In “Christians Against Christianity” by Dr. Obery Hendricks Jr. (2021), well within your time frame, he details how the rise of Christian Nationalism was embedded in social movements that were framed by originators as Christian movements but were not always understood as such by the general population. The power was gained by a small statistical minority promoting their values as Christian to gain power to effect change.
My contention with your article is while Christian Nationalism may now be better understood and verbally rejected by larger swaths than before, the top-down power of the movement has only increased in that time frame and we are well on our way to it becoming a reality.
I agree - the decrease in support/adherence is taking place while power and influence are increasing. We're now in the "wounded animal" stage, perhaps, where the pushback and decline will *energize* those who remain in the movement, especially since it's part of their ethos to see themselves as the faithful remnant that is remaining true to God.
I agree with you. A movement—which Christian Nationalism has become— does not have to garner the support of a majority to dominate local, state and national affairs. The movement just has to mobilize more active participation by its supporters in voting and putting pressure on elected officials. This survey lacks data on the political participation of those surveyed, which would be an indicator of how likely they are to act to achieve realization of their beliefs.
This seems to simply argue against his research. The fears about "Christian Nationalism" are highly overblown by some who see the strong movement against the Left as bigger than it is.
Two questions: First, which of the books you mentioned is most interesting/accessible? Second, to go back to a comment above, the questions in the survey aren’t really the hot button issues that you hear linked to Christian Nationalism. Trans/Gay issues, “wokeness” etc. are the bigger issues it would seem.
I also wonder if there is an intensity component that isn’t being measured. That is, for people who take the items in the survey as very important, there is a smaller but critical subset that are intensely supportive.
Not on this list but I would recommend Jesus and John Wayne by Kristin Kobes du Mez. She’s a historian and professor at Calvin University.
Of the list Ryan provided, the only one I’ve read is Preparing for War. It’s not bad but I didn’t really enjoy his writing style. His perspective is interesting since he used to believe some of the Christian Nationalist views, but has since left that brand of Christianity.
I've read du Mez's book, and would recommend it. But the book I'm most curious to read (just came out in 2023 and it's still pretty expensive) is "The Full Armor of God" by Djupe, Lewis, and Sokhey.
I recognize Djupe from Religion in Public, where he's posted about the importance of prophecy belief as an accelerant to antinomian politics:
I get the impression this kind of prophecy belief is fringe, but also very mobilizing. As far as I can tell, it is antinomian, creating a permission structure for followers to release themselves from moral obligations orthodox Christians ought to feel regarding keeping the peace and loving their neighbor. I'd think even most red-county Evangelicals would find it hecka weird, but it may punch above its weight in certain political circles.
Is it possible that Christian Nationalism is increasing in prominence and influence despite its decline amongst the population because political extremism has resulted in an increase in Christian nationalistic sentiments expressed amongst members of Congress and the judiciary? Is there data to test this hypothesis (mentions/sound bites, legislation)?
Is this potentially an issue similar to abortion, where despite public opinion increasingly supporting choice, we see increasing attacks on the rights of women to make their own decisions?
Since Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Tom Parker handed down an opinion based on the "Seven Mountains Mandate" it is obvious that Christian Nationalism is alive and well in certain places of power in our country.
It is sad to say that science can place a lunar module back on the moon after 50 years, and that there are persons affecting the lives of millions believing that a fully formed human is in the head of each sperm cell.
As others have noted, the issue isn't the number, it's the radicalization. In fact, I would argue that's part of the reason it's become such a large part of the national conversation. It's partly because Christian nationalists are becoming more radicalized because they feel their power and influence fading. And of course, certain politicians stoke those fears and demand a return to the "good ole days."
(i see people in the threads here are debating if Christian nationalism is a thing. The easiest way is to ask yourself "do you think American was or should be a Christian nation?" If you say yes to this, you're in the Christian nationalist camp. For example, people who love Barton's Original Intent would fall into this category. I find it helpful to have a simple metric like this, though of course nuances can get extensive if one chooses)
Sometimes, surface data does not tell the story. I am stunned that there are comments here that deny that Christian Nationalism is a growing and frightening trend.
