The Rise and Fall of Christian Nationalism Experienced in My Own Journey of Faith

“Christian nationalism is an ideology that seeks to fuse Christian religion with a nation’s character.”


People are talking about Christian nationalism everywhere. The term, Christian nationalism, is often used and often invoked, but I don’t see it often defined. It can mean different things to different people. The phrase has increasingly become a pejorative label, though some people wear the pejorative label proudly now like a badge of honor.

My concern about “Christian nationalism” grows out of my own Christian experience. I admit that my experience is primarily anecdotal, but I find in Scripture adequate cause for that concern, and Scripture shines light on my experience and on any form of Christian nationalism, as I will explain.

I am chiefly concerned about the Church’s faithful witness and faithful adherence to following Christ. I am concerned that the world often confuses Christianity with particular political expressions, and I am concerned that Christians often do exactly the same thing.

The very fact that “Christian” nationalism has become a pejorative label suggests my concerns have some warrant. And not just me; I see a rising tide of concerned followers of Christ wrestling with the issue.

Jesus was clear to his detractors, and to his followers, that people should give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s. (Mark 12:17) I don’t see Jesus confusing or conflating what is Caesar’s and what is God’s, but the idea of Christian nationalism does both.

The very term, Christian nationalism, blurs the lines between what is Caesar’s and what is God’s. It suggests a conflation of biblical and political principles. It creates confusion that results in (or from) not knowing where politics end and Christianity begins.

I have the same issue with the way people use the term, evangelical. Originally, the term had a purely religious and theological meaning. Today, media and political pundits ascribe a political meaning to it. For the majority of people today (perhaps), the meaning conflates political and religious ideas into a confused mess that can mean very different things for different people.

As for a definition of Christian nationalism, I “asked” Bing’s Copilot for help. The resulting definition is my starting place for the rest of my thoughts today (not that I think it is a particularly good definition):

“Christian nationalism is an ideology that seeks to fuse Christian religion with a nation’s character.”

I would agree that Christian nationalism is an ideology, but ideologies do not seek. (People do.) (So much for the power of AI.) It seems more accurate to say that Christian nationalism is an expression of Christianity and of nationalism that fuses the two ideologies together. Whether people seek to fuse them, or simply do fuse them, together may be splitting hairs.

Having become a Christian in college in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s, I can attest to the organic nature in which patriotism fused with my own newfound beliefs in the milieu of the post-Jesus Movement. I didn’t seek or set out to fuse them together. They just became entangled.

Before I became a Christian, I grew up pledging allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, as did all public-school students in the 1960’s and 1970’s. The Fourth of July rivaled only Christmas on my list of favorite holidays. Parades and flags and fireworks were the traditional rituals of the observance of nationalism and those rituals continue today.  


Columbus Day served as reminder of our good fortune that God-fearing explorers with perpetual good will braved stormy seas and the specter of a flat earth to discover our fair land. Thanksgiving was encouraged as reminder that God ordained these things and established our manifest destiny in His good graces.

The groundwork for nationalism was laid in my life long before I became a Christian. I am a Boomer who was educated in an atmosphere of post-war optimism, but I am also a late Boomer. I was born on the cusp of the tumultuous 1960’s.

I witnessed the backlash against that post-war patriotism on the nightly news. The protests and protest songs, the burning of American flags, the “sit ins” and “love ins”, and increasing counter cultural attitudes pushed back against that patriotism institutionalized in the 1950’s and ingrained in my educational experience in the 60’s.


Many people in the American Church resisted the rising tide of rebellion against conventional norms, both in the Church and outside the Church. Many people clung reflexively to patriotism and national pride in reaction to the countercultural protest and unrest.

If traditional churchgoers were like the older son in the parable of the prodigal son in that time, the protesters were like the (younger) prodigal son. Our focus may be drawn to the excesses of the younger son, but we realize in the back of our minds that the older son is prodigal too.

My own story links up with the Jesus People Movement. The Jesus People were countercultural prodigals who found Jesus. They repented, turned from their rebellious ways, and embraced the Ancient of Days, God who became incarnate and died for the sins of the world.

I became a believer in 1980, and I joined a church with roots in the Jesus People Movement in 1982. The “radicals” who got saved in the early days of the church had long turned from their rebellious ways, when I joined them, and they had settled into a cultural conservatism that belied their former years.

Sometimes, we throw out the baby with the bathwater. Sometimes, in rescuing the baby, we take some bathwater in. Their newfound cultural conservatism was turning political and patriotic when I arrived. It was a patriotism not simply informed by secular pledges of allegiance; it was a patriotism that was infused with biblical blessing and mandate.

