Resisting White Christian Nationalism

“Christian nationalism” has become a widely maligned target for many in the mainstream and left-wing news media, for many former (especially “exvangelical”) Christians, and for many “nones.” But there are also Christians who (mistakenly, I believe) promote that position.

The term “Christian nationalism” is used, and misused, in a variety of ways, and it is not easy to define it non-controversially. Here, though, is a succinct definition by two sociologists that gets to the heart of the matter:

Christian nationalism is a cultural framework…that idealizes and advocates a fusion of Christianity with American civic life.*¹  

MORE² is a local group in the Kansas City area,*² and its “clergy caucus” is actively resisting White Christian nationalism—and it should be recognized upfront that Christian nationalism is largely promoted and abetted by White (and male) Christians.

The picture above is of a poster given to each of us who attended the May 9 rally sponsored by MORE² and held in Quindaro, Kansas City (Kan.). Stephen Jones, co-pastor of the First Baptist Church of Kansas City (Mo.), is the leader of the clergy caucus, and his church emphasizes the Beloved Community.

There are many good resources for learning/sharing about the meaning of White Christian nationalism and its threat to democracy and religious freedom in the U.S. Here are some of those for you to consider:

◈ The Baptist Joint Committee on Religious Liberty (BJC) has long been working on issues related to religious freedom and church-state separation. At the meeting on resisting Christian nationalism organized by Pastor Jones in Kansas City on March 7, a staff member from BJC was the guest speaker.

In 2019, the BJC launched a new movement called “Christians Against Christian Nationalism.” In December 2022, Time magazine ran a rather lengthy article about Amanda Tyler, the executive director of the BJC, and the work of that new group she started.

◈ The documentary movie Bad Faith was released on March 29, and it is a highly informative film depicting the growth of the Christian nationalist movement in the U.S. from the 1970s to the present. I encourage you to read about this powerful film on their website*²—and to see it, if possible.

In stark contrast to my high praise of Bad Faith, it is strongly criticized by some conservative evangelicals. For example, a review on MovieGuide.org says that it is “a bad, abhorrent piece of progressive propaganda” produced by “Christian socialists” such as William Barber, the “heretical black activist.”

◈ Jim Wallis’s new book The False White Gospel was published on April 4, and as I wrote in my review of that book,*⁴ he avers that the old heresy of white supremacy is now operating with a new name: white Christian nationalism.

That heresy, he says, is “the single greatest threat to democracy in America and to the integrity of the Christian witness” (p. 17). 

◈ The Summit for Religious Freedom, conducted by Americans United for the Separation of Church and State (AU) was held in Washington D.C. on April 14. The May issue of Church and State (C&S), AU’s monthly periodical, is largely about that. I encourage you to read about it here. *⁵

As Rachel Laser, the Jewish woman who is the president and CEO of AU, writes in the above issue of C&S, “The wall of separation between church and state is not a wall that divides us; it’s a wall that unites us—that ensures no one is favored, that allows us to thrive in our differences.”

In summary, we who oppose White Christian nationalism need to clearly state what we are for, not just what we are against (as Wallis emphasizes in the last chapter of his book). Broadly speaking, we are for the freedom of religion for everyone.

We are also for the freedom of Black people, Latinx people, Indigenous people, LGBTQ people, immigrants seeking asylum, and others who are so often mistreated and scorned by those who foster Christian nationalism. (I will be writing more about freedom (= Liberty) in my blog post planned for May 30.)

Let’s resist White Christian nationalism and welcome all into the Beloved Community!

_____

*¹ Andrew L. Whitehead and Samuel L. Perry, Taking America Back for God (2020), p. 10. Whitehead is also the author of American Idolatry: How Christian Nationalism Betrays the Gospel and Threatens the Church (2023).

*² MORE² stands for the Metro Organization for Racial and Economic Equity. It was formed in 2004 and is financed by supporting “members,” most of whom are churches in the area, now including Rainbow Mennonite Church (where I am a member). Ruth Harder (my pastor) spoke at the beginning and end of the May 9 rally.

*³ One of the many prominent progressive Christians speaking in that documentary is Randall Balmer, an ordained Episcopal priest and a professor of religion at Dartmouth College. Balmer (b. 1954) is also the author of Bad Faith: Race and the Rise of the Religious Right (2021). Further, last month he wrote an important article on Christian nationalism, published here.

*⁴ The book review I submitted to The Englewood Review of Books (ERB) last week is available for your consideration here. It should be available on the ERB website before long.

*⁵ Last week I learned that after 20 years of writing for Baptists Today, Baptist News Global, and Good Faith Media, Thinking Friend Bruce Gourley has become the new editor of Church and State.  

