Christian Nationalism: Threat to Democracy or America’s True Identity?

ByTimothy Alexander

Christian nationalism is one of the most contested ideas in American public life. It is praised by some as a return to first principles and condemned by others as a threat to pluralism. What, precisely, are we talking about? This feature offers a comprehensive, nonideological examination: a clear definition of Christian nationalism; a historical timeline from colonial covenant theology to the present; demographic patterns and regional concentrations; key movements, organizations, and public figures; influence on institutions such as education, law, and the military; attitudes toward science and expertise; the measured relationship with political violence and democratic norms; and the state of academic debate as of 2025. Throughout, the goal is clarity over heat: to map the terrain so readers can assess the stakes for themselves.

Defining Terms: What Christian Nationalism Is—and Isn’t

Christian nationalism is not synonymous with Christianity, churchgoing, or even culturally conservative politics. Nor is it simply patriotism with a religious accent. In the most widely used scholarly sense, Christian nationalism is a political-cultural ideology that asserts the United States was founded as, and should remain, a distinctively Christian nation. It fuses a particular Christian identity—typically Protestant, biblicist, and socially conservative—with American civic belonging. In this view, public institutions ought to recognize and favor Christian norms; laws should reflect Christian moral teachings; and the symbols and narratives of the state should affirm a providential American story.

This definition sets Christian nationalism apart from two adjacent ideas:

  • American civil religion. For generations, public life has included generic invocations of God—presidential proclamations, legislative prayers, “In God We Trust”—that blend piety and patriotism without specifying a theology. Civil religion is broad and ceremonial; Christian nationalism is particular and prescriptive.

  • Theocracy or clerical rule. Christian nationalists in the United States usually do not call for governance by clergy or for replacing the Constitution. Rather, they argue the Constitution should be interpreted and applied in ways that privilege Christianity’s perceived role in the nation’s identity.

It is crucial to note that many devout Christians reject Christian nationalism, insisting that the gospel is transnational, that church and state have distinct roles, and that privileging one faith violates both the First Amendment and Christian teaching. Conversely, a minority of nonreligious or nominally religious Americans endorse elements of Christian nationalism as a cultural identity. The ideology is therefore best understood as a set of political-cultural commitments about national identity and law, not as a synonym for personal faith.

A Brief History: From Covenant to Culture War

Colonial and Founding Eras. English Puritans in New England cast their settlement as a covenant with God—John Winthrop’s “city upon a hill” imagery framed the colony as a moral example under divine scrutiny. Sermons and political rhetoric during the Revolution often fused providential language with republican ideals. Yet the federal framework the Founders adopted was conspicuously secular in its legal structure: the Constitution avoids religious tests for office, and the First Amendment bars establishment of religion while protecting free exercise. Tension between public piety and constitutional neutrality was present at the beginning.

Nineteenth Century. Protestantism served as a cultural center of gravity for much of the 1800s. Some reform movements—abolition, temperance—were grounded in explicitly Christian activism. At the same time, nativist movements targeted Catholics and later other minorities in the name of protecting “Protestant America.” During and after the Civil War, both Union and Confederacy used biblical language to sacralize competing national projects. Late in the century, efforts like the National Reform Association sought a constitutional amendment to recognize the nation’s Christian character; the campaign failed, but the aspiration endured.

Twentieth Century. The Cold War elevated religiously inflected patriotism. “In God We Trust” became the national motto in the 1950s; “under God” was added to the Pledge of Allegiance. This was civil religion more than doctrinal nationalism, but it normalized God-language in state symbolism. Beginning in the 1970s, the modern Religious Right organized around school prayer, abortion, and family policy. Groups such as the Moral Majority (1980s) and Christian Coalition (1990s) knitted evangelical churches into a durable political network. Many leaders avoided the label “Christian nationalist,” yet their messaging—“return to America’s Christian roots”—anticipated today’s explicit frames.

Twenty-First Century. After 2001, presidents spoke in moral and providential terms about national purpose, while most avoided overt sectarian favoritism. In the 2010s, as the religious composition of the country diversified and religious “nones” grew, segments of conservative Christianity adopted more defensive rhetoric about preserving a Christian America. The 2016 presidential election sharpened the alignment between white evangelical Protestants and the Republican Party. January 6, 2021, made Christian symbolism in politics newly salient: crosses, “Jesus Saves” banners, and public prayers were visible at and around the Capitol during an effort to disrupt electoral certification. By the mid-2020s, several elected officials openly embraced “Christian nationalist” identity, while a broad coalition of Christian leaders publicly rejected the ideology. The debate moved from subtext to center stage.

