As Christian Nationalism has now arrived with a glamorous A-List makeover, I’ve found myself compelled to ponder it with an intensified sincerity. It’s left its mark on this era, I’d say. I’d like to now share what I’ve come up with to date on the matter. Because broader American Christianity has become so synonymous with Christian Nationalism as there has been no detectable fight within to assert a discernible distinction, I’ll go ahead and be broadly critical here if you don’t mind.
Now see, I’m pandering to anyone with a little working knowledge of both the principles of the United States and of Christianity. That, and any semblance of conscience or reason will qualify you as one among the target audience. I’d like to be honest about that to better the chances of a connection with you, reader. Sure, there are folks aplenty who live the Christian life while cursing in front of their kids, and mine, and those who may demonstrate their proud devotion to the good ol’ U-S-of-A by displaying the Confederate flag, and I couldn’t allow myself to be accused of exclusivity. Considering that, and just to demonstrate as we’re called, I won’t shun any prodigal son. It’s not my door to hold closed anyhow. So, no matter the degree of adherence one might live according to what’s on the sacred scrolls, I’d like to make some room for us all to sit back, relax, and give this assembly of thought an honest…thought.
I’ll warn you from the get go that readers will be asked to check any newfangled compass you may have acquired against the original map. Even at the risk of me being labeled a woke radical-left liberal – the latest and lowest sub-lifeform shared by the two belief systems conflated to produce American Christianity – I am proposing only that the reader entertain the application of the most modest level of scrutiny to one’s own thoughts and actions of late, just to double check that they’re agreeable with both the doctrine of the New Testament of the Bible and the doctrine of The United States of America – namely The Constitution and The Declaration of Independence. Just to be safe. I assure you my proposal for a collective self-analysis is not because I want to destroy this country or to involuntarily advance evil as a result of having lizard DNA. No, it is merely to present an honest opportunity to calibrate American Christianity in the direction of its defining words with the folks I share the world with.
I have no illusions of expertise. I am but an untrained critic of humanity, formerly silent. Though it’s been a lifetime of analysis, my credentials establish me as neither a Biblical scholar nor a Constitutional one – just the grandson of a Pentecostal preacher whose maternal kin enjoyed engaging in lively biblical discussion at every opportunity. At times, passionate debate ignited after dinner at Pa and Granny’s with scripture cited to substantiate every position argued by aunts, uncles, and parents. As the adults mustered varying degrees of cordiality toward one another, and Pa directing Granny to fetch his Bible when his victory might be in jeopardy, themes across the entire Bible were adeptly woven in great detail for all the grandkids to consume as we cut in and out of the house or listened from the kids’ table. This ambiance was ever present in my own home, and in the homes of my parents’ church friends when we visited. The language of serious Christianity was the oratory blanket which wrapped my upbringing. It was my soil, and yielded from it was a construct of the unattainable faith we are called to diligently stumble toward, ever failing.
As for love of country, skilled readers are likely to have detected traces of foreshadowing that this piece of writing might also wade into some criticism of what is passed off as American patriotism today. To quell any suspicion of my loyalties, I should establish with you that my paternal grandfather, my father and I have all served the country during war time – my grandfather in the Army during World War II, my father in the Air Force during Vietnam, and me in the Army during Iraq. Though patriotism is all too often displayed through underground militia-bro messaging on hats, tattoos, undersized tee shirts, and rear window stickers – the intent of which is more about signaling support of, and what seems a wish for, an overthrow – the action of patriotism throughout my lineage, contrastingly, has looked mostly like going to boot camp followed by war. My stock has shown patriotism through deed, not as a member of a loud, arrogant voting bloc, not through embarrassing rebellion-fetish tough guy tee shirts, but the kind that answers the call of his country without flamboyant posturing. I’ll be buried with a folded flag, as will my father, just like my grandfather. If selfless service requiring you to ante up your own life is still regarded as patriotism, then I ask for some consideration when I am critical of its shallow mutations.
Now that I can take some comfort in knowing that you know me better, let’s return to American Christianity. This is the marriage of two sets of foundational principles, we’ll agree. A socio spiritual identity defined by the union of two sacred sets of ideas. But in the same tone a father might announce the death of the family dog, the unresolvable problem with American Christianity is that each’s doctrine says to stay out of the affairs of the other. This, lest it become perverted. American doctrine puts a check on any one religion, and Christian doctrine asks us not to even concern ourselves with the form of governance we find ourselves in. How then does a people accept their American responsibility to steward the nation’s civic affairs and simultaneously pull off Christianity? The tenets of each prohibit the encroachment of the other. Intermingling them is to violate the rules of both. And there can be found no greater impertinent determination to perform that double violation than within Christian Nationalism. Rather than facing admonishment from the saints, they are given harbor.
