The Flag and the Cross: White Christian Nationalism and the Threat to American Democracy

by Philip S. Gorski

The convincing research presented in The Flag and the Cross has led me to the following assessment: white Christian nationalism is the greatest threat to the witness of the church in the United States today.

Scary thought about the threat of white Christian nationalism.

First, white Christian nationalism is not “Christian patriotism.” White Christian nationalism idealizes the power of white Christian Americans. It is rooted in white supremacist assumptions and empowered by anger and fear. This is nationalism, not patriotism. Patriotism, as the political philosopher Steven Smith explains, is first and foremost “loyalty . . . to one’s constitution or political regime.” Nationalism is loyalty to one’s tribe “but always at the expense of an outgroup, who are deemed un-American, traitors, and enemies of the people.”

Christian nationalism vs. Christian patriotism.

Patriotism is animated by love, nationalism by hatred. To confuse the one for the other is to pretend that hate is love and fear is courage.”17 Is

The hate/love dichotomy of nationalism abd patriotism.

The American Negro has the great advantage of having never believed the collection of myths to which white Americans cling: that their ancestors were all freedom-loving heroes, that they were born in the greatest country the world has ever seen, or that Americans are invincible in battle and wise in peace, that Americans have always dealt honorably with Mexicans and Indians and all other neighbors or inferiors.10 Baldwin explained that the white Americans who held these myths were “the slightly mad victims of their own brainwashing.” Fifty years on, Baldwin’s words still ring truer than many white Americans want to believe.

James Baldwin on white vs. black views about American mythology.

It’s not that Christian nationalists have a different understanding of American history; it’s that they often have an incorrect understanding.

Christian nationalists with their incorrect views not just different.

Similarly, in his 2020 book United States of Socialism, conservative provocateur Dinesh D’Souza explains that socialists “would still seek to demonize white males and push Christian symbols out of the public square.” D’Souza himself is not white and has no personal experience being targeted as a white Christian man. But it’s no coincidence that he references white men and Christians together. In his mind, and likely that of his readers, the socialist assault on one might as well be an assault on the other. And he exhorts his readers in conclusion, “[W]e need a new generation of leaders who can assimilate the things that Trump does so effectively, fearlessly and gleefully. Trump has made it fun to beat the hell out of leftists and socialists, and even when Trump is gone, we must continue to enjoy the Trumpian experience of being a butt-kicking Republican, Christian, right-wing American capitalist.”18

Dinesh D'Souza...Trumps glees about "butt kicking Christians."

Instead, the strongest connection was between white Christian nationalism and antipathy toward socialists. It is that group, not atheists or Muslims, that white Christian nationalism finds the most threatening.

Socialism feared more by "white Christian nationalism than Muslims, atheists and others.

White Christian nationalism is our term for the ethno-traditionalism among many white Americans that conflates racial, religious, and national identity (the deep story) and pines for cultural and political power that demographic and cultural shifts have increasingly threatened (the vision).

White Christian nationalism...ethno-traditionalism.

The ethno-traditionalism of white Christian nationalism then fosters white populism.

Between these two dates falls another crucial milestone—not a founding, exactly, but an inflection point. For it was around 1690 that racism, apocalypticism, and nationalism first fused into a deep story. It’s important to emphasize that things could have turned out differently had some of the colonists acted differently. You could say that in 1690 we lost an alternative vision for life in the New World: one in which the natives and the colonists would live in concord or even in community; one in which the line between white and Black did not yet fully and irrevocably correspond to that between freedom and bondage; and one in which there was room, not only for non-Protestants but also for non-Christians. The death of that vision went hand in hand with the birth of a new vision: a social order dominated by white Protestant men and defined in opposition to “red savagery,” Black bondage, and Roman popery. Within that order, race, religion, and nationalism were to be aligned—by force, if necessary. That is the spirit of 1690: the spirit of white Christian nationalism.

1690…an important inflection point.

In the Spirit of 1690, whiteness connotes “freedom” and “order,” but also “violence”: freedom in opposition to Black bondage; order against native “savagery,” and violence as the means of ensuring both.

Four times the dream of racial equality was sacrificed on the altar of (white) national unity.

Racial equaity vs white unity!

