppose it (I also don't believe it to be very widespread). In some ways, I'd go even further than Austin and question the notion of patriotism (a topic for another post).
On the other hand, it is evident to me that Austin's opposition to Christian nationalism, along with perhaps others', has created a large blind spot in his own perspective. I believe that Christians have a duty to advocate for the public good in the public square. I believe that this is an extension of the duty to love one's neighbor. I am also convinced that the American system of governance is the best humans have come up with in a fallen world because our system of governance takes our fallenness seriously. Jesus Christ is King, and all will bow down to Him. The perfect form of government is a monarchy under Jesus Christ, where He rules all. And He can rule all justly and well because He is good. Any merely human ruler would be woefully inadequate for that role, which is why monarchies always descend into tyranny with enough generation. So, we wait for the perfect government at the return of Christ. Austin longs for that world, as all who are in Christ should. But by advocating for that world now, I don't see how his views don't end up advocating for similar coercive government methods as the Christian nationalist.
As I said before, I still recommend Austin's book. It is, in some ways, a good, readable introduction to the topic. I just wish that he would have been more logically consistent in his political views. I hope that this post helps me and other Christians think through these issues more clearly.
That's it for this post! If you enjoyed reading it, please like it and share it on social media for others to see it. Also, consider subscribing so that you can be notified of upcoming posts as they appear. Finally, if you'd like to join the conversation, you can comment below or reach I it to me via Facebook or email. Thank you for reading!
Source
Austin, Michael W. American Christian Nationalism: Neither American Nor Christian. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2024. https://www.amazon.com/American-Christian-Nationalism-Neither-nor/dp/0802884350.
Comments