As a cordial refresher, let me remind you that Christianity’s bottom line is that Jesus is coming soon, civic life is temporary and inconsequential, and we are to focus on the Kingdom of Heaven as Paul modeled. Jesus himself, when tested to see how he would instruct his following to perceive Roman rule, said to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s – a directive to coexist and comply with the law of man. It was witnessing and performing deeds of kindness that were more important than getting worked up about what Caesar had them doing. With this he clarified the relationship Christians are to have with their system of governance. Jesus suggested tolerance, compliance, not assembling a special interest lobby, much less going on a frenzied offensive. He let us know that we definitely don’t have his blessing to become militant if the laws of man don’t match up exactly with His. And it’s in red print, mind you, not fine print, if the actual text matters today. I surely won’t be advocating for the expansion of inhumane dictatorships here. I’m merely presenting the words of Jesus.
Did I say tolerance, Church? Let me know if I owe an apology. For just a moment I forgot that today it’s an unacceptable mark of weakness, one of yesteryear’s customs back when they didn’t know any better. Tolerance has become too intolerable and is, furthermore, a concession to the devil. The modern apostles from John Wayne to Marjorie Taylor Greene have helped craft a new New Testament – one that better conforms to today’s pop culture decorum, enhancing the Word with some overdue machismo. And tolerance, friends, well, it might still sit well with the ladyfolk I guess. See, contemporary believers don’t mind kicking some ass, standing their ground against all the persecution coming in hot, and from everywhere. And when the persecutors are trying to steal, kill, and destroy, asking Christians to yield space to other persuasions shall be regarded as an affront. Only the meek turn the other cheek – as if one could inherit anything through meekness.
The life of Paul, a story that not only brings us a fresh take on the fate of the uncircumcised but continues the endearing theme of suffering oppression to pack one’s testimony with poignant potency, is all but that of an insignificant sucker in the time before Christians had the wherewithal to sack up. The Sword has been replaced, and the siren of glory calls from the battlefield of culture war politics. Whether dopamine or the Holy Ghost, embarking on the quest to enshrine Christianity within the law of the land appears to provide an irresistible moving of the spirit. Regardless, a good crusade is hard to resist.
And in the other corner, our mighty Constitution – designed in retrospect with an overestimation of the cultural endurance of shame as a self-policing mechanism. Though a revolutionary blueprint, she can, at the most inopportune moments, err toward broad un-specification. Lo and behold and look what the cat dragged in, despite all that remains unarticulated, instructions on what to do with religion made the cut right out of the gate in the once hallowed Bill of Rights – and it’s damning to any religion staking some heretical claim to American sanctity. No favorites. No fraternizing. No establishment of religion whatsoever. Founders said about religion what Jesus said about Caesar – don’t let it distract you from your duty here. From the evidence, the founders assert that the duty is to steward a system of checked and balanced powers that seek to protect liberty and equality. And the system should not be biased by religion.
Within the U.S. Constitution a different kind of holy trinity was born. The Constitution positions the Legislature as God the Father, the Executive as God the Son, and the Judiciary as the Holy Spirit, if you will. The Legislature is given the prime real estate of Article I, where it is established. The Executive is checked. It’s listed second. This is important. Maybe the most important foundational concept of all – three bodies checking one another, and the Legislature is emphasized as the body standing tallest, not the Executive. This was designed on the heels of rule by a king, remember? Just the day before, the king enjoyed absolute authority by way of The Church of England. Christianity. So in the Bill of Rights where it says no establishment of religion, which religion do you think was being implicitly addressed? Rejected. Checked at the door. Prohibited from informing the new American governing structure. The problem of a king came from the problem of Christianity. The faith contorted to justify subordination to a king. Christianity was the crumbs, he was the roach. Rejecting the king was to reject Christianity as a source of governing authority. Y’all, this is why we went through the whole thing – revolution and all. People died for this. C’mon now.
There’s more. The Constitution is not the only founding document we’ll need to examine on the topic of religion. The Declaration of Independence, which I proudly read in full the other day, is a letter to the world explaining the reasons for emancipating themselves from subjugation to King George III. Surely, you say, there must be something somewhere that points in the direction of divine authority to defy their ruler and declare themselves as sovereign, dissolving their loyalty to His Majesty. What authority is named? Who gave them the inspiration, the blessing, the guidance, the strength? Maybe Christ is suggested, even loosely. Let’s put this to bed once and for all. I shall read to you now, and I quote, “…and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which The Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them…” Wait. What? What’s happening? This is unfamiliar, and really, really odd. The Laws of Nature? Nature’s God? Who is that? Christians don’t proclaim divine authority by nodding to Nature.