From Heather Cox Richardson, TODAY: "The Alabama Supreme Court on February 16, 2024, decided that cells awaiting implantation for in vitro fertilization are children and that the accidental destruction of such an embryo falls under the state’s Wrongful Death of a Minor Act. In an opinion concurring with the ruling, Chief Justice Tom Parker declared that the people of Alabama have adopted the “theologically based view of the sanctity of life” and said that “human life cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God.”
We just watched the highlights of CPAC, which has devolved from an important meeting of conservatives into a Christian Nationalist free for all, with noted speakers calling for theocracy.
You might recall there was a Judge Roy Moore on the Alabama Supreme Court in two separate stints, the first 20 years ago. There is nothing new here. Alabama is Alabama. If you hunted for statements of Alabama Supreme Court justices indicating “Christian Nationalism” over the past 200 years, I’m sure you could consistently find them.
The only thing that’s new is the left’s panic, happening at an exact time that Christianity’s influence is increasingly marginalized, particularly in states and institutions at the center of power.
Views like yours are why Democrats will retain the White House this year and flip the House of Reps, and by a lot. Christofascism has been on the rise since Trump emboldened them.
To say that because fewer people do not openly admit to it does not change the assault on the 14th Amendment, specifically and the rights of women generally.
The selected data ignores what is happening with the rogue court and the openly Christian Nationalist presently failing to lead the House.
The only thing that's new is the open attacks on Democracy.
I don't think we share many common values, but it seems we can agree that the GOP is in a tough place.
I don't believe I have anything to do with why the Democrats are the dominant party in national politics. But I think the fact that their coalition is larger, higher status, better-connected, better-educated, and wealthier than the Republican coalition, and is growing stronger every year, is part of the reason why there's not much for anyone to fear from the right, even if the left's worst nightmares of the right were generally true.
I do think some of what's happening and that's alarming to the left is that the right is becoming dumber and more dysfunctional because a lot of smart people have left it. On one level, that can make it appear more dangerous, because pandering to a dumber base means sounding dumber. But on the other hand, in practical terms, the right has become weaker, both by virtue of being smaller in absolute numbers AND less effective by losing the sort of people you really don't want to lose.
Meanwhile, as everyone on the right seems to be pointing out, we can't seem to get a fixed definition on "Christian Nationalist" -- when it's defined explicitly, it doesn't seem like it's supposed to capture everyone with pro-life sentiments who wants to vote his values, but in practice, that's what it seems to amount to.
The "rogue court" and "Christofascist" stuff, I don't even know what to do with. As far as I've ever been able to tell, Roe was a bad decision on the basic legal merits, a real stretch of the Constitution. That was the original "rogue court" decision. If merely passing the question of abortion back to the democratic processes of the states -- where the pro-choice side has been generally winning! -- is such an unconscionable thing, then the implication I gather is that the pro-life cause is basically illegitimate, and there's no real basis for common ground here.
well written and cogent email (not that my review matters). I agreed with a lot of the arguments until you get to the idea that old white men can force women to be birthing vessels. I believe that pro-life views are legitimate, much like i believe religious beliefs are legitimate. I also believe that your beliefs about either entitle you to impact anyone else. you should have the right to belong to the satanist church of spaghetti and you should have the right to not get an abortion. but you got me, I will never accept someone infringing upon the most basic healthcare decisions for others.
I have not read your link, but i will. thanks for the share.
I’m currently writing a Master’s thesis in theology on (broadly taken) the last question, tracing the idea of America (and before that England) as an “elect nation” through sermons, literature, etc… and documenting how its failure has changed the moral structure of the American evangelical movement over the last decade.
So here’s my shot-from-the-hip answer to the uptick in the confidence of responders in 2021:
The rapid changes in social/cultural mores over the last 10 years (the Obergefell decision, radical gender theory, the decline in religious attendence, etc…) has scrambled the brains of many (primarily evangelicals) who respond “what is happening to us? This is a Christian country, these things can’t happen!” Therefore there has a been a kind of doubling down on the belief in the providential nature of the United States, although in a more aggressive, political form than the historic evangelical response to cultural change: concentrated programs of evangelism (both in word and deed).
