Against Christian civilization: what the moral panic over 'Christian Nationalism' gets wrong

At the Coronation of His Majesty the King, the Archbishop of Canterbury said this prayer over the oil with which the King was to be anointed:

Blessed art thou, Sovereign God, upholding with thy grace all who are called to thy service. Thy prophets of old anointed priests and kings to serve in thy name and in the fullness of time thine only Son was anointed by the Holy Spirit to be the Christ, the Saviour and Servant of all. By the power of the same Spirit, grant that this holy oil may be for thy servant Charles a sign of joy and gladness; that as King he may know the abundance of thy grace and the power of thy mercy, and that we may be made a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for thine own possession.

Is this Christian Nationalism?

On Sunday 10th November this year, Remembrance Sunday, the Bishop of London will lead the nation in Christian prayer, before the Royal Family, representatives of the Government and Parliament, the Armed Forces, and ex-servicemen's organisations:

O Almighty God, grant, we beseech thee, that we who here do honour to the memory of those who have died in the service of their country and of the Crown, may be so inspired by the spirit of their love and fortitude that, forgetting all selfish and unworthy motives, we may live only to thy glory and to the service of mankind through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Is this Christian Nationalism?

On early Sunday morning in many parish churches Prayer Book Holy Communion is administered. The Prayer for the Church Militant petitions:

We beseech thee also to save and defend all Christian Kings, Princes, and Governors; and specially thy servant CHARLES our King; that under him we may be godly and quietly governed: And grant unto his whole Council, and to all that are put in authority under him, that they may truly and indifferently minister justice, to the punishment of wickedness and vice, and to the maintenance of thy true religion, and virtue. 

Is this Christian Nationalism?

If the answer to these questions is 'no', the category of 'Christian Nationalism' - and the current moral panic about amongst some British Christian commentators - is rather meaningless: the place and role of Christianity in our cultural and national life is not something to be condemned.

If the answer is 'yes, the problem is with those giving this answer, condemning quite ordinary Anglicanism and conventional public Christianity.

Moral panics tend to be irrational, unseemly, and of little meaningful use in the ordering of our common life. This is what we are now seeing in fashionable Christian quarters in the United Kingdom. 'Christian Nationalism', it seems, is the most pressing challenge facing British Christianity - alongside, I assume, climate change and Palestine. In a recent Church Times article, Richard Harries, a former Bishop of Oxford, invoked those brave stalwarts of Christian orthodoxy, the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church:

Christian nationalism has long been a feature of American culture, and was a prominent feature of the memorial service for Charlie Kirk on Sunday. It has been condemned by the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church “as an idolatry of a white supremacist national ideology that uses the Christian religion as its justification”, and, as such, “an apostasy” that violates the first two commandments. It has come to Europe, especially in Hungary, where Viktor Orbán claims to be defending Christian civilisation and values against Islam.

There you have it. 'Christian Nationalism' is "apostasy", a contravention of the first two Commandments. Of course, abortion on demand and up to birth is absolutely fine: no need to worry about the sixth Commandment - hence TEC's ideological commitment to no restrictions on abortion. In fact, declaring a pro-life stance within TEC would almost certainly result in accusations of 'Christian Nationalism'. Supporting abortion on demand, by contrast, ensures that nobody confuses Episcopalians with hillbilly fundamentalists and their 'Christian Nationalist' agenda. Likewise, TEC's commitment to "access to gender affirming care in all forms ... and at all ages" (emphasis added): the progressive ideological crusade in support of medical interventions to change the gender of children is, it seems, perfectly in accordance with the Ten Commandments. 

This is the problem with fashionable opposition to the spectre of 'Christian Nationalism': it all too easily becomes opposition to a meaningful Christian cultural presence. In the same article, Harries states:

The problem, of course, is that, while God, faith, family, and homeland are all good things in themselves, these slogans are being used to divide the country. An emphasis on faith, which is usually taken to mean the Christian faith, excludes those who do not share it. An emphasis on family highlights those who do not fit the usual family pattern. An assertion of homeland immediately distances those who have come to this country from another homeland. These slogans are being used in a highly aggressive and divisive way.

Talking about the role of Christian faith in shaping nations and culture, therefore, is to be avoided, because it apparently excludes those who are not Christians. Not only does this tend not to be the view of British Jews and British Muslims, it is also quite the statement from a bishop, called to proclaim the Christian faith. Talking about the gift of family and marriage is to be avoided, because it apparently excludes those who - in a desiccated phrase strangely absent from the Form of Solemnization of Matrimony - "do not fit the usual family pattern". Pride in our homeland is to be avoided because, we are told, it offends those who "have come to this country from another homeland" - that is, those who have chosen to live in this country because, one would assume, its culture, norms, and institutions are attractive.