Demographics: Who Supports It, and Where

Survey research since the late 2010s has measured Christian nationalism using agreement with statements such as “The U.S. government should declare America a Christian nation,” “U.S. laws should be based on Christian values,” and “Being Christian is important to being truly American.” Responses are typically grouped into adherents (strong agreement), sympathizers (moderate agreement), skeptics, and rejecters.

Across multiple nationally representative surveys conducted from 2022 through 2024, roughly three in ten Americans qualify as either adherents or sympathizers, with about one in ten in the adherent category. About two-thirds are skeptics or rejecters. These proportions have been relatively stable over that period.

Patterns within that topline:

  • Religious tradition. Support is strongest among white evangelical Protestants, a majority of whom fall into the adherent or sympathizer categories. Substantial minorities of Black Protestants and Hispanic Protestants agree with elements of the ideology. Mainline Protestants and Catholics are more mixed, with support lower among Hispanic Catholics than among white Catholics. Members of non-Christian faiths and the religiously unaffiliated overwhelmingly reject Christian nationalist statements.

  • Partisanship. Republican identifiers are far more likely than Democrats or independents to score as adherents or sympathizers. Within the GOP, Christian nationalist attitudes track closely with media trust patterns and social conservatism.

  • Education and age. Support tends to be higher among Americans without a four-year college degree. Younger adults—especially under 30—are much more likely to reject Christian nationalism than older cohorts.

  • Geography. Adherence is regionally concentrated in parts of the South and lower Midwest, with pockets of support elsewhere. States along the coasts and in New England tend to show lower support.

These descriptive patterns do not imply uniformity. There are evangelicals who oppose the ideology, Catholics who affirm it, and secular voters who align with parts of its cultural narrative. But the profile of a typical adherent is: older, white, evangelical, Republican-leaning, without a college degree, residing in the South or lower Midwest.

Movements, Organizations, and Proponents

Christian nationalist ideas surface through a broad ecosystem—church networks, legal advocacy groups, media, and political campaigns. Three channels matter most:

1) Policy and legal advocacy. Organizations such as Alliance Defending Freedom, Liberty Counsel, the American Center for Law and Justice, and state-level partners litigate and lobby on issues where Christian nationalist preferences and religious liberty arguments intersect: prayer in schools, public religious displays, participation of religious schools in public programs, and conscience protections for individuals and institutions. Legislators sympathetic to the ideology have promoted bills requiring or permitting “In God We Trust” displays in schools, enabling Bible-literacy electives, and broadening religious exemptions in health care and civil rights law. Coordinated model-bill campaigns in the late 2010s and early 2020s expanded these proposals across multiple states.

2) Political figures and messaging. A handful of members of Congress and state officials since 2022 have publicly adopted the “Christian nationalist” label, arguing that Christian majorities should guide public norms. Many more avoid the label while advocating policies that reflect its aims, especially on abortion, gender and sexuality, and religious displays. Campaigns invoking a return to “Judeo-Christian values,” “biblical citizenship,” or “putting God back in schools” map onto Christian nationalist frames.

3) Religious leaders and counter-movements. Within the religious world, some pastors and authors actively promote a Christian nation vision—ranging from generic calls to “restore America to God” to more doctrinal arguments for explicitly Christian commonwealths. A smaller, more theologically radical stream, associated with “dominion theology” or “Seven Mountains” rhetoric, urges Christians to exercise authority across government, media, education, and business. At the same time, large, cross-denominational coalitions—evangelical, mainline Protestant, Catholic—have formed to oppose Christian nationalism, declaring it a distortion of Christian witness and a danger to equal citizenship. This intra-Christian conflict is a defining feature of the current moment.

Ideology: Core Claims and Variations

While diverse, Christian nationalism in the United States typically advances several recurring claims:

  • Providential identity. America has a special, God-given role in history. The nation prospered when it honored God and declined when it forsook Him. National renewal therefore requires renewed public acknowledgment of God.

  • Heritage argument. The founders intended Christianity to play a privileged role. References to a Creator in the Declaration of Independence, early public religious practices, and mid-twentieth-century civil religious symbols are cited as evidence of an original Christian identity.

