“Christian Nationalism” Does Not Apply to Progressive Christianity

Are there good reasons for that?

The phrase, “Christian Nationalism,” is a slippery beast. It is almost everywhere in the media, but it is hard to get a feel for exactly how someone defines it when they use it. Because the term is everywhere, some have worked to create a taxonomy for the phrase, or research and clarify how it is used in different contexts. Josh Daws wrote a helpful “Primer” on how the term is used for the American Reformer, and the author, Natasha Crain, has produced a four-category description of its usage.

However you learned about the term, or whether you track down the nooks and crannies of its usage and definitions, its fundamental usage in the main stream of both legacy and social media is obvious – it is a boogeyman.

The label has successfully entered into our media vocabulary as an insult. It is becoming common to read headlines or articles published by mainstream media that call certain people “Christian Nationalists,” and it is always negative. Deliberately avoiding definition, it is used to describe people who are “a threat to our democracy” and who might be too dangerous to trust with a vote or positions of influence.

A few years ago, this scare was called “theocracy,” and was peddled by the new atheists. Now, thanks to writers from “inside the camp” like David French and Russell Moore, the scare of Christians expressing themselves in public is as real as ever.

But there is a curious twist to this problem. If Christian Nationalism is the threat of Christians wielding some level of influence in politics and culture, why is it never applied to theologically progressive churches when they parade the progressive politicians de-jour through their pulpits? A common meme is a pic of a Leftist in a progressive church with the remark, “Is this Christian Nationalism?” And, of course, it is not.

So, how can a term so widely used and successfully loaded into our national conversation, be so lop-sided in its application? Why doesn’t the term apply to progressive Christians when they advocate for progressive causes?

In a nutshell, the label, “Christian Nationalist,” does not apply to progressive Christianity because it cannot apply.

I believe there are two primary reasons for this. The first is that progressive Christianity is arguably not Christianity. One hundred years ago the Princeton theologian, J. Gresham Machen, wrote, Christianity and Liberalism. In it he systematically works through the theological affirmations of liberal Christianity, what we would today call progressive Christianity, and shows how it is different in essence from historical, orthodox Christian belief. Machen successfully separated the two theologies as two different religions. If it isn’t Christian, it can’t be Christian Nationalism.

The second is that progressive Christianity is a trailing indicator, while theologically orthodox Christianity has the capacity to be a leading indicator. To use a metaphor, progressive Christianity can only be the caboose to the progressive politician’s engine. Traditionally orthodox Christianity has the capacity to be the engine of culture (and hence, politics).

The hundred-year history of left-leaning Christian theology can successfully be anticipated by the progressive politics of the day. Do progressive politicians believe that Darwin is the summit of the life sciences? If so, then a couple of decades later America’s left-leaning denominations will agree. Do progressives believe eugenics is a good idea? Then, progressive pastors will fill their sermons with its defense. Do secular progressives believe that Christ was a pacifist? Then, without much resistance, progressive Christians will believe the same.

Jump forward to the last couple of decades, and the pattern is the same. Do secular progressives believe that same-sex marriage is moral? It did not take long for progressive Christians to begin twisting Scripture and the history of interpretation and translation to justify the position. Do progressives believe that some people are “born gay”? Then, so do progressive Christians. Do progressives also believe someone can choose their sexual identity? Then, so do progressive Christians.

Do progressives believe it is in the best interest of a lot of pre-teens and teenagers to support their sexual confusion by affirming trans identity and supporting psychological, pharmaceutical, and medical mutilation? Then, well, you know what happens next.

Liberal Christianity rejects the authority and truth of the Bible, so there is no compelling reason to begin moral reflection with Scripture. Scripture is not sufficient on its own but needs to be reinterpreted in every age. As such, the spirit of the age becomes the primary authority for progressive theology.

All of this is one more reason to reject Christian theology or ethical reflection that cannot take the authority and truth of the Bible seriously. Someone might find certain points of the current version of progressive Christianity compelling, but they should be assured that it is subject to change. And if you are unable to keep up, you will be, to turn a phrase, left behind.

Note: Any links above to Amazon are part of the ETC affiliates program. You do not pay more, but ETC receives a small commission. Thanks for the support!