Such is a predictable outcome of the moral panic over 'Christian Nationalism' - a public square emptied of references to Christianity, the family and marriage, and a patriotism which, in the words of Thomas Aquinas, is an acknowledgement that "man is debtor chiefly to his parents and his country, after God". This would in no way serve the Church's mission and proclamation. In fact, it equates to a denial of the Church's mission and proclamation, of the powers and authorities confessing the Lordship of Christ.

Another recent critique (on an otherwise excellent blog) of the bogeyman of 'Christian Nationalism' urged that we must make a choice between the Cross of Christ and national allegiance:

The challenge for us today is simple: will we stand firm in our allegiance to that scandalous cross—or trade it for the empty promise of a flag?

The relationship between the Cross of Christ and national allegiance, however, is not simple. It is rather ironic that a simplistic 'to be British is to have a Christian identity' narrative is being opposed by an equally simplistic 'being Christian means rejecting national identity' narrative. 

Against both simplistic declarations, a richer, deeper, more complex pattern is offered in those cultures which have been historically shaped and defined by Christianity, such as superbly explored in Bijan Omrani's God is an Englishman (2025).  This is what we saw at the Coronation; what we see each Remembrance Sunday; what is reflected in the Prayer for the Church Militant. We have a common life shaped and defined over centuries by Christianity. This is a good thing, to be celebrated, to be cherished, and to be protected against those who would disorder our common life by removing the influence of public Christianity.

A recurring aspect of critiques of 'Christian Nationalism' is a rather dismissive approach to culturally conservative Christians:

But Christian nationalism, like every heresy, seizes a fragment of the truth and mistakes it for the whole. It speaks loudly of “Christian heritage,” yet forgets the command to love the stranger and even the enemy. It promises salvation through politics: elect the right leaders, guard the right borders, pass the right laws, and all will be well. But the Gospel tells us something harder, stranger, more beautiful: salvation comes only from the crucified and risen Christ. No flag, no law, no ballot box can do what he has already accomplished.

Those of us who support stronger immigration laws are deemed to have forgotten "the command to love the stranger and even the enemy" - as if these commands of Our Lord positively require states not to secure their borders and regulate immigration. This also conveniently overlooks how Our Lord's commands profoundly challenge every political allegiance and ideology, including Christians who hold to polite liberalism and default progressivism. Nor is the stranger always from another country: the stranger can more often be in a working-class community with which polite liberals have little contact and for which they have little meaningful concern.

What is more, is it wrong to speak of "Christian heritage" (and note the use of scare quotes): is Christian heritage not a blessing, a positive good for culture and society? Would we really desire a common life shaped by something other than Christian heritage - Islamic heritage, atheistic heritage, Buddhist heritage?

'Christian Nationalism', we are told, "promises salvation through politics". This is a rather odd accusation when salvific language has routinely been applied by progressive Christians to earthly causes and left-leaning governments. Within the past few weeks, for example, we have been told by Christian Climate Action to - in the title of their policy document - 'Stop Crucifying Creation'. The document includes the following call:

We desire a Church which draws together as a loving community of resistance and values the calling of some to take part in the sacrament of nonviolent civil disobedience in response to the Climate and Nature Crisis.

Blasphemously comparing environmental degradation to Our Lord's Passion and sacrilegiously comparing partisan political acts to Baptism and the Eucharist might possibly lead us to think that if we are looking to challenge those who promise "salvation through politics", 'Christian Nationalism' is not the tendency that first springs to mind. As recently reported, a survey of UK-based Christian climate activists indicated that respondents tended to agree with the view that "God is embodied in the world and universe, rather than separate from it" - an understanding that does not accord with creedal truth. It is, shall we say, somewhat more likely that this, rather than a racialist perversion of the Christian faith, is to be found in Anglican churches in the United Kingdom.

'Christian Nationalism' is neither a useful nor meaningful term. It can be used to condemn - indeed, it does condemn - what Churchill, in the face of great darkness, described as "Christian civilization". Likewise, it would condemn Denmark's centre-left Social Democrat PM in her call for 'spiritual rearmament' and for the Church of Denmark to renew its role in national life. And it would also condemn the Polish Catholic Church celebrating the 100th anniversary of Poland's independence. When the term 'Christian Nationalism' results in the rejection of such expressions of Christian civilization, it indicates that the term is not only useless but dangerous. (It is worth noting, by the way, that the open letter critiquing "the co-opting of Christian symbols, particularly the cross" at the 'Unite the Kingdom' rally, wisely avoided use of the term 'Christian Nationalism', instead highlighting the presence of "racist, anti-Muslim and far right elements".)

For every racist Far Right supporter waving a cross during a demonstration or promoting ethno-nationalist myths on X, there are thousands of culturally conservative Christians who value a cultural and national identity profoundly shaped by Christianity, and who believe that it serves the common good to have this identity and its Christian source cherished and protected. To condemn such culturally conservative beliefs as 'Christian Nationalism' is not only to contravene the ninth Commandment - it is also to undermine the public proclamation and cultural presence of Christianity, as it has found expression in Europe over centuries.