 

What about Project Blitz?

The Project Blitz I am writing about in this article is not the footwear company that goes by that name or the 2018 Tony Alderman album with that same name. Rather, this is about the Project Blitz that is being waged by a coalition of Christian Right groups.

What is Project Blitz?

The Congressional Prayer Caucus Foundation (CPCF) was formed in 2005 with a vision statement that includes “restoring Judeo-Christian principles to their rightful place” in American society.

Now the CPCF, along with other similar groups, is seeking to do this partly by Project Blitz.

According to their website, the purpose of Project Blitz is “To protect the free exercise of traditional Judeo-Christian religious values and beliefs in the public square, and to reclaim and properly define the narrative which supports such beliefs.”

As Wikipedia adequately summarizes, Project Blitz “is best known for providing model legislation, proclamations, and talking points for state and local legislators who wish to introduce bills that support religious freedom and liberty as defined by the Project.”

Project Blitz has introduced recommended legislation in many states and such legislation has already been passed in at least five states.

One Major Activity of Project Blitz

On January 28, President Trump tweeted, “Numerous states introducing Bible Literacy classes, giving students the option of studying the Bible. Starting to make a turn back? Great!”

DJT’s tweet was in support of the activities of Project Blitz. Already this year, six states have introduced legislation pushing for public schools to offer Bible literacy classes.

Missouri (where I live) is one of those states. On Feb. 28, House bill No. 267 was passed by a committee and is moving toward a vote of the entire House—where it will likely pass.

The Missouri bill, like those in most other states which have already passed or are currently considering similar legislation, stipulate that the Bible classes are elective and do not violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Still, there are serious doubts about such legislation and opposition by even many Christians and Christian organizations.

Opposition to Project Blitz

Recently, the Kansas City Star published an editorial declaring, “Bible classes don’t belong in Missouri’s public high schools.” The editors write, “Allowing taxpayer-funded religion classes—and teaching a course centered on the Bible amounts to a religion class—raises troubling questions about the separation of church and state.”

Accordingly, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, an organization I have supported for many years, has publicly announced opposition to Project Blitz. Soon after DJT’s 2/28 tweet, along with 43 other prominent organizations, they urged state lawmakers across the country to oppose Project Blitz.

They see the Project problematic because of their attempt to enshrine Christian nationalism into law.  

At the end of last year, Frederick Clarkson, an author who has long opposed the Christian Right, warned that Project Blitz was going to come on strong in 2019. I recommend the reading of his article (here) posted by Religion Dispatches.

Jonathan Davis is a youngish Baptist pastor in Virginia. On Feb. 25, Baptist News Global posted his opinion piece titled “Why I spoke out against Virginia’s ‘Bible bill,’ and why you should too when it comes to your state.”

The Virginia Senate passed SB1502 by a 22-18 vote, in spite of vocal opposition of Pastor Davis and other Baptists, among others, in the state.

Separation of church and state is a long-held principle of true Baptists, such as those of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, who are also actively seeking to counter the efforts of Project Blitz. (See this link.)

I heartily applaud all such efforts.

Nice Isn’t Enough

Brett Kavanaugh seems like a nice guy. That is the impression I got Monday evening listening to DJT’s flowery introduction of his new nominee for the Supreme Court and from Judge Kavanaugh’s own remarks.  

BK, as he is already being called, seems to be a good family man and the kind of neighbor you would like to have. A family friend wrote in the Washington Post (here) that “Kavanaugh the carpool dad is one great guy.” Probably so.

Kavanaugh is also a civic-minded citizen and active Christian. He has tutored children at a D.C. elementary school, volunteered for charity groups, and is a regular participant in services at his Catholic church in Chevy Chase, Md., where he lives.

Being a nice guy, though, is not adequate reason for supporting Senate approval for his sitting on the high court. Please consider the following matters of serious concern.

(1) BK’s Position on Presidential Power

Perhaps the biggest problem with DJT’s pick of Kavanaugh is that, as Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said in a press conference on Tuesday, the President “chose the candidate who he thought would best protect him from the Mueller investigation.”

While there may be some exaggerated statements regarding BK’s likely protection of DJT against indictment while in office (see this Fact Checker article), there is adequate reason to think that Schumer’s statement is basically correct.

It is also questionable whether any new nomination of a Supreme Court justice should be considered by the Senate as long as the President is under investigation with aspects of that investigation possibly being brought before the high court at some point.