I'd stretch the fade back a lot longer. In the '60s and '70s, school prayer was a top-drawer issue, and mainstream politicians often used American exceptionalism as a wedge. Now the politicians who weaponize culture are focusing on Woke stuff instead, which isn't specifically religious.
I think Bush broke the exceptionalism stuff by using it as a pretext for 30 years of endless losing wars.
The same thing happened in 1920 after Wilson had used exceptionalism to justify our entrance in WW1. The war left a strong distaste, and the god who sponsored the war shared in the distaste.
It's a good theory, and the comparison to Wilson in this specific context is interesting and not one I've heard made before.
As a Millennial, I've observed a number of times that there's a big patriotism gap between Millennials/Gen Z vs. the older generations, but most people don't have a tangible reason for it. How do you account for the absence of feeling?
Even when you compare conservatives (like me and many of my peers) across generations, it's still very visible. I live in a very conservative place, but I notice at least a 5x difference in how many US flags are on houses in my parents' retirement community compared to my own neighborhood that has a lot of families, median age of adults probably around 40.
I never served in the military, but I've heard multiple people comment that the change is very apparent there: the esprit de corps, the commitment to the unit is still there among the young, but the love for America is phoned in compared to yesteryear.
It is similar to other 'Fear Movements" about Satanism and Global Warming. We can write a series of books linking Christian Fundamentalists to Racism and Slavery and every TV Channel with do repeated interviews with the authors.
"The only real oddity to me is the last statement: the success of the United States is part of God’s plan. In 2007, just 32% of people agreed with that one. In 2021, that actually rose to 37%. I don’t have a good explanation for that one."
One problem with this statement is that its meaning is unclear. I can probably understand it in at least three different ways:
1. Is the US (along with all its successes and failures) part of God's plan, in the sense that Christianity teaches that all things are a part of God's plan (see Ephesians 1:11 for example)? Or do you not really believe that God is sovereign or has a plan at all?
2. Has the US up to this point been specially favored by God?
3. Will the US in the future continue to be specially favored by God?
And in points #2 and #3, there are further degrees of how one might understand this special favor. For #1, my answer is, "Yes, of course." For #2, my answer would be, "Maybe, depending on what precisely you mean." For #3, I'd say, "God only knows."
This leaves me answering "yes" to this question, based on #1. Maybe that's a literal-minded answer and not what the survey designer was hoping for. Perhaps people these days are more inclined towards literal-minded answers. But since the survey designer chose not to be clearer, that's what we're left with.
I agree the survey questions could use some work. I totally see how this question could get a “yes” answer from your average Christian who simply believes everything is part of God’s plan - which is far from a Christian Nationalist viewpoint.
Likewise, I think the question about prayer in school is similarly poorly worded. There are different types of prayer in school - individual prayer should be allowed (and has never been illegal) but government sponsored is likely where the debate is. Depending on how it is read, people with the same views on the issue might answer the question differently.
I also think having all the questions except for the separation of church and state question being worded where a “yes” leads towards a Christian Nationalist viewpoint is confusing as well.
I imagine very few people really know what "prayer in public school" was like in the first place, and ideas about it have grown more vague and unrealistic as it has been lost from living memory. So that certainly doesn't help when responding to this question. Even my Boomer parents are too young to really remember it, so I've never heard a firsthand story. Though when I was growing up, some public schools had a moment of silence each day that students could use to pray individually. Not sure if this still exists.
My sense is that to some public school prayer is a bogeyman, and to some it's a silver bullet that could singlehandedly reverse our cultural decadence, but in practice, in the mid-20th century, my guess is it was typically the most anodyne prayer you ever heard in your life, containing no more theological substance than "God Bless America" which we now sing at sports games.
