Hall Speaks Against Christian Nationalism
Posted Sep 18, 2024
For Constitution Day, we had a bonus lecture from Mark David Hall. This April, he published a book called Who’s Afraid of Christian Nationalism? Consequently, he also spoke on this topic to students and the community in an evening lecture.
Hall first became interested in Christian nationalism when he was asked to comment on the number of Christian Nationalism displays at the January 6, 2021 riot at the capitol. After looking through the pictures from January 6th, he told the reporter that he could only find one Christian symbol at the Capitol and another one at the Washington Monument 1.6 miles from the Capitol. He said that it seemed that most rioters were Trump supporters fed by the lie that Trump won instead of Christians. Since that did not fit the narrative that the journalist was looking for, she did not quote him. From this beginning, he began to read all the publications on Christian Nationalism to find out what it is and whether it is a threat to the church or the US.
He divided the work on Christian nationalism into polemical and academic research. He began by using Andrew Seidel’s American Crusade: How the Supreme Court is Weaponizing Freedom as an example of the polemical works. Seidel works for the Freedom From Religion Foundation which, as its name implies, wants to minimize the role of religion in the U.S. Hall believes that Seidel’s work is designed more to attach Christian involvement in politics than shed light on a real phenomenon. Seidel argues that there is a White Christian nationalist majority on the Supreme Court that is advancing that view in America. To make his point, Seidel mentions cases that deal with a cross built on private land in 1925 but is not on public land, a case involving a church’s ability to select religious leaders, a case that denied religious groups money for a playground because it is a religious group, a case dealing with a Christian baker refusing to design a cake for a same-sex wedding, a case dealing with a Christian group placing children in foster homes because it would not place children in same-sex households, and a case about whether religious groups can dismiss employees who are not “ministers.” Yet, in each case, Hall shows that these cases got 7 votes including the votes of Jewish Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan and occasionally Justices Sotomayer and Ginsburg. This suggests that the Jewish justices are not advancing white Chrisitan Nationalism but religious liberty. Moreover, it is somewhat challenging to argue that Justice Clarence Thomas, the only Black on the court, was advancing white Christian Nationalism with his votes. Seidel also ignores multiple cases that advanced religious liberty for Muslims which would undermine his argument.
Next, Hall moved to academic work on Christian Nationalism. He critiqued Andrew Whitehead and Samuel Perry’s Taking America Back for God. Whitehead and Perry used six survey questions to identify Christian Nationalists and claim that these supporters support racist, sexist, heteronomist, militarist, and other policies. The problem is that the responses to the questions may not mean what they think they mean. For example, one question asks respondents to agree or disagree with “The federal government should advocate Christian values.” Hall responded that people, like him, could read this as yes, we should advance Christian values such as peace, justice, and freedom. In fact, he said the Reverand Martin Luther King would strongly agree with this statement. He also objected to the question “The federal government should allow the display of religious symbols in public spaces.” Hall would agree with this because he believes that Holocaust memorials that have the star of David and Hebrew Scripture should be allowed. A better Christian would ask about the display of “only Christian symbols in public places.” By attaching meanings to responses that respondents may not mean, he questions whether the authors can prove what they claim. Moreover, he finds the argument problematic because 2/3 of Blacks would hold White Christian nationalist beliefs.
He then discusses those who claim to be Christian Nationalists. He uses Stephen Wolfe’s The Case for Christian Nationalism as an example. He suggests that individuals like Wolfe and Doug Wilson support an idiosyncratic vision of Reform Calvinism. Many of these individuals are post-millennials who believe that moving the US toward Christian values would usher in Christ’s return. Wolfe supports the idea from the 16th and 17th Century that a Christian prince should promote true Christianity which would require the punishment of heretics. Hall clearly disagreed with this idea as contrary to religious liberty. Wolfe argues that the US is a failed nation and that a subdivision of the US should break away and establish a Christian nation. The US of “nation” in Christian nation is something of a misnomer, however, because he means a county. This makes him more of a Christian localist than a nationalist. Hall also critiqued Wolfe’s use of ethnicity in his work when Wolfe, in a conversation with him, admitted he does not suggest a white “nation.”
At the end of his talk, he made several points. First, people should not take a ruined name like Christian Nationalism and make it positive. He gave the example of the fasces on the dime, at one time, because Mussolini ruined the idea of fascism. Instead, those who want to advance Christian ideas need to find a better name. Second, he suggested research that asks better questions of respondents would find about 20% of Americans as Christian Nationalists instead of 50% as Whitehead and Perry suggest. Finally, he suggested that people who are called Christian Nationalists should ask those who make this claim why this is the case and then explain how those beliefs do not apply to them. In short, Christians should model civil engagement in the public square.