In what follows, we focus on a different series of crucial moments, roughly speaking: 1689, 1763, 1889, and 1989. It was around 1690, following King Philipp’s War, that the deep story first crystallized in the form of white Protestant chosen-ness. By the close of the French and Indian Wars in 1763, it had taken the form of Anglo Protestantism. By the end of the Spanish-American War in 1898, it had become WASP Imperialism. A century later, at the close of the Cold War, it had evolved into White Judaeo-Christian Americanism. How this evolution occurred and what these labels mean is the subject to which we now turn.

Historical periods in the development of our deep story.

On what grounds could Christians enslave other Christians—Christians, moreover, who were not captives of war? The old theological justifications provided no clear answer. New justifications had to be invented. What was needed, in a phrase, was a racist theology.

The beginning of racist theology; it was an easy way to justfify Christian slavery of other Christians.

By 1700, proslavery theologians had woven these and other stories together into what historian David Whitford calls the “Curse Matrix.” It had three elements: (1) “black skin is the result of God’s curse”; (2) so is Africans’ supposed “hypersexuality and libidinousness”; and (3) slavery was actually a boon to Africans because it exposed them to Christianity

The three aspects of racist theology.

In colonial Virginia though, the Curse of Ham won out over the Image of God. As so often happens, the theology followed the money.

was the heat of war that really fused religion, race, and nation together into white Christian nationalism.

Origin of "white, Christian nationalism.

The figure of the scout, in other words, was the first heroic embodiment of the individualistic ethos that is at the heart of white Christian nationalism and its holy trinity of freedom, order, and violence.

The holy trinity of white Christian nationalism is written right into the national anthem of the United States.

If the 1690s were a formative decade for white Christian nationalism—and its holy trinity of freedom, order, and violence—then the 1890s were a transformative one. There were two catalysts for this transformation: the closing of the American frontier and the beginning of the American Empire. The result of the transformation was threefold: changed understandings of whiteness, divine providence, and national identity. The spirit of 1690 was reborn as WASP Imperialism.

Second transformation similar to 1690 but 200 years later with Spanish American War...America's bsginning of ijmperialist period.

That white men used violence to “protect” their freedom (and to seize others’ property) was nothing new.

Violence os our country...

Then, as before, racial conflict and white Christian nationalism evolved in tandem with violent white men starring as the hero-protagonists who enforced the racial order.31

Violent Christian nationalism enforcing racial order.

Once again, we see how white Christian nationalism is entangled with the holy trinity of racial order, Christian freedom, and male violence.

Christian nationalism entangled with the trinity of racial order, male violence and Christian freedom.

Race was the wedge that split off white evangelicals from the Democratic Party. “Family values” was just the political cement Republican strategists used to bind white evangelicals to their old arch-enemies: conservative Catholics.

Racism, i.e. Brown v. Board of Education, was real catalyst for te rise of the "conservative right, not Roe v. Wade.

The Other Spirit of 1989: (White) Christian Libertarianism In One Nation Under God: How Corporate America Invented Christian America, Princeton historian Kevin Kruse recounts the career of the California minister Kevin Fifield and his pro-business organization, Spiritual Mobilization.49 Fifield hobnobbed with rich businessmen. He also lived like one, sporting tailored suits and driving fast cars. In many ways, he was the prototype of the prosperity gospel preacher of our own era—minus the designer sneakers. At the same time, Fifield happily supported President Eisenhower’s efforts to conjure up a Christian—and capitalist—America to fight the “Godless communism” of the Soviet Union. And he did so with the support of conservative Christian businessmen like J. Howard Pew. Conservative white businessmen and theologians were not the only ones in the kitchen cooking up Christian libertarianism. Southern white racists also had a finger in the pot. For example, Strom Thurmond, the long-serving Senator from South Carolina, began his career as a progressive Democrat and ended it as a conservative Republican.50 The civil rights movement was the key inflection point. For Thurmond, choosing between white supremacism and economic equality was not difficult. He intuited—correctly—that many other whites felt the same way, and not just in the South. Thurmond’s “Southern Strategy” was not just a strategy for bringing the Old Confederacy into the Republican fold, however. It was also a means...

Beginnings of melding of free market ideology and white Christian nationalism proceeding Reagan era manifestation with dog whistles.