This is an interesting observation and it strikes me as true. I would question the assumption though that the displaying of a flag is synonymous with patriotism. Patriotism can come in many ways. I would submit that flying a flag is only a superficial display of a complex and multi-faceted abstract idea such as patriotism. As such, flag flying is probably not a good proxy for patriotism in my view. I suspect patriotism exists and is alive and well in younger generations but manifests itself in ways less visible.
I think to answer the oddity of that last question we have to realize that there are other factors at play in interpreting the question. I believe there is a rose in evangelicals in believing in the sovereignty of God over everything. Therefore, if the United States has been successful, then it must have been a part of God's plan. The question would do better to be reworded to indicate a future success yet unseen.
I wonder how much of the change in results is due to the change in the composition of different categories. Previous Substack posts suggest this, such as the near extinction of the Christian Democrat. If you hold views favorable to CN and were in a mainline denomination in 2007, there's a good chance you might have left it by now.
Yeah, maybe I misread Ryan, but I think that's basically what he's illustrating, while being more subtle about it because he prefers to use this space to just show the data and engage with both sides rather than engage in polemics that alienate one side or the other.
To your point, CN is primarily an exonym. For the most part what I see here is conservative older people agreeing with statements indicating they fondly remember the public presence Christianity had in their youth, and leftists looking for something to panic over are then deciding to take that information and conclude that grandpa is working to overthrow the government and institute a Christian version of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Well, I'd advise trying to be more charitable than this. I don't think all false narratives are constructed as part of some Machiavellian plot. I'm not sure if the original inventors of the CN scare were purely cynical manipulators, or just paranoid themselves, but in any case it mostly went viral by latching onto the latent paranoia of a number of other people on the left, who then echoed the original scare.
Many such cases, including cases of viral paranoia on less-informed parts of the right, as well.
I don’t really disagree with anything you said there. I only mean to say I suspect very few, if any, people on the left are cynically lying about the threat they think CN poses. Perhaps not even Rob Reiner. They’re mostly sincere, just slaves to their paranoia and ignorance, products of our society’s polarization and the breakdown of social trust (which as I said, happens a lot on the right too).
They’re also now culturally conditioned towards the elevation of the pro-choice cause to an idol unto itself -- out with “safe, legal, and rare”, in with “clump of cells”.
To be fair, this isn’t much comfort. Even genocide can be sincere. The Holocaust was probably mostly sincere. As far as I can tell, Hitler and the Nazis mostly did think the Jews and other groups really were that bad. They really did believe in the “stab-in-the-back myth”.
Christopher Rufo? The same Christopher Rufo who said this - "we will eventually turn [critical race theory] toxic, as we put all of the 'various cultural insanities' under that brand category. The goal is to have the public read something 'crazy' in the newspaper and immediately think 'critical race theory’.”?
So he’s most famous for taking an academic term and just mindlessly applying it to anything race related that he thinks is ‘crazy’. Seems a questionable source to decide how important or unimportant Christian nationalism in America is.
You’ve given away the game by bringing him into the conversation and implying some level of impartiality due to him not being a Christian. This dude is a far right conspiracy theorist who makes his money doing the very thing you claim to be against - fear mongering over a nonexistent issue.
Yeah, that's the bait-and-switch that I detect. The breathless fear being expressed by the left seems to reflect the idea that Christians are pursuing an Islamic Republic of Iran, in Christian form. But then it turns out that to receive the "CN" label, you just have to believe literally anything that contradicts the secular left's values, and to think that your beliefs should be operationalized in the real world in some tangible way.
By this standard, the 2008 Obama platform was a Christian Nationalist platform, because (if one could ignore the winking) it held to marriage between one man and one woman.
In “Christians Against Christianity” by Dr. Obery Hendricks Jr. (2021), well within your time frame, he details how the rise of Christian Nationalism was embedded in social movements that were framed by originators as Christian movements but were not always understood as such by the general population. The power was gained by a small statistical minority promoting their values as Christian to gain power to effect change.
My contention with your article is while Christian Nationalism may now be better understood and verbally rejected by larger swaths than before, the top-down power of the movement has only increased in that time frame and we are well on our way to it becoming a reality.
