Methodists and Christian Nationalism

by David F. Watson
October 4, 2022

Few terms today are as provocative as “Christian nationalism.” What we mean by this term can vary quite widely. The Baptist group BJC Online draws up on the work of Andrew Whitehead and Samuel Perry in their book Taking America Back for God: Christian Nationalism in the United States to provide the following summary of Christian nationalism:

Americans who embrace Christian nationalism are more likely to:

 

  • Approve of authoritarian tactics like demanding people show respect for national symbols and traditions
  • Fear and distrust religious minorities, including Muslims, Atheists, and Jewish people
  • Condone police violence toward Black Americans and distrust accounts of racial inequality in the criminal justice system
  • Believe racial inequality is due to the personal shortcomings of minority groups
  • Report being “very uncomfortable” with both interracial marriage and transracial adoption
  • Hold anti-immigrant views
  • Fear refugees
  • Oppose scientists and science education in schools
  • Believe that men are better suited for all leadership roles while women are better suited to care for children and the home

I personally do not know any Methodists who demonstrate this group of characteristics. No doubt some are out there, but such beliefs and practices are not normally in our religious DNA. It should go without saying that authoritarianism, racism, and animus toward immigrants are inconsistent with Christian belief. Methodists of many stripes believe that leadership at all levels should be open to both women and men. While we may dispute with one another regarding scientific findings, we generally do not oppose science in principle. If this list accurately represents what we mean when we say “Christian nationalism,” then Christian nationalism is an ethos we should not only reject, but actively oppose.

Paul D. Miller provides a different definition in Christianity Today,

Christian nationalism is the belief that the American nation is defined by Christianity, and that the government should take active steps to keep it that way. Popularly, Christian nationalists assert that America is and must remain a “Christian nation”—not merely as an observation about American history, but as a prescriptive program for what America must continue to be in the future…. Christian nationalists do not reject the First Amendment and do not advocate for theocracy, but they do believe that Christianity should enjoy a privileged position in the public square. The term “Christian nationalism,” is relatively new, and its advocates generally do not use it of themselves, but it accurately describes American nationalists who believe American identity is inextricable from Christianity.

By comparison with the first definition, there are likely more Methodists whose beliefs are consistent with this way of understanding Christian nationalism. Is this spiritually healthy? Is it consistent with our faith? In what follows, I will suggest five principles I hope will be helpful in our conversations around these issues.

First of all, it’s okay to love your country.

We hear a lot of anti-America talk these days. Yes, we have our problems. Different people might identify different problems, or at least prioritize our problems differently, but we can all agree that the United States is not a perfect country. That said, a perfect country has never existed. Nations sin, just as people do, and we in the U.S. have our sins, historic and present. Yet we must not ignore the profound opportunities and freedoms that life in the U.S. affords. The Enlightenment values of individual dignity and “unalienable rights” that are enshrined in our founding documents are as important today as they have ever been. To take them for granted or dismiss their value is a grievous error.

Second, loving your country sometimes means calling it to be better.

Evangelical Christians should know this well. Along with Roman Catholics, evangelicals have been at the forefront of the pro-life movement in the U.S. Predominantly African-American churches have a long history of calling the U.S. to accountability over its sins related to race and inequality. From child labor laws to women’s suffrage, Christians have long been at the vanguard of positive social change. There is nothing unpatriotic or inappropriate about using our voice and influence to this end.

Some non-Christians suggest that we Christians should keep our religious beliefs out of the public sphere. If we want to believe that X is wrong, they say, feel free, but we shouldn’t make our beliefs matters of public policy. Of course this is nonsense. The atheist, the agnostic, the new age practitioner, and people of every other stripe have worldviews that shape their moral perspectives, and these moral perspectives come to bear on the ways they believe society should function. In this sense they are no different than traditional Christians. It is not the case that the Christian worldview is laden with the values of a particular tradition while those of secular humanists are not. Rather, both are value-laden worldviews that sometimes come into conflict with one another in the public sphere. In a diverse civil society the challenge is to figure out how we can work together for the common good when we agree and live together without violence when we don’t.

Third, regardless of how we may feel about our country, we know that this world is not our home.

As baptized Christians, our primary citizenship and allegiance is not to any nation state, but to the kingdom of God and our Lord Jesus Christ. 1 Peter 2:9-10 teaches us,

But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, in order that you may proclaim the mighty acts of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.

Within this holy nation are people of every tribe and tongue and language (Rev 7:9). While Christian nationalism has at times been tied to the privileging of white ethnicity, this is not the way of God’s kingdom. As God makes us holy and renews our minds, we reject the values of this world and adopt the values of heaven in which the mythos of racial superiority has no place. Our sinful flesh may propel us into enclaves of tribalism, but as Christians we must crucify the flesh. Insofar as our actions are motivated by racial superiority or animus, we dishonor not only our neighbors but the God who created them. Put more simply, a racialized white nationalism may be many things, but it can never be Christian.

Fourth, Christians have one Lord, and he was not elected.

God has many enemies, but no rivals. The early Christians knew this, and while they tried to be loyal subjects of the Roman Empire, when called upon to make sacrifice to the Emperor, many refused. It cost them their lives. They understood where their allegiance lay. (On this topic, I recommend Matthew Bates’s book, Salvation by Allegiance Alone.)