My first question, the Creator that endows us as is later stated: is this guy like a figure that appears on an elk and holds a golden bow?. Birds nesting in his flowing, unkempt mane? Maybe even a flannel shirt shrouding an eruption of body hair? That’s where my mind went upon the first read as I held a thousand-yard stare through the window for a few minutes. I reckon it never really did all add up. All those unalienable rights aren’t in step with any Bible scripture that I know of. In fact, they’re a little presumptuous if you imagine Jesus preaching “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Just doesn’t fit. He pushed for other stuff as I recount. The mention of a Creator provides us with the knowledge that Jefferson, et al. were monotheists, sure, but revision upon revision didn’t yield an ink drop of Jesus Christ. The absence of any suggestion of the Christian God is deafening, and, mind you, it was not just met with agreeance, it was the manifesto of a revolution. Talk about buy-in. The opportunity to out-Christian the king before a global audience was ripe, but they passed. Nature was evoked instead, and so the Christian nation argument is forever tucked in bed, with a golden arrow through the heart from you-know-who.
What I deduce of the author’s meaning and strategy by evoking Nature, considering how it’s followed up with in the Constitution, is to make a case that many different religions and cultures existed across Earth, all being sincere and equal expressions of submission to a single creator of the natural world, none of which could be relied upon to have it exactly right. Being so, no society should submit itself to any one religion. In the Declaration they cited a universal moral code transcending Christianity. A view from outside of it. That’s what it was. But I’ll not let go of the image of Nature’s God bathed in light upon mounted elk in that tranquil clearing in the forest.
Within the Constitution, and foreshadowed in the Declaration, is indeed a check on Christianity, my Christians. It was the religion of their oppressor, the religion that made them subjects. It was Christianity, faithful Americans, that was top of mind when the pen hit the parchment. You have the right to be a Christian, to have unruly tent revivals, and to give a good ol’ Merry Christmas out loud or even across a scrolling cash loan business marquee. But if you haven’t reconciled just how twisted Christianity can get in the course of human events, may I take you on another jaunt?
Of the many confounding conundrums over the last decade, none has been quite as confounding as the inexplicable and widespread support of Donald Trump, and not just from other folks in far away places as seen on my TV. It’s not just them, like I thought once. Real-life people that share my real-life spaces devolved from a position of condemnation in 2015 to half-hearted excuse making to complete devotion, right before my very eyes. Every predatory whim adopted en masse as sacrosanct without argument. He’s everything I teach my kids not to be, yet has become as exalted as George Washington and John Rambo. Jesus himself was even photographed wrapping him in his arms, possibly wearing a red cap. I can’t recall.
And y’all I’m trying not to make this about him, but it’s hard when American Christianity selects him as an avatar. A creature so perfectly antithetical to each respective belief system could not be better designed. He taps into the shallowest part of the heart. He embodies our follies. He personifies our demise. And our weaknesses take center stage with a little raised fist to make it all the more tragic. There was ample opportunity to get behind anyone else for ‘24. Someone who doesn’t disgrace the country and Christian support with every word and act, possibly. I know it’s hard to honor the Constitution when there is a cheaper way. It’s hard to be a Christian when the low road looks like a party. Us versus them can be a hoot, admittedly, and those right-wing mean people on TV look really good.
It’s this perversion centered around MAGA and the cognitive dissonance of the faithful that has compelled me to write about this. Facts are mere deceptions. Truth and motive are fabrications of comfort. The sickness is deep, and the delusional justification is now that God is working through Trump – the holy ends will justify the unholy means. And there I was, the whole time thinking he was exploiting Christians through shameless political opportunism. The reality on the ground shows us that the teachings of Jesus and Constitutional law not only don’t matter at all anymore, they are obstacles to cultural and political dominance. Advocating for the accumulation of executive power and the ratification of Christianity, and so, so very passionately so, sounds not just a little like an un-revolution in support of what we fought a revolution against. My optimistic side is banking on it being a matter of honest ignorance.
This has to be the case for anyone who wears a ‘We the People’ shirt or has such conviction to have it tattooed on their body who may lack the awareness that some of the subsequent text explains that We limited presidential power and prohibited the establishment of religion right after that iconic opening of the preamble. If there’s remaining space on your forearm, do consider. While you proudly signal to friends, family, and fellow shoppers that you decry tyranny, please know that those two Constitutional provisions long ago confronted it directly, when it was fresh. Stand down and take your rest, patriot. You probably know all that, but I just get the feeling that with a ‘We the People’ inspired populist rise there might come propositions to establish religion and expand unilateral executive authority. I just get that impression somehow – a little feeling that it all may slip off track to undo what OG ‘We the People’ did in the first place. I enjoy irony like the rest of us, but at that scale it would be in poor taste.