Insofar as there was a “systematic theology” that integrated Christian libertarianism and Christian nationalism, it was the work of the “Christian Reconstructionists” or “theonomists,” a small but influential movement centered around Rousas John Rushdoony, an ultraconservative Presbyterian pastor who settled in Orange County.53 He argued that the American government and society had to be “reconstructed” according to “Biblical law.”

The theology of Christian libertarianism...a mens to push back at desegregation.

This was not as difficult as it may sound, at least within the particular tradition of Dutch Calvinism to which North and his father-in-law both adhered.

Basis of this new libertarian theology was Dutch Calvinism.

If North’s is the egghead’s version of Christian libertarianism, then Ramsey’s is the mass-market one.

Conclusion: Back to the Bull Horn? In some ways, white Christian nationalism has changed a great deal over the last three-plus centuries. The boundaries of whiteness expanded to include not just Englishmen but anyone of European descent. The meaning of “Christian” was loosened to include Catholics and Mormons and even hyphenated to include (some “good”) Jews. Hubristic talk of American “chosen-ness” was toned down to the seemingly more modest claim of “American exceptionalism.” Gory talk of “blood sacrifice” was watered down into the euphemistic rhetoric of “ultimate sacrifice.” The racial and religious undertones were still there, of course, for those with the ears to hear them. But it was no longer acceptable to just say them out loud. White Christian nationalism seemed kinder and gentler. Though not of course to those on the receiving end. Its individualist strand underwent a similar evolution during this period. The market replaced the frontier as the arena of “freedom.”58 The maintenance of order at home and abroad was transferred from lynch mobs and posses to the police and the uniformed military. Christian morality was shrunk down to fit into the box of “personal accountability.” Scouts, slave drivers, and cowboys were out; soldiers, entrepreneurs, and sports heroes were in. This despite, or rather because of, growing economic inequality, mass incarceration of Black men, and the growth of the Religious Right. By the early aughts, American politics seemed to have set...

Overall conclusion about white Christian nationalism.

Making America “great again” seemed to mean making it both whiter and more Christian.

Trump's make America great again...whiter and Christian.

This chapter will show how these three messages, the men who conveyed them, and the events they describe, are connected to one another. We are not the only ones to note the link. Political scientists Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson have also emphasized the connection between economic libertarianism, ethno-nationalism, and violent racial animus.1 But

The Tea Party, the MAGA movement, and the Capitol insurrection all sprouted from this same soil. These three movements are, in fact, just three chapters in one story—the ongoing story of white Christian nationalism in America.

Connections

Christian libertarianism joined free markets, racial purity, and authoritarian religion into a unified “Biblical worldview.”4 That worldview is very much alive if not altogether well.

Christian libertarianism...three pillars

In other words, the myth of a Christian nation was far more important to them than Christianity itself. “Christian” instead functions as a cultural identity marker, one that separates “us” from “them.” As one would expect, the libertarian-minded Tea Partiers supported free markets and opposed government programs. But so do their more devout evangelical allies. The movement was composed of (culturally) Christian libertarians and (economically) libertarian Christians.10 Their only real points of disagreement were “social” issues, like sexual morality.

So why does Trump’s ethos still resonate with so many white Christians? Because there are many deep continuities between Trumpism and white Christian nationalism’s core ideals of freedom, order, and violence. Or, in story form: (white) men exercising (righteous) violence to defend (their) freedom and impose (racial and gender) order. Viewed through this lens, it becomes easier to understand Trump’s hold over many white Christian men. He is a cruder version of their masculine ideal.

But some Christian conservatives now bend the language of “free speech,” or “religious freedom,” or “religious liberty” into a cudgel that can be used to deny minority grievances—and privilege their own.

Use of "religious freedom" as a cudgel denying other's rights.

White Christian nationalism designates who is “worthy” of the freedom it cherishes, namely, “people like us.” But for the “others” outside that group, white Christian nationalism grants whites in authority the “freedom” to control such populations, to maintain a certain kind of social order that privileges “good people like us” through violence if necessary.

White Christian violence is also the most fundamental expression of freedom; the violence of minorities or perceived socialists, on the other hand, is the deepest threat to freedom.