God can work in and through governments, but we must bear in mind that governments are not God. The fourth chapter of the Revelation to John begins with a vision of a throne, and one seated on the throne. In fact, the throne is the central symbol of Revelation. The question this book answers for us is, “Who is really Lord of this world?” (see Richard Bauckham, The Theology of the Book of Revelation). Around the throne are twenty-four elders wearing crowns, but as angels sing praises to the one seated on the throne, the elders cast their crowns–symbols of worldly power– down before it and fall on their faces. And then they sing, “You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power” (Rev 4:11). You are worthy–no one else, but only God. Temporal governments have their place, but the kingdom of God is eternal.

In the U.S., various groups vie for our allegiance all the time. They want our votes, our money, our hearts and minds. Politics is a high-stakes blood sport, and we are taught to believe it is a zero-sum game. But Christians have one Lord. No politician, political party, or platform can claim our ultimate allegiance. While the political structures of this world are tools with which we must work in order to bring about a well-ordered society, they are ephemeral and compromised. By contrast, Jesus is King of kings and Lord of lords, and his reign is forever.  He is perfect and eternal. In the age to come, every knee will bend before him in heaven, on earth, and under the earth, and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father (Phil 2:10-11).

Fifth, the challenge for Christians is to find appropriate expressions of our faith in the public sphere.

Here’s where things get complicated.

The U.S. is a democratic republic based upon Enlightenment ideals of human dignity, individual freedom, and God-given rights. These ideals would not have emerged apart from the fertile soil of centuries of Christian thought. Yet the founders of our country wanted neither a state that was run by the church nor a church that was run by the state.

We can think of Christian involvement in the affairs of the state as a continuum. On one end there is quietism, or a withdrawal of the church from public affairs. On this end of the continuum, we Christians would simply tend to our business and organize our lives without attempting to influence the common life of the nation. On the other end there is theocracy–the state is subsumed under the governance of the church. Exactly how we see ourselves on this continuum is a matter of ongoing discussion among Christians.

There are Christian groups that believe that we should withdraw from the wider culture. An extreme example is the Amish. Rod Dreher suggested a kind of quietism in The Benedict Option. People who hold this view see involvement in the world as a corrupting influence on the church. The withdrawal of Christians into insular communities is thought to preserve the holiness of the church and honor God’s purposes for human life. I don’t see this tendency in Wesley or the early Methodists. Yes, they were organized into tightly-knit communities of faith, support, and accountability. But Wesley’s whole project is one in which the community of people transformed by grace goes into the world to extend that transformative grace to others. We may withdraw into our Christian enclaves for a time, but it is equally important that we are ambassadors for Christ in a world that does not know him.

By contrast, the idea of theocracy is gaining popularity in the U.S. Among Roman Catholics it is called Integralism. Among the Reformed it is called Reconstructionism or Theonomy. I’m not aware of a Wesleyan variety. Some would say this is because we Methodists are insufficiently fervent in our faith. I disagree. I know many Methodists who are every bit as zealous as the most ardent Roman Catholic or Calvinist. Among Wesleyans, however, we do not believe that God compels our faith. We believe that God’s preventing (or “prevenient”) grace gives us the capacity to reject or accept Christ. It is a partial restoration of the agency that was taken from us by sin. In this sense, we can speak of a “freed will.”

Because God has allowed it, we can choose forgiveness and freedom from sin, or we can choose the opposite, to remain in our sin, to choose death over life. Perhaps this is why we Methodists do not lean toward theocracy. If God does not compel us to live as redeemed people, it follows that we should not compel others to do so, either. Yes, if we are politically engaged, our beliefs will come to bear on public policy. We do, after all, have a vision of the common good, and it is entirely appropriate for us to work through our governmental systems in order to bring this vision to life. In so doing, however, we recognize that the ideas and interests of other people–people who see the world quite differently than we do–will also come to bear on public policy. We may not agree with them, but our faith compels us to recognize their dignity and agency.

So here’s the quick summary: I believe Christians in the U.S. should appreciate the good and call out the bad in our country. While we recognize that this world is not ultimately our home and that Christ is Lord of all, this does not excuse us from political engagement. There is too much at stake. We should vote our consciences and speak into the public sphere unashamedly. The ideals of human dignity, individual freedom, and God-given rights have grown up out of our own faith tradition, and we should go to the mat for them. These very ideals, however, compel us to acknowledge the values and interests of people who disagree with us. We do not impose the values of our faith with a heavy fist, but offer them continually in a spirit of love, grace, and service.

Every age has its challenges. The set of ideas swirling around the language of “Christian nationalism” is one we must face today. I am confident we can do so if we will approach these matters with prayer, humility, and a spirit of repentance. “God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble” (Psalm 46:1). God has guided the church through troubled waters time and again, and these troubled waters are no different.

The Rev. Dr. David F. Watson is professor of New Testament, academic dean, and vice president for academic affairs at United Theological Seminary. He is also an ordained elder in the Global Methodist Church.

Scroll to Top