To spin the Constitution is one thing, but to suspend it is next level. I didn’t even know you could push for that and tell everyone you’re a real American with a straight face. On that, I also never knew that abandoning the teachings of Jesus and the example of Paul was even an option for Christians. If you think about it though, sure, we know how Paul handled himself when prison and execution lurked around every corner, but no one can say he wouldn’t have cracked if he had to tumble in the rough today – facing folks saying “Happy Holidays” or listening to Taylor Swift put ideas in all the girls’ heads again. I mean, it’s getting real out here, and we just can’t say that Paul would navigate around today’s persecution as chill as he did. Even Franklin Graham couldn’t guarantee it.
If the example of Christ matters at all, the guidance in it ought to be applied today. Evidenced by how many engage in or support current political Christian norms, or how little it’s rebuked, red print doesn’t seem to matter for much. If it’s given credence, it’s quickly contradicted by a good burn on the radical left. Other than abortion, it seems the most dire defenses for Trump support include not wanting to give handouts to lazy people, the gender identity insanity, and preferring immigration not look like the current state of affairs. Yes, without argument, ye who are convinced we’re headed to socialism, we don’t need to give our tax dollars to those who won’t work. And immigration can’t be a free-for-all. But you don’t need to be a Trumpster to petition your legislators for that. Don’t justify it either because you looked over to the left and saw that gay athiest with green hair looking comfortable, nose ring and all somehow. Freedom and liberty apply not only to Christians, AR-15 owners, and unmarked Dupont river dump sites, but also to them. Agreed, cultural norms of gender and sexuality can’t just roll out into a three-ring circus. But condemnation is not the best look, Church. It just doesn’t age well, especially the Trump kind that always gets a good laugh.
We can’t forget that checked executive power was the whole point of our new government, and religion had to be checked to ensure it. Liberty was now for everyone, not just royalty and aristocracy. Just to show off, that idea took only 100 to 150 years here to include black people and women. My, my. What light-speed liberalization. Consent of the governed is a liberal concept, by the way. Not being an impotent subject to government rule, or to any individual for that matter, is, you guessed it, liberal. Liberate. Liberation. Liberty. The root is the essence of being politically liberal, where it’s always okay to resist the chains of dogma. It’s the original rebellion. That’s right, the founders were a bunch of liberals for the time. It doesn’t mean they demanded each baby be transgender, and then ate them. They, along with today’s rational liberal folk, just wanted us all to live liberated. This is where I return to the hope that today’s misplaced solutions to perceived problems for American Christians is one that a little review of canonical text might resolve. Together with our walking sticks we can poke the crags along the trail so that a tempting cliff doesn’t sneak up on us – a little navigational alignment. That’s it.
Let’s get real, I know that even in the most White Evangelical Christian Conservative Republican circles there are outliers in all of this. I don’t mean to leave the Black Church out of it, either. Nor do I mean to unduly implicate them. Though almost entirely objectionable to MAGA, the Black Church no doubt has unique political frustrations within the congregation which inspire a desire to leverage Christianity on governmental affairs. We’re all human. So I hope there are readers who can experience this read vicariously.
There are good people in all corners that aim to live the ideals of Christianity, diligent in their stumble toward it. I can hear my apolitical Pentacostal grandfather sum it up as though he were here today. Like he did, these reclusive, unsuspecting beings exist among us. They understand and accept the distinct obligations of the American and Christian belief systems and guard against their convolution. For them, every new MAGA scrap tossed in the American Christian dumpster fire piles on more heartbreak. They see the heresy, the danger. These people are out there – the pious and patriotic. We just don’t hear enough from them or the Christian organizations that do publicly oppose Christian Nationalism. They exist, but average folk don’t hear from them or even know about them. The mountain they’re telling it from isn’t as tall.
Jesus said to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s. You can’t erase that. The Constitution says there can be no law respecting the establishment of religion. You can’t suspend that so there is. For those of you who may be convinced that the Lord has called us to political action, he hasn’t. He has instructed us not to, in fact. And to those of you who are convinced that it’s time to reclaim the country as a Constitutional Christian nation, it’s not. It’s just the opposite. It is exactly Christianity that the The First Amendment was inspired to keep out of the affairs of governing. Nature’s God, flanneled on elkback, shot down that delusion with his golden bow before the Constitution was ever written. He skinned it and now wears it as a headpiece for those birds. Yes, good people, all your heroes agree that the ingredients of a potential psychotic theocracy are to remain out of the kitchen. Be happy that no other religion can stake a claim.
The action the Church has been called to includes witnessing and doing deeds of kindness for the Kingdom, not MAGA. To wash some feet, say. The Constitution compels us to make space for others. All the space doesn’t inherently belong to Christians. And now to leave you with a parting thought, if American Christianity is determined to acquiesce to the rejection of the obligations of both America and Christianity in the Christian name, then some other name would be befitting.
Chris Dvořák 
Leave a comment