(2) BK’s Position on Health Care and Women’s Reproductive Rights

In a statement following Kavanaugh’s nomination, Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) declared, “He's demonstrated a hostility to the Affordable Care Act that the Trump administration is continually working to undermine.” (Remember, the ACA is a law passed by Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court to this point.)

At the same press conference mentioned above, Senator Schumer also said that Kavanaugh's selection would put healthcare protections in the ACA, such as protections for people with preexisting conditions, “at grave, grave risk.”

In addition, as the official blog of the Democratic Party says, “a vote for Kavanaugh would be a vote to . . .  deny women their constitutional right to make their own health care decisions.”

(3) BK’s Position on Church and State

On July 10, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State (AU), an organization I have supported for decades, publically declared that Kavanaugh is “the wrong choice for the Supreme Court.” That was because of their perception that BK was not committed to the concept of separation of church and state. They wrote (here),

The separation of church and state is the linchpin of religious freedom. We can’t afford to have a Supreme Court that would undermine it. By nominating Kavanaugh to the court, Trump threatens the vision of religious freedom for which Americans United has fought over the last 70 years. That’s why Americans United must oppose him.

On the same day, AU issued a five-page report (see here) on BK’s record and stated that he is a “threat to church-state separation and religious freedom.” 

For these, and other, reasons I insist that Brett Kavanaugh being a nice guy is by no means reason enough to support his appointment to the Supreme Court.

Many of you who live in States with one or both Senators possibly inclined to vote to approve Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court may likely want to contact those Senators and express your reservations about his suitability.

His being nice isn’t enough reason for approving him for the SCOTUS!

Barton Up the Wrong Tree

Maybe I had heard of him before, but my real introduction to David Barton came at the annual meeting of the Missouri Baptist Convention in the fall of 2004. Barton (b. 1954), who is not a Baptist nor from Missouri, was the keynote speaker at the final session of that convention. It didn’t take me long, though, to disagree with what I heard Barton say.

It was mainly with regard to his views on the separation of Church and State that I thought that Barton was “barking up the wrong tree,” to use an old Midwest idiom. (You can find some of my criticism of his ideas in “Fed Up with Fundamentalism’s Attitude toward Religious Freedom,” the sixth chapter of my book Fed Up with Fundamentalism.)

Barton’s newest book is The Jefferson Lies: Exposing the Myths You’ve Always Believed About Thomas Jefferson (2012). Unfortunately for Barton, his book, which had become a bestseller, contains so much questionable material (so many lies?) that the publisher decided last month to cease publishing it.

According to Barton, “Lie #1” about Thomas Jefferson is that he fathered Sally Hemings’ children. He concludes that there is “absolutely no historical, factual, or scientific evidence to tarnish the sexual morality of Jefferson” (p. 193).

However, even though Barton twice cites the Thomas Jefferson Foundation (TJF) Research Committee Report on Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings (2000), he fails to mention that according to their website the TJF and “most historians believe that, years after his wife’s death, Thomas Jefferson was the father of Sally Hemings’ six children.”

But I am not all that concerned about whether or not Jefferson fathered Sally’s children. As always, it is a politician’s public positions, not his/her private life, that is of greatest importance.

Of all the “lies” Barton discusses, I am most interested in “Lie #5: Thomas Jefferson Advocated a Secular Public Square through the Separation of Church and State.” There Barton claims, among other things, that the whole “history of the separation doctrine centered around preventing the State from taking control of the Church. . . . Throughout history, it had not been the Church that had seized the State but just the opposite” (p. 121).

But state churches and church-dominated states have persecuted minorities through the years. Catholic states in Europe persecuted Jews and “heretics” by the Inquisition, the Reformed Church influenced the Zurich city council to persecute the Anabaptists, the Anglican Church as the established church in England persecuted the Nonconformists (as well as Catholics), the Anglican-dominated colony of Virginia persecuted Baptists (among others), and so on.

Then there is the whole question of the freedom from religion, which Barton and his supporters seem to be opposed to. His desire to protect the privileged status of Christianity and to suppress the equality of non-Christians in American society seems to be the main reason for his calling the separation of church and state a myth (as he has done through the years; he authored a book first published in 1989 under the title The Myth of Separation).

Religious freedom, though, must be for all people and must also include freedom from religion. For that reason, I strongly favor the proper separation of Church and State (as I believe Jefferson did). That doesn’t necessitate the separation of faith and politics, but it certainly does mean freedom of, or freedom from, religion for all citizens.

Note #1: Warren Throckmorton and Michael Coulter’s Getting Jefferson Right: Fact Checking Claims about Our Third President has recently been published to rebut Barton’s book.

Note #2: I have recently been involved in an ad-hoc group seeking to revitalize the Kansas City chapter of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State.