  • Moral legislation. Laws should reflect biblical morality on questions of life, family, sexuality, and social order. Proponents contend that all law necessarily encodes moral judgments; therefore, excluding biblically grounded morality is itself a partisan choice.

  • Cultural common good. Public religious symbols, school prayer, Ten Commandments displays, and Bible instruction are defended as majoritarian expressions of community identity, not as coercive establishment.

Not all adherents endorse all of these claims with equal intensity. Some emphasize cultural heritage and symbols; others press for specific policy outcomes shaped by scripture; a few argue for explicitly Christian legal orders. Variation also appears across denominations and regions.

Critics raise corresponding objections: that the founders deliberately established a secular state; that privileging one religion violates equal citizenship; that attempts to legislate biblical morality in a pluralistic society produce coercion; and that fusing national identity with a particular faith distorts both.

Influence on Institutions

Education

Public schools are a primary arena. Three fronts dominate:

  • Symbols and expressions. Laws requiring or permitting “In God We Trust” signs in classrooms and public buildings have passed in multiple states. Proposals to display the Ten Commandments in classrooms have advanced in several legislatures. Supporters frame these measures as honoring heritage; opponents argue they endorse religion in a compulsory setting.

  • Curriculum. Bible-literacy electives—courses on the Bible’s historical and literary influence—are authorized in a number of states. Courts permit objective study of religion, but disputes arise over pedagogical neutrality. Battles over how U.S. history treats religion, the moral narrative of the nation, and topics like race and gender identity often overlap with Christian nationalist concerns.

  • Prayer and religious exercise. After Supreme Court rulings broadening protections for personal religious expression by public employees, some districts and states revisited policies around prayer, moments of silence, and religious club access. Supporters emphasize free exercise; opponents warn against coercion or appearance of endorsement.

Outside public schools, school-choice policies have directed more public funds into religious education via vouchers and tax credits, expanding an alternative institutional ecosystem in which explicitly Christian curricula—sometimes teaching creationism and a providential national history—shape student worldviews.

Law and Government

Christian nationalism’s legal footprint is most visible where religious liberty claims intersect with public policy:

  • Establishment and funding. Recent Supreme Court decisions have narrowed the exclusion of religious institutions from public benefits, requiring equal access for religious schools to certain funding streams. This has widened space for religious education financed in part by public funds.

  • Conscience and nondiscrimination. Expansive conscience protections for individuals and organizations allow refusals to provide services or participation that violate religious beliefs, particularly around sexuality and reproduction. Proponents see essential safeguards; critics see grants of license to discriminate.

  • Life and family policy. The post-Dobbs landscape reflects decades of religiously motivated activism to restrict abortion. Related debates now include contraception coverage, in vitro fertilization, and care for minors experiencing gender dysphoria, where biblically grounded moral claims are advanced in legislative arenas.

  • Public ceremonials. Legislative prayer, religious monuments on public land, and seasonal displays remain recurring flashpoints, with legal outcomes shifting as jurisprudence evolves.

The Military

The U.S. military officially guarantees free exercise and prohibits establishment. Yet concerns persist about Christian nationalist currents:

  • Command climate and chaplaincy. Allegations periodically surface of coercive proselytizing, preferential treatment for certain religious groups, or religious messaging in official events. The chaplain corps—tasked with caring for service members of all faiths—navigates the line between ministry and proselytizing.

  • Extremism and mission framing. The presence of Christian symbols and language in some political extremism, including among a subset of veterans and reservists, has prompted reviews of training and discipline. Leaders emphasize constitutional loyalty, unit cohesion, and religious neutrality as operational necessities.

The military’s challenge is enduring: protect individual religious rights for a diverse force while maintaining a strictly apolitical, nonsectarian command environment.

Attitudes Toward Science and Expertise

Researchers consistently find that Christian nationalist sentiment correlates with skepticism toward certain scientific consensuses—especially where those consensuses are perceived to challenge biblical authority or established social norms.

  • Evolution and origins. Higher Christian nationalist scores predict lower acceptance of macroevolution and stronger support for teaching creationism or intelligent design alongside evolution. Legislative “academic freedom” bills in some states have sought to open curricular space for critiques of evolution.

  • Public health. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Christian nationalist attitudes correlated with higher vaccine hesitancy and opposition to mitigation measures. The mechanism appears less doctrinal than political-cultural: distrust of federal authority, alignment with populist skepticism of experts, and a belief that mandates infringe on religious liberty.

