Christian Nationalism and Righteous Gemstones: The Face of American Evangelicalism?
““When people see you do something bad it’s hard for them to see you any other way.””
Over the past several months, I have noticed a dramatic increase in the attention given to the term "Christian Nationalism" in the media, but rarely with an effort to distinguish it or define it. "Christian Nationalism Is 'Single Biggest Threat' to America's Religious Freedom," shouts one headline, and "Christian nationalism is a threat to the American way of life" another. Much of this was kickstarted by the presence of explicit Christian messages, prayers, and images on January 6, for which White Christian Nationalism is now viewed as the primary culprit.
In addition, the media often portrays American evangelicals as money-grabbing, self-righteous and hypocritical, as represented by the televangelist dynasty of HBO's dark comedy series The Righteous Gemstones. Starring John Goodman, the show is a religious version of HBO's hit Succession (about a family media dynasty), as well as Fox's Dynasty and ABC's Promised Land. Gemstones was just greenlit for a third season.
Let me first say that I was appalled by the conflation of Christian images and messages on January 6. And sadly, stories of fallen ministries come across my inbox in a steady flow. They are both an affront to everything Christ stood for, and they do not represent a majority of American Evangelicals.
The conversation over the appropriate relationship between faith, politics, and national identity has been a passionate one both before and during our country’s founding (Patrick Henry and James Madison famously tangled over religious establishment issues) but is heating up within American evangelicalism. Similar to how the theologically oriented fundamentalist-evangelical split in the early 20th century created such institutions as Wheaton College and Christianity Today, this debate is likely to become the new divide within theologically conservative Christianity that (re)aligns leaders and creates new institutions.
When I was on Capital Hill and George W. Bush was elected to the White House, I recall concerns expressed by some of my friends in the Clinton Administration over the President’s regular Bible studies in the White House. In their mind, this portended a coming Christian theonomy. I took one of these friends to lunch and suggested he get with President Bush’s speechwriter and a former colleague on Capitol Hill, Michael Gerson, and have his concerns assuaged. President Bush was hardly the theonomist that some were concerned he would be. He went overboard to affirm by word and deed that America was and is a religiously pluralistic nation.
President George W. Bush. (Eric Draper/Georg W. Bush Library)
One of the needs today is for dispassionate conversations that allow for a shared understanding of terms and agreement over the role of religion in the public square. We need dialogue that invites constructive engagement rooted in meaningful personal relationships.
When David Brooks, a conservative political and cultural commentator who writes for The New York Times, began to explore the evangelical landscape after the 2000 election, he surveyed some of his conservative Christian friends and wrote the essay “Who is John Stott?”. “There is a world of difference between real-life people of faith and the made-for-TV, Elmer Gantry-style blowhards who are selected to represent them,” he wrote. “Falwell and Pat Robertson are held up as spokesmen for evangelicals, which is ridiculous. Meanwhile, people like John Stott, who are actually important, get ignored.” John Stott was, for the record, a leading British Anglican theologian who founded, with Billy Graham, the international gathering of evangelicals called the Lausanne Movement.
If David asked that question again, his essay might be titled “Who is Tim Keller?” the founding pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City (who stepped down due to health reasons) and prolific author. Keller has been one of the most influential leaders in a servant-minded engagement with the culture. However, his rapprochement with the culture has come under fire in elite circles, creating a debate over “winsomeness.”
Pastor Tim Keller. (Frank Licorice/Wikimedia Commons)
Eric Metaxas. (Cheriss May/NurPhoto)
One of his vocal opponents is another New Yorker, Eric Metaxas, whose recent book Letter to the American Church asks on its Amazon page: “Can it really be God’s will that His children be silent at a time like this? Decrying the cowardice that masquerades as godly meekness, Eric Metaxas summons the Church to battle.” In contrast, the author and editor of The American Conservative, Rod Dreher, wrote a book, The Benedict Option, suggesting that American Christians respond to increasing cultural hostility with a “retreat and preserve” mentality like the Irish Monks did in a solitary monastery on Skellig Michael. Dreher’s minute-by-minute account of the Metaxas-led Jericho March on December 12 is a must-read and for me encapsulates this conflict in one narrative.
When I recently mentioned the “winsomeness debate” to a pastor who is part of the New Apostolic Reform movement, he smiled and said that the debate in his community is over “neo-Dominionism.” Thankfully, I have enough of a theological background to distinguish between “Kingdom Now” and “Kingdom Now But Not Yet” theology, but this is a nuance easily lost.
For example, for those concerned about Christian Nationalism, there is a difference between the “sphere sovereignty” theology of Abraham Kuyper (“There’s not a square inch in the whole domain of human existence over which Christ, who is Lord over all, does not exclaim, ‘Mine’!”) and the reconstructionist dominionism of R.J. Rushdoony (who called for his followers to “take back government … and put it in the hands of Christians.”) They may sound the same, but they are oppositional, and one is actually the potential anecdote to the other. If the term “Christian Nationalism” is too broadly painted, it obliterates these critical distinctions. But to be fair, these distinctions are also lost on most Evangelicals.
The role of religion in American life is not waning and will continue to be a significant factor for the foreseeable future. This is true in most of the world, and my challenge to our elites in media, academia, foundations, and even corporate offices is to get beyond the caricature of Jesse Gemstone and understand the importance and consequence of the "winsome" and "Kingdom" debates.
David Brook's advice in 2004 is the same advice I would give today: "Politicians, especially Democrats, are now trying harder to appeal to people of faith. But people of faith are not just another interest group, like gun owners. You have to begin by understanding the faith. And you can't understand this rising global movement if you don't meet its authentic representatives."