I agree - the decrease in support/adherence is taking place while power and influence are increasing. We're now in the "wounded animal" stage, perhaps, where the pushback and decline will *energize* those who remain in the movement, especially since it's part of their ethos to see themselves as the faithful remnant that is remaining true to God.
I agree with you. A movement—which Christian Nationalism has become— does not have to garner the support of a majority to dominate local, state and national affairs. The movement just has to mobilize more active participation by its supporters in voting and putting pressure on elected officials. This survey lacks data on the political participation of those surveyed, which would be an indicator of how likely they are to act to achieve realization of their beliefs.
This seems to simply argue against his research. The fears about "Christian Nationalism" are highly overblown by some who see the strong movement against the Left as bigger than it is.
Two questions: First, which of the books you mentioned is most interesting/accessible? Second, to go back to a comment above, the questions in the survey aren’t really the hot button issues that you hear linked to Christian Nationalism. Trans/Gay issues, “wokeness” etc. are the bigger issues it would seem.
I also wonder if there is an intensity component that isn’t being measured. That is, for people who take the items in the survey as very important, there is a smaller but critical subset that are intensely supportive.
Whitehead's book bridges the divide between pure academic scholarship and being more accessible. That's where I would start.
Thank you!
Not on this list but I would recommend Jesus and John Wayne by Kristin Kobes du Mez. She’s a historian and professor at Calvin University.
Of the list Ryan provided, the only one I’ve read is Preparing for War. It’s not bad but I didn’t really enjoy his writing style. His perspective is interesting since he used to believe some of the Christian Nationalist views, but has since left that brand of Christianity.
Yes...a great book and Dr. Kobes du Mez is a great interview.
Thanks! I’ve heard Kristin interviewed and the book does sound interesting.
I've read du Mez's book, and would recommend it. But the book I'm most curious to read (just came out in 2023 and it's still pretty expensive) is "The Full Armor of God" by Djupe, Lewis, and Sokhey.
I recognize Djupe from Religion in Public, where he's posted about the importance of prophecy belief as an accelerant to antinomian politics:
https://religioninpublic.blog/2022/01/20/the-accelerant-of-american-extreme-politics-prophecy-belief/
I get the impression this kind of prophecy belief is fringe, but also very mobilizing. As far as I can tell, it is antinomian, creating a permission structure for followers to release themselves from moral obligations orthodox Christians ought to feel regarding keeping the peace and loving their neighbor. I'd think even most red-county Evangelicals would find it hecka weird, but it may punch above its weight in certain political circles.
Is it possible that Christian Nationalism is increasing in prominence and influence despite its decline amongst the population because political extremism has resulted in an increase in Christian nationalistic sentiments expressed amongst members of Congress and the judiciary? Is there data to test this hypothesis (mentions/sound bites, legislation)?
Is this potentially an issue similar to abortion, where despite public opinion increasingly supporting choice, we see increasing attacks on the rights of women to make their own decisions?
Since Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Tom Parker handed down an opinion based on the "Seven Mountains Mandate" it is obvious that Christian Nationalism is alive and well in certain places of power in our country.
It is sad to say that science can place a lunar module back on the moon after 50 years, and that there are persons affecting the lives of millions believing that a fully formed human is in the head of each sperm cell.
21st century v., 16th century....YIKES!!!
Try rereading my comment and see that it is the Christian Nationalists who are the ones hanging onto 16th century "science."
I'm not.
As others have noted, the issue isn't the number, it's the radicalization. In fact, I would argue that's part of the reason it's become such a large part of the national conversation. It's partly because Christian nationalists are becoming more radicalized because they feel their power and influence fading. And of course, certain politicians stoke those fears and demand a return to the "good ole days."
(i see people in the threads here are debating if Christian nationalism is a thing. The easiest way is to ask yourself "do you think American was or should be a Christian nation?" If you say yes to this, you're in the Christian nationalist camp. For example, people who love Barton's Original Intent would fall into this category. I find it helpful to have a simple metric like this, though of course nuances can get extensive if one chooses)
Sometimes, surface data does not tell the story. I am stunned that there are comments here that deny that Christian Nationalism is a growing and frightening trend.