  • Climate change. Christian nationalist respondents are more likely to doubt human-caused climate change and to oppose regulatory responses. Some appeal to theological ideas about divine sovereignty over creation; others frame climate policy as economic or governmental overreach.

None of this implies a blanket rejection of science. Christian nationalists embrace technology and medicine broadly. The friction tends to arise where scientific claims are perceived to carry moral, metaphysical, or social policy implications at odds with a biblicist worldview or with limited-government commitments.

Democratic Norms and Political Violence

A core worry among critics is that Christian nationalism erodes commitment to democratic procedures. Researchers have probed this through carefully worded survey items:

  • When asked whether “true American patriots may have to resort to violence to save our country,” overall agreement among Americans is a minority view. However, agreement rises significantly among those classified as Christian nationalism adherents or sympathizers, and falls among skeptics and rejecters.

  • Support for unfounded claims about election fraud, openness to extra-legal remedies, and sympathy for disruptive protests similarly correlate with higher Christian nationalist scores, even after controlling for partisanship and other variables.

These are correlations, not determinations. Most Christian nationalists reject violence and lawlessness. Many Christian leaders publicly condemned the Capitol attack and urged peaceful political engagement. Still, the consistent statistical association between strong Christian nationalist identity and greater tolerance for anti-democratic rhetoric or action is an empirical pattern that has fueled concern among scholars and security professionals.

Supporters and Critics: Arguments in Contention

Supporters’ case. Proponents stress heritage, majoritarian legitimacy, and moral coherence. They argue that the founders relied on Christian ideas about human dignity and moral order; that public acknowledgments of God are longstanding and unifying; that laws inevitably encode moral visions and a biblical moral framework has historically served the common good; and that “neutrality” has often meant practical hostility to religious expression. They also frame their agenda as defensive: reversing secular encroachments on prayer, conscience, and parental rights, not imposing belief.

Critics’ case. Opponents emphasize constitutional structure, equal citizenship, and religious integrity. They note the founders’ deliberate legal secularism; warn that privileging one religion marks non-Christians as second-class; argue that entanglement harms both church (by politicizing it) and state (by narrowing legitimacy); and cite empirical links between Christian nationalist identity and exclusionary attitudes (toward religious and racial minorities) and tolerance of anti-democratic behavior. Many Christian critics add a theological objection: conflating the church’s mission with national identity is a form of idolatry that betrays the faith’s universal claims.

The debate often turns on boundary lines: what counts as cultural heritage versus establishment, as free exercise versus endorsement, as moral legislation versus religious coercion. Because both sides appeal to core American values—liberty, virtue, equality—the argument is unlikely to be settled by slogans.

Statistics and Recent Developments (through 2025)

  • Prevalence. Approximately 30% of Americans fall into the adherent or sympathizer categories on Christian nationalism scales; roughly 10% qualify as adherents. About 70% are skeptics or rejecters. These figures have remained fairly stable across multiple surveys since 2022.

  • Partisan split. A majority of Republicans express at least some sympathy; adherents and sympathizers are a minority among independents and a smaller minority among Democrats.

  • Generational divide. Younger adults are substantially more likely to reject Christian nationalism than older cohorts.

  • Policy environment. Statehouses continue to debate and sometimes enact measures aligned with Christian nationalist preferences: classroom displays of religious texts or mottos; Bible-literacy electives; broadened state-level religious liberty protections; restrictions in reproductive and gender-related health policy framed in religious terms. Some high-profile measures face immediate court challenges; others become precedent for neighboring states.

  • Federal courts. Supreme Court rulings since 2017 have expanded religious participation in public benefits, adjusted standards for establishment claims, and strengthened protections for religious expression. These decisions have materially narrowed the legal wall between government and religious institutions without declaring an establishment.

  • Intra-religious mobilization. Large coalitions of Christian leaders across traditions have intensified public opposition to Christian nationalism and produced resources for congregations on church-state distinctions and civic discipleship. Conversely, a niche but vocal stream of pastors and authors has further systematized pro-nationalist theology.

  • Public rhetoric. A small but visible number of elected officials now self-identify with the “Christian nationalist” label; a larger number deploy adjacent frames about “biblical citizenship” and “Christian heritage.” National media attention has, in turn, elevated counter-messaging that defines Christian nationalism as inherently anti-democratic—an assertion many religious conservatives reject as overbroad.

