Christian Nationalism presents itself as a defense of Christianity. In reality, it reveals something far more troubling: a lack of confidence in Christianity’s central claim.
Across denominations and theological camps, evangelical Christians overwhelmingly agree on one foundational belief — Jesus Christ will return. Christians disagree vigorously about when that return will occur, but not whether it will. The promise is embedded in Christian creeds, scripture, and worship. And yet Christian Nationalism behaves as if that promise were uncertain.
The movement insists that Christianity must be protected, privileged, or enforced through state power in order to survive. Laws must reflect Christian norms. Government must defend Christian identity (one narrow version of it, at least). The nation must be “reclaimed” for Christ. That insistence rests on a hidden premise rarely stated aloud: without political power, Christianity will fail. That premise is not faith. It is fear.
Christian Nationalism collapses two distinct ideas into one: belief in Christ’s return (eschatology) and anxiety about cultural decline. In doing so, it quietly rewrites Christian eschatology.
Historically, Christians have held differing views of history’s arc. Premillennialists often expect worsening conditions before Christ’s return. Postmillennialists anticipate a long period of gospel influence prior to his return. Amillennialists view the “millennium” symbolically, emphasizing faithfulness rather than forecasting. But none of these traditions teaches that human political control is necessary to secure the Kingdom of God.
Christian Nationalism suggests otherwise. It implies that unless Christians dominate civic institutions, Christianity will be eclipsed. Pluralism becomes a threat rather than a reality to navigate. Democracy becomes dangerous when it fails to deliver the “right” outcomes. Eschatology is transformed into urgency politics, and faith becomes something to be imposed rather than proclaimed.
Christian Nationalism claims to exalt Christ as King. Yet it behaves as if his reign were fragile, dependent on elections, court rulings, and legislation. It speaks of divine sovereignty while scrambling for human control.
This is the contradiction at its core: If Christ will return on God’s timetable, then Christianity does not need the state to survive. If Christianity does need the state to survive, then Christ is not the sovereign king Christian Nationalism proclaims.
Power becomes a substitute for trust. Coercion replaces persuasion. Law is asked to do what faith cannot accomplish on its own. That posture is not rooted in Christian theology. It is rooted in impatience, the fear that Christ may not return quickly enough to vindicate his followers, or that history may move on without them.
Church–state separation is often portrayed as hostility toward religion. In truth, it reflects confidence in religion.
Separation affirms that faith must be voluntary to be genuine. It recognizes that belief cannot be compelled by statute or sustained by force. It acknowledges that the state is a blunt instrument capable of regulating behavior, but incapable of producing conviction.
Most importantly, church–state separation assumes that history is unfinished.
Christian Nationalism acts as if the Kingdom of God must be realized now, through political dominance, rather than awaited in hope. It attempts to finish the story before the author returns.
That impulse does not arise from theology. It arises from fear, fear of decline, fear of irrelevance, fear that Christianity cannot endure without state sponsorship.
The real divide in American religious politics is not between believers and nonbelievers. It is between those Christians who believe the Kingdom of God advances through witness and those who believe it must be secured through capture. Christian Nationalism chooses capture. It seeks control instead of credibility. It confuses influence with entitlement. And in doing so, it undermines the very faith it claims to defend.
Christianity spread across continents long before it possessed political power. It survived persecution, pluralism, and marginalization. It does not require the machinery of the state to endure.
Christian Nationalism suggests otherwise and in doing so, it exposes its central failure: It does not trust Jesus to do what Christians claim he promised. Church-state separation, by contrast, embodies confidence that Christianity does not need the state to do what Christians claim Christ himself has promised.
Eric Lane, the former president of AU’s San Antonio Chapter, writes This Ain’t No Culture War (tancwar.substack.com), focusing on church–state separation. This article represents the personal views of the author and does not necessarily represent the views of Americans United