From Heather Cox Richardson, TODAY: "The Alabama Supreme Court on February 16, 2024, decided that cells awaiting implantation for in vitro fertilization are children and that the accidental destruction of such an embryo falls under the state’s Wrongful Death of a Minor Act. In an opinion concurring with the ruling, Chief Justice Tom Parker declared that the people of Alabama have adopted the “theologically based view of the sanctity of life” and said that “human life cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God.”
We just watched the highlights of CPAC, which has devolved from an important meeting of conservatives into a Christian Nationalist free for all, with noted speakers calling for theocracy.
Survey data is no substitute for the real world.
You might recall there was a Judge Roy Moore on the Alabama Supreme Court in two separate stints, the first 20 years ago. There is nothing new here. Alabama is Alabama. If you hunted for statements of Alabama Supreme Court justices indicating “Christian Nationalism” over the past 200 years, I’m sure you could consistently find them.
The only thing that’s new is the left’s panic, happening at an exact time that Christianity’s influence is increasingly marginalized, particularly in states and institutions at the center of power.
Views like yours are why Democrats will retain the White House this year and flip the House of Reps, and by a lot. Christofascism has been on the rise since Trump emboldened them.
To say that because fewer people do not openly admit to it does not change the assault on the 14th Amendment, specifically and the rights of women generally.
The selected data ignores what is happening with the rogue court and the openly Christian Nationalist presently failing to lead the House.
The only thing that's new is the open attacks on Democracy.
I don't think we share many common values, but it seems we can agree that the GOP is in a tough place.
I don't believe I have anything to do with why the Democrats are the dominant party in national politics. But I think the fact that their coalition is larger, higher status, better-connected, better-educated, and wealthier than the Republican coalition, and is growing stronger every year, is part of the reason why there's not much for anyone to fear from the right, even if the left's worst nightmares of the right were generally true.
https://www.tracingwoodgrains.com/p/the-republican-party-is-doomed
I do think some of what's happening and that's alarming to the left is that the right is becoming dumber and more dysfunctional because a lot of smart people have left it. On one level, that can make it appear more dangerous, because pandering to a dumber base means sounding dumber. But on the other hand, in practical terms, the right has become weaker, both by virtue of being smaller in absolute numbers AND less effective by losing the sort of people you really don't want to lose.
Meanwhile, as everyone on the right seems to be pointing out, we can't seem to get a fixed definition on "Christian Nationalist" -- when it's defined explicitly, it doesn't seem like it's supposed to capture everyone with pro-life sentiments who wants to vote his values, but in practice, that's what it seems to amount to.
The "rogue court" and "Christofascist" stuff, I don't even know what to do with. As far as I've ever been able to tell, Roe was a bad decision on the basic legal merits, a real stretch of the Constitution. That was the original "rogue court" decision. If merely passing the question of abortion back to the democratic processes of the states -- where the pro-choice side has been generally winning! -- is such an unconscionable thing, then the implication I gather is that the pro-life cause is basically illegitimate, and there's no real basis for common ground here.
well written and cogent email (not that my review matters). I agreed with a lot of the arguments until you get to the idea that old white men can force women to be birthing vessels. I believe that pro-life views are legitimate, much like i believe religious beliefs are legitimate. I also believe that your beliefs about either entitle you to impact anyone else. you should have the right to belong to the satanist church of spaghetti and you should have the right to not get an abortion. but you got me, I will never accept someone infringing upon the most basic healthcare decisions for others.
I have not read your link, but i will. thanks for the share.
I’m currently writing a Master’s thesis in theology on (broadly taken) the last question, tracing the idea of America (and before that England) as an “elect nation” through sermons, literature, etc… and documenting how its failure has changed the moral structure of the American evangelical movement over the last decade.
