In 2015, lawmakers in my home state of Tennessee passed legislation to designate the Holy Bible as the official state book. The bill passed with a jumbled mix of bipartisan support and opposition. Then-Gov. Bill Haslam, a Republican and evangelical Presbyterian, issued a politically courageous veto.
“Our founders recognized that when the church and state were combined, it was the church that suffered in the long run,” Haslam reasoned at the time, while also cautioning against “those who are trying to drive religion out of the public square.”
In the years that followed, Christian leaders like the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission’s Russell Moore would celebrate Haslam as “a model for Christians in public service.”
I thought of that story this week when I learned about the formation of a new group called Christians Against Christian Nationalism. “Christian nationalism demands Christianity be privileged by the state and implies that to be a good American, one must be Christian … we reject this damaging political ideology,” explains the organization’s website.
Their timing and emphasis may be curious to some, particularly when measures to impose Christian nationalism have rightfully fallen flat in states like my own — a bastion of political and religious conservatism — and given other crises affecting people of faith today, like recent reports showing that the persecution of Christians worldwide is approaching genocide levels with Christian women disproportionately impacted.
Then again, “curious” doesn’t necessarily mean “wrong.”
Christians are largely united in a belief in the separation of church and state (even the conservative Southern Baptist Convention maintains this conviction in its statement of faith), even if we differ occasionally on the details. It is here, in these details, that the mission of Christians Against Christian Nationalism will be revealed.
Tennessee shows us that when advocates mobilize against an obviously unconstitutional ploy by the state to impose religion on the public, we will find allies on all sides. We also know, however, that some will seek to wield claims of “Christian nationalism” to discredit any number of orthodox views or mainstream, conservative efforts.
Take, for example, the race for the Democratic nomination for president. The major contenders have coalesced around repealing the Hyde Amendment, a longstanding, bipartisan measure prohibiting taxpayer funding for abortion with certain exceptions.
Asked about Americans who may object to the use of their tax dollars for the taking of preborn life, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York replied glibly, “We have a tenet in our Constitution, it’s called separation of church and state.”
By Gillibrand’s standard, maintaining even the most modest legal protections for babies in the womb could be tantamount to imposing “Christian nationalism” and liberals like President Barack Obama, who signed an executive order reaffirming the Hyde Amendment, would be a top offender. It will be incumbent upon Christians Against Christian Nationalism to distinguish itself from such extreme positions.
What about the Supreme Court’s June 2019 decision to allow a 90-year-old Latin cross to remain standing on public lands in Bladensburg, Maryland?
The cross was erected in 1925 with private dollars on private land that was later purchased by the state of Maryland in 1961. In 2014, the American Humanist Association, known also for its campaign to boycott the Pledge of Allegiance, filed a lawsuit seeking to have the cross relocated or modified.
The court ruled in a 7-2 decision against the American Humanist Association’s mean-spirited attempt to erase this nearly century-old monument and symbol of faith from public view. Was the court, including Democratic appointees such as Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan, perpetuating Christian nationalism in its ruling? What about the 84% of Americans surveyed who agreed with the outcome?
Christians Against Christian Nationalism further claims that perceived Christian preferentialism “often overlaps with and provides cover for white supremacy.” This is a serious charge. Would the group suggest that there is a common thread between, say, lawmakers who passed unnecessary legislation in South Dakota requiring “In God We Trust” to be emblazoned on public school walls and the evil white supremacy that reared its head in El Paso, Texas? We risk diminishing the severity and depravity of the latter when we try, against evidence, to link it to the former.
The real kind of Christian nationalism that uses faith as a cudgel to intimidate and control, and the state as a means to achieve its ends, is repugnant. But so too are the partisan wolf-criers who apply a definition of this term that is so broad and so hostile to even the slightest expression of faith that it would indict just about everyone in our pews, including the aforementioned luminaries of the political left, with whom the group seemingly aligns.
The idea that the family of God might rally together under the banner of this coalition to expel what the beloved Rev. Michael B. Curry calls “The violence, intimidation and distortion of scripture associated with ‘Christian nationalism’” is refreshing.
The concern that it could unwittingly become a vehicle to legitimize bad-faith attacks on traditionalist Christian brothers and sisters or to entangle moderate and progressive churches with a secular political movement intent on suppressing religious speech is real.
I am a Christian against Christian nationalism, but is there a place in “Christians Against Christian Nationalism” for me? I am not yet sure.
Jonathan Frank is a communications aide and former congressional staffer residing in Washington, D.C. Follow him on Twitter at @JFrank08.