I spent six years in that church formed by hippies who migrated to the northeast in the late 60’s and early 70’s and found Jesus on their way.

These people had turned from flower power to a higher power, from the Rolling Stones to Randy Stonehill, and from sticking it to the man to worshiping the God who became man in Jesus and died for us.


When I joined this church, the original members had already closed their candle shops to become landlords and insurance salesmen. They no longer lived in communes where they shared resources in common. They were no longer long-haired hippie freaks. They had stable families and businesses and owned their own houses. 

With their conversion, they repented of their sins, and they rejected their former radicalism. In rejecting their former radicalism, they embraced a newfound conservatism that included a renewed sense of patriotism.

While I was living with them, I saw the influence of the Moral Majority take hold. The post-war patriotism of the Baby Boomer generation turned religious when hippies converted, rejected their former radicalism and were welcomed into the church by older prodigals who championed the Moral Majority.

I also saw portents of a darker future. On the edges of that idyllic, “New Testament church” with communal roots from a more radical past lurked associates of the John Birch Society and sundry other political influences.

My church embraced politics as an expression of working out God’s purposes in our local community and to the ends of the earth. But the path to the kingdom of God is always a narrow one. We don’t have to wander far from it to find ourselves invoking God to work out our own purposes in our local community and to the ends of the earth.


Christian nationalism involves a blurring of the lines between God’s purposes and our own purposes. Christian nationalism is a form of syncretism – the blending of Christian belief into a new system, or the incorporation of other beliefs into the expression of our Christian beliefs.

Continue reading “The Rise and Fall of Christian Nationalism Experienced in My Own Journey of Faith”

Is Offense a Measure of whether the Gospel is Authentically Preached?

Jesus said, “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.” (John 10:27)

On a recent Unbelievable Podcast, Justin Brierley posed the question: is the gospel really being preached if no one is being offended?

That question might seem odd out of context, so I should quickly add that the question was posed in the context of the “Asbury Revival”. Many Christians are advocating caution. They are expressing concern about calling the happening at Asbury University in Wilmore, KY a “revival”. Some are questioning whether God was involved at all.

The claims people are making include, among other things, that there is no preaching going on, that the Gospel is not being preached, and that no one is being offended by the message. The latter statement prompted the question.

Is that the measure of whether the gospel is being preached? That some people are offended? Do we really think that it isn’t really the Gospel unless some people are offended?

Because some people were offended that no one seemed offended, does that count as people being offended?

As food for thought, it seems that everyone was offended during the Super Bowl by the two commercials paid for by a Christian group (with a lot of money) conveying the message that “God gets us”. It seems that everyone was offended by those ads, both the secular world and the Christian world. Does the offense mean that the Gospel was preached?

Perhaps, but only if the right people are offended? What if Christians are offended? What if progressive Christians are offended? What do we mean by “progressive”?

Again, is that really the measure of whether the Gospel was preached? Is that really the right question? Isn’t the Gospel the Gospel? Isn’t the Gospel the Gospel, whether some people are offended or not?

What is the Gospel?

We all know that “gospel” means good news, right? But, what is it? What is the good news?

Paul defines the Gospel to the Corinthians when he says, “I want to remind you of the Gospel I preached to you….” (1 Cor. 15:2) He adds, “ By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.” (1 Cor. 15:3) Then, he says that the gospel message, which is “of first importance”, is as follows:

“… that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas [Peter], and then to the Twelve.”

1 Corinthians 15:3-5

When disagreements arose among the Corinthians, and some were lining up behind Paul, and others were lining up behind Apollos, Paul was perplexed by their disunity. He implored them “that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought.” (1 Cor. 1:10)

Paul was perplexed that some were touting him above Apollos, and the other way around. “Is Christ divided”, he asked rhetorically. (1 Cor. 1:13) The obvious answer is no! And the obvious implication is that we should not be divided either.

The problem with the Corinthians was that they were quarreling with each other over their allegiances to Paul and to Apollos. They were disagreeing and quarreling over peripheral things. Thus, Paul says he only came “to preach the gospel—not with wisdom and eloquence, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.” (1 Cor. 1:17)

Emptied of its power? What did Paul mean? Paul said,

“When I came to you, I did not come with eloquence or human wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. I came to you in weakness with great fear and trembling. My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God’s power.”

Paul didn’t emphasize his preaching. He didn’t come with “wise and persuasive words”. He emphasized the “demonstration of the Spirit’s power”. The demonstration of the Spirit’s power is usually what we associate with a revival or an awakening. It isn’t the preaching; there is always preaching, but we don’t always get a demonstration of the Holy Spirit.

Continue reading “Is Offense a Measure of whether the Gospel is Authentically Preached?”