So here’s my shot-from-the-hip answer to the uptick in the confidence of responders in 2021:
The rapid changes in social/cultural mores over the last 10 years (the Obergefell decision, radical gender theory, the decline in religious attendence, etc…) has scrambled the brains of many (primarily evangelicals) who respond “what is happening to us? This is a Christian country, these things can’t happen!” Therefore there has a been a kind of doubling down on the belief in the providential nature of the United States, although in a more aggressive, political form than the historic evangelical response to cultural change: concentrated programs of evangelism (both in word and deed).
I'd stretch the fade back a lot longer. In the '60s and '70s, school prayer was a top-drawer issue, and mainstream politicians often used American exceptionalism as a wedge. Now the politicians who weaponize culture are focusing on Woke stuff instead, which isn't specifically religious.
I think Bush broke the exceptionalism stuff by using it as a pretext for 30 years of endless losing wars.
The same thing happened in 1920 after Wilson had used exceptionalism to justify our entrance in WW1. The war left a strong distaste, and the god who sponsored the war shared in the distaste.
"I think Bush broke the exceptionalism stuff"
It's a good theory, and the comparison to Wilson in this specific context is interesting and not one I've heard made before.
As a Millennial, I've observed a number of times that there's a big patriotism gap between Millennials/Gen Z vs. the older generations, but most people don't have a tangible reason for it. How do you account for the absence of feeling?
Even when you compare conservatives (like me and many of my peers) across generations, it's still very visible. I live in a very conservative place, but I notice at least a 5x difference in how many US flags are on houses in my parents' retirement community compared to my own neighborhood that has a lot of families, median age of adults probably around 40.
I never served in the military, but I've heard multiple people comment that the change is very apparent there: the esprit de corps, the commitment to the unit is still there among the young, but the love for America is phoned in compared to yesteryear.
It is similar to other 'Fear Movements" about Satanism and Global Warming. We can write a series of books linking Christian Fundamentalists to Racism and Slavery and every TV Channel with do repeated interviews with the authors.
"The only real oddity to me is the last statement: the success of the United States is part of God’s plan. In 2007, just 32% of people agreed with that one. In 2021, that actually rose to 37%. I don’t have a good explanation for that one."
One problem with this statement is that its meaning is unclear. I can probably understand it in at least three different ways:
1. Is the US (along with all its successes and failures) part of God's plan, in the sense that Christianity teaches that all things are a part of God's plan (see Ephesians 1:11 for example)? Or do you not really believe that God is sovereign or has a plan at all?
2. Has the US up to this point been specially favored by God?
3. Will the US in the future continue to be specially favored by God?
And in points #2 and #3, there are further degrees of how one might understand this special favor. For #1, my answer is, "Yes, of course." For #2, my answer would be, "Maybe, depending on what precisely you mean." For #3, I'd say, "God only knows."
This leaves me answering "yes" to this question, based on #1. Maybe that's a literal-minded answer and not what the survey designer was hoping for. Perhaps people these days are more inclined towards literal-minded answers. But since the survey designer chose not to be clearer, that's what we're left with.
I agree the survey questions could use some work. I totally see how this question could get a “yes” answer from your average Christian who simply believes everything is part of God’s plan - which is far from a Christian Nationalist viewpoint.
Likewise, I think the question about prayer in school is similarly poorly worded. There are different types of prayer in school - individual prayer should be allowed (and has never been illegal) but government sponsored is likely where the debate is. Depending on how it is read, people with the same views on the issue might answer the question differently.
I also think having all the questions except for the separation of church and state question being worded where a “yes” leads towards a Christian Nationalist viewpoint is confusing as well.
I imagine very few people really know what "prayer in public school" was like in the first place, and ideas about it have grown more vague and unrealistic as it has been lost from living memory. So that certainly doesn't help when responding to this question. Even my Boomer parents are too young to really remember it, so I've never heard a firsthand story. Though when I was growing up, some public schools had a moment of silence each day that students could use to pray individually. Not sure if this still exists.
