<figure class="wp-block-audio"><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">The Dangerous Intersection of Christian Nationalism and Ethnocentrism</figcaption></figure>

If what is meant by Christian nationalism today is a form of active patriotism in which borders are protected, national sovereignty is enforced, and society moves back toward a Judeo-Christian ethic, call me a Christian nationalist. However, few have studied the European nationalist movement. Fewer still understand that leaders of this new movement are giving it a makeover. This improvement is an attempt to rebuild something that was actually broken and required additional inspection.

Redefining terms is not a novel occurrence. It’s existed since the beginning when the serpent said to Eve in the garden, “Has God said…” (Genesis 3:1). Despite any change in definition, however, how much of a word’s etymology remains intact?

For example, marriage once meant the union of one man and one woman in the covenant bonds of matrimony for the benefits of family, society, and the glory of God. Marriage has been redefined as any partnership between two consenting adult persons for their own self-fulfilling benefit, regardless of gender. Even as the culture strives to change the definition, the essential components of this tradition remain, both in practice and understanding.

This reality should cause Christian nationalists to reconsider the current push to redefine nationalism. Similar to how Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez introduced the prefix “democratic” to the terrible ideology of socialism, many have affixed the word “Christian” to nationalism.

The popularity of this new phrase has shifted from a leftist pejorative aimed at shutting down debate to serious consideration within evangelical circles. As Christians wrestle with the countless definitions of Christian nationalism, Stephen Wolfe’s book, A Case for Christian Nationalism, seeks to posit an affirmative position. 

However, the questions remain: does Wolfe’s definition include any of nationalism’s etymological baggage? Has combining Christianity with nationalism purged it of its symbiotic relationship with ethnocentrism and ethnic pride?

I will demonstrate that Wolfe’s version of Christian nationalism is positioned at the dangerous intersection of nationalism and ethnocentrism, pushing the boundaries of how far Christian nationalism can go before morphing into something more sinister.

In his book, Stephen Wolfe writes that he endeavors to position his form of Christian nationalism as “nationalism modified by Christianity.” He writes,

“My definition of Christian nationalism is a Christianized form of nationalism, or, put differently, a species of nationalism. Thus, I treat nationalism as a genus, meaning that all that is essential to generic nationalism is true of Christian nationalism.”

Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 10). Canon Press. Kindle Edition.

Wolfe’s statement raises several questions: Can nationalism be Christianized? Does Wolfe’s version of CN lack the ethnic pride of previous attempts at nationalism? Does ethnocentrism comport with Christianity? Does the emphasis on Christianity purge its adherents of their sinful ethnic divisions through the unity we find in Christ? (Ephesians 2:15 )

If Wolfe’s ambiguous language (i.e., his exchange of the word “ethnicity” for “nation”) is any indication, Christian nationalism is no different from nationalism in its basic form. Wolfe writes,

“I use the terms ethnicity and nation almost synonymously, though I use the former to emphasize the particular features that distinguish one people-group from another…  nation is used to emphasize the unity of the whole, though no nation (properly speaking) is composed of two or more ethnicities.” (Emphasis mine)

Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (pp. 135). Canon Press. Kindle Edition.

If Wolfe’s vision proceeds and “no nation (properly speaking) is composed of two or more ethnicities,” what becomes of the multi-ethnic American experiment? Which ethnic group will be the lone bulwark to experience the privilege of participation in Wolfe’s Christian nation?

More importantly, proponents of this version of Christian nationalism will need to determine which ethnic group they feel akin to and which they will willingly give up. Wolfe offers this advice as he writes,

“Think of the people with whom you feel at ease conducting your daily life; with whom you share similar expectations of conduct, aesthetic judgments, and recreational activities… and with those, you can join in a common life that achieves the highest ends of man.”

Wolfe, Stephen. The Case for Christian Nationalism (p. 136). Canon Press. Kindle Edition.

According to Wolfe, these are “your people.” The challenge with Wolfe’s ideas as they relate to ethnicity is that, at different points in his writing, he expresses inclusivity with those who are different. At other points, he presents a very ethnically homogeneous picture of Christian nationalism. Press him on this issue, and according to Wolfe, you’ve either misrepresented what he said or you haven’t read the book.  

CN is, in many ways, a reactionary response to much of the resentment resulting from a post-George Floydian culture. CRT/I, social justice, and wokeism have aligned themselves along ethnic lines, forcing white people to choose between being an ally or being accused of racism. Neither the embrace of the CRT/I nor the Christian nationalist response is helpful to peaceful coexistence in a multi-ethnic society.

In 2017, social justice activists were happy to avoid answering questions about the implications of their ideology, asserting that no one could adequately define terms. Words like “critical race theory,” “wokeism,” and “social justice” were obscured by a cacophony of subjective definitions. Similarly, the flurry of differing ideas associated with Christian nationalism allows many of its proponents to argue again that, while they hold to Christian nationalism, their definition differs from the one currently being used, thus making criticism moot.

Many would contend that the struggle for social justice and the propagation of Christian nationalism share no similarities. I disagree. Both are responses to feelings of subjugation and powerlessness. Each seeks a top-down government-facilitated remedy for their concerns. Both are willing to cede authority to the government for the benefit of their respective peoples. Both parties recognize that constitutional powers, such as the First Amendment, must be constrained to advance their cause.

Though Christian nationalists and those striving for social justice have different ideas of justice, the common good, and the benefits of the societies they would create, they have a common goal. Both seek to create a utopian vision of a society where people are safe, prosperous, and empowered.

While Christian nationalism and social justice share commonalities, CN is not white wokeism; it is, however, a response to wokeness. Many CN proponents have rightly been concerned as they’ve witnessed the legalization of same-sex marriage, the embrace of critical race theory and intersectionality, and the legalization of grooming through Drag Queen Story Hour.

Some have grown tired of carrying the weight of the social justice onslaught, as every cultural disparity is blamed on white supremacy and racism. Many view CN as a muscular response to these issues. However, there is a biblical response to these issues that does not require embracing nationalism.

The Encyclopedia Britannica states, “Nationalism is an ideology that emphasizes loyalty, devotion, or allegiance to a nation or nation-state and holds that such obligations outweigh other individual group interests.” 

This system protects national sovereignty, and constituents are expected to place the nation’s interests above their own private, personal, or self-interests. In this way, the nation is seen as more than the sum of its parts. It is considered an entity in and of itself, with values, ideals, and interests that supersede any individual or group.

By contrast, Stephen Wolfe’s “Christian Nationalism,” while embracing aspects of ethnonation