Academic Debates: Concepts, Causes, Consequences

Scholarly discussion over Christian nationalism has accelerated, with several key lines of debate:

Measurement and scope. Survey instruments use clusters of statements to place respondents along a Christian nationalism scale. Some scholars argue these items precisely capture an exclusionary ideology; others contend they conflate generic providential language or civil religious sentiment with prescriptive nationalism, thereby overstating prevalence. The boundary between “cultural Christianity” and “Christian nationalism” remains under active methodological scrutiny.

Race and religion. Many researchers emphasize “white Christian nationalism” to highlight the ideology’s historical entanglement with white majoritarianism and its statistical association with racial resentment. Critics of this emphasis caution that non-white Christians can and do endorse elements of Christian nation narratives, and that a strictly racial lens may obscure religious and regional dynamics.

Authoritarianism vs. libertarianism. Christian nationalism is often described as authoritarian because it prioritizes in-group conformity and strong leaders who promise moral order. Yet many adherents also espouse small-government economics and resistance to federal mandates. Scholars describe this as domain-specific: authoritarian in cultural regulation, libertarian vis-à-vis state capacity—especially when the state is perceived as secular or progressive.

Continuity vs. rupture. Is today’s Christian nationalism an intensification of long-standing civil religious habits, or a distinct ideology sharpened by recent polarization? Historians trace deep continuities (covenant rhetoric, providential identity) alongside modern changes (party sorting, nationalized media, litigation strategies). The answer, unsurprisingly, is both: old impulses channeled through new institutions.

Causal effects. A robust empirical literature links higher Christian nationalist scores to greater skepticism of scientific authorities, stronger opposition to immigration and minority rights claims, and higher tolerance for extra-legal political action. The causal pathways—media ecosystems, elite cues, congregational networks, perceived status threats—are being mapped through panel studies and experiments. At the same time, scholars warn against treating Christian nationalism as a catchall explanation for complex social conflicts.

Why This Matters: Stakes and Implications

The debate over Christian nationalism is not a niche theological quarrel. It cuts to first-order questions about American identity, law, and the terms of citizenship.

  • Constitutional order. How the courts and legislatures define the line between establishment and free exercise will shape the textures of daily life: what appears on classroom walls, whether public funds support religious schooling, how far conscience exemptions reach, and what constitutes government endorsement.

  • Social cohesion. In a diversifying nation, privileging one tradition risks alienating others. Conversely, aggressively secular public norms can make deeply religious citizens feel excluded. The civic art is designing institutions that protect robust religious expression while preserving equal status across differences.

  • Knowledge and capacity. Where distrust of expertise is culturally concentrated, public health and environmental policy become harder to execute. Bridging divides between scientific institutions and religious communities is not a luxury; it is a resilience strategy.

  • Democratic stability. Any ideology that makes losing feel like apocalypse—religious or secular—can undermine commitment to procedural fairness. Leaders across traditions bear responsibility for lowering the temperature: insisting that neighbors of different beliefs remain full members of “we the people,” and that ends do not justify extra-legal means.

  • Religious integrity. From within Christianity, the question is how to engage public life powerfully without conflating the kingdom of God with the fortunes of a nation. Many Christian leaders argue that maintaining that distinction protects both faith and freedom.

Conclusion

Christian nationalism is neither a mirage nor a monolith. It is a measurable, historically grounded set of claims about American identity and law. It mobilizes millions, shapes policy, and provokes strong dissent—including from many Christians. Its adherents see it as fidelity to heritage and moral order; its critics see it as a violation of constitutional equality and religious integrity. The landscape in 2025 is dynamic: courts redefining legal boundaries, states experimenting with policy, churches debating their public witness, and citizens sorting themselves in media and politics around competing narratives of the nation.

A clear-eyed understanding helps. Recognizing the difference between personal faith and political ideology, between civil religion and prescriptive nationalism, between free exercise and establishment, allows more honest arguments and better institutional design. America’s constitutional promise—free exercise for all, no establishment for any—has never been easy to keep. In a century marked by religious change and political polarization, it is both more challenging and more important than ever.

Whether Christian nationalism ultimately recedes as demographics shift, hardens as a subculture, or adapts to new political realities, it will continue to test the country’s capacity to sustain a pluralistic democracy with a deeply religious people. Meeting that test requires intellectual precision, civic generosity, and a renewed commitment—on all sides—to the difficult work of living together under a shared constitutional roof.

References

Discover more from Timothy Alexander

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Leave a Reply