My sense is that to some public school prayer is a bogeyman, and to some it's a silver bullet that could singlehandedly reverse our cultural decadence, but in practice, in the mid-20th century, my guess is it was typically the most anodyne prayer you ever heard in your life, containing no more theological substance than "God Bless America" which we now sing at sports games.
This is an interesting observation and it strikes me as true. I would question the assumption though that the displaying of a flag is synonymous with patriotism. Patriotism can come in many ways. I would submit that flying a flag is only a superficial display of a complex and multi-faceted abstract idea such as patriotism. As such, flag flying is probably not a good proxy for patriotism in my view. I suspect patriotism exists and is alive and well in younger generations but manifests itself in ways less visible.
Great work!
I think to answer the oddity of that last question we have to realize that there are other factors at play in interpreting the question. I believe there is a rose in evangelicals in believing in the sovereignty of God over everything. Therefore, if the United States has been successful, then it must have been a part of God's plan. The question would do better to be reworded to indicate a future success yet unseen.
I wonder how much of the change in results is due to the change in the composition of different categories. Previous Substack posts suggest this, such as the near extinction of the Christian Democrat. If you hold views favorable to CN and were in a mainline denomination in 2007, there's a good chance you might have left it by now.
Insightful (and I gotta add reassuring) data and commentary. Much thanks for those graphs!!!!!
Yeah, maybe I misread Ryan, but I think that's basically what he's illustrating, while being more subtle about it because he prefers to use this space to just show the data and engage with both sides rather than engage in polemics that alienate one side or the other.
To your point, CN is primarily an exonym. For the most part what I see here is conservative older people agreeing with statements indicating they fondly remember the public presence Christianity had in their youth, and leftists looking for something to panic over are then deciding to take that information and conclude that grandpa is working to overthrow the government and institute a Christian version of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Well, I'd advise trying to be more charitable than this. I don't think all false narratives are constructed as part of some Machiavellian plot. I'm not sure if the original inventors of the CN scare were purely cynical manipulators, or just paranoid themselves, but in any case it mostly went viral by latching onto the latent paranoia of a number of other people on the left, who then echoed the original scare.
Many such cases, including cases of viral paranoia on less-informed parts of the right, as well.
I don’t really disagree with anything you said there. I only mean to say I suspect very few, if any, people on the left are cynically lying about the threat they think CN poses. Perhaps not even Rob Reiner. They’re mostly sincere, just slaves to their paranoia and ignorance, products of our society’s polarization and the breakdown of social trust (which as I said, happens a lot on the right too).
They’re also now culturally conditioned towards the elevation of the pro-choice cause to an idol unto itself -- out with “safe, legal, and rare”, in with “clump of cells”.
To be fair, this isn’t much comfort. Even genocide can be sincere. The Holocaust was probably mostly sincere. As far as I can tell, Hitler and the Nazis mostly did think the Jews and other groups really were that bad. They really did believe in the “stab-in-the-back myth”.
Christopher Rufo? The same Christopher Rufo who said this - "we will eventually turn [critical race theory] toxic, as we put all of the 'various cultural insanities' under that brand category. The goal is to have the public read something 'crazy' in the newspaper and immediately think 'critical race theory’.”?
So he’s most famous for taking an academic term and just mindlessly applying it to anything race related that he thinks is ‘crazy’. Seems a questionable source to decide how important or unimportant Christian nationalism in America is.
You’ve given away the game by bringing him into the conversation and implying some level of impartiality due to him not being a Christian. This dude is a far right conspiracy theorist who makes his money doing the very thing you claim to be against - fear mongering over a nonexistent issue.
Yeah, that's the bait-and-switch that I detect. The breathless fear being expressed by the left seems to reflect the idea that Christians are pursuing an Islamic Republic of Iran, in Christian form. But then it turns out that to receive the "CN" label, you just have to believe literally anything that contradicts the secular left's values, and to think that your beliefs should be operationalized in the real world in some tangible way.
By this standard, the 2008 Obama platform was a Christian Nationalist platform, because (if one could ignore the winking) it held to marriage between one man and one woman.