White Christian violence vs. violence against blacks...first is justified, second not!.

This question rests on two misconceptions. The first is that contemporary white Christian nationalism is “conservative.” It is not. It is “reactionary.” It does not seek to preserve the status quo. Rather, it seeks to destroy the status quo and return to a mythical past: to “make America great again.” The second misconception is that reactionary movements are themselves unchanging. They are not. As political theorist Corey Robin argues, such movements are only averse to one kind of change: change that threatens their power.

White Christian nationalism not conservative but instead is reactionary...and the only change they are against is that which affects their power.

So, we should not be too surprised if white Christian nationalism has changed over time in order to defend and restore racial, rel, and political hierarchies. As we have seen, it has taken many different forms since it first emerged over three centuries ago. For the first few centuries, “white” meant English, then native-born whites; “Christian” meant Protestant. And “others” included anyone falling outside those overlapping categories. Following World War II, it evolved into “colorblind,” “Judeo-Christian,” “American exceptionalism.” Whiteness became defined mainly in opposition to Blackness; Christianity was widened to include Catholics and Mormons and hyphenated to include (some) Jews, or at least so as not to seem anti-Semitic. And America became defined as a “global superpower” destined to oversee the “international order,” which is to say, its own empire.

Trump’s campaign manager and his closest presidential advisers—Steve Bannon and Steven Miller—both embraced the “great replacement” conspiracy theory, the belief that left-wing elites were intentionally promoting non-white and non-Christian immigration with the goal of replacing white Christian voters and consolidating their power.

Trump's closest campaign advisors espoused the same "replacement theory" as Buffalo mass-murderer.

calling oneself a “Christian” or even an “evangelical” is sometimes just a way of claiming membership in an ideological or political tribe or defending a certain “way of life.” Rogers Brubaker has called this “civilizationist” religion.

...civilizationist religion.

Clearly, religious terms like “Christian” and “evangelical” are becoming markers of social identity and political views rather than just religious conviction.

“globalists” (a term with long-standing, anti-Semitic undertones).

Partisan trends are mirrored by religious and social conservatives who have happily joined into the new isolationist chorus. Thought leaders in these camps have even invented a theological rationale for the new nationalism that sounds eerily similar to the racial separatism arguments of decades past. God divided humanity into nations, they patiently explain. As theologians and pastors from Wayne Grudem to Robert Jeffress have repeatedly said, Jerusalem had walls, Heaven will have walls, border walls are God’s idea. What’s more, God enjoins Christians to obey—and enforce—the laws. That includes immigration laws. Especially immigration laws, in fact. In other words: God wants you to stay in the nation where he put you.

...religion now using fhe same arguments for 'nationalists' as was used for slavery, God meant for the segragation of people and sacrosanct borders.

By “democracy,” we mean what political philosophers call “liberal democracy.” Democracy simply means rule by “the people.” Liberal democracy has a number of additional features. These include universal suffrage, human rights, and equality under the law, among others.15

"democracy" vs. 'liberal desmocracy."

The first and most fundamental way in which white Christian nationalism threatens American liberal democracy is that it defines “the people” in a way that excludes many Americans. White Christian nationalism is a form of what is often called “ethno-nationalism.”16 It defines national belonging in terms of race, religion, and native birth. Liberal democracy rests on what is usually called “civic nationalism.” It defines the nation in terms of values, laws, and institutions.

Fine differences between democracy vs. liberal democracy..."ethno-nationalism in te first wahere the people don't include all, while "civic nationalism" is inclusive!

Or perhaps China had smuggled in fake ballots. Following up on this theory, one pro-Trump group even examined ballots cast in Arizona for traces of bamboo.

Of course, voter suppression is as American as apple pie.18 The Jim Crow system was premised on it. So was Republican electoral strategy. As we mentioned, Republican strategist Paul Weyrich said, “I don’t want everybody to vote,” long before Donald Trump was on the scene. Four decades later, in April of 2021, a spokesperson for Heritage Action, a conservative lobbying group that Weyrich founded, boasted about her organization’s role in drafting voter suppression laws for Republican-controlled legislatures.19

Long history of voter suppresion.

Not since the Jim Crow era has voter suppression been undertaken so openly.