(Image source: Selcuk Acar for Getty Images)

At an Iowa rally in late 2023, former president Donald Trump proclaimed, “As soon as I get back in the Oval Office, I’ll also immediately end the war on Christians. I don’t know if you feel it. You have a war. There’s a war. . . Christians and Americans of faith are being persecuted and government has been weaponized against religion like never before.” As Trump knows well, the language of war and persecution can spark a group’s desire for survival, defense, and retribution. It also encourages a search for a savior, someone who can protect the group’s interests.

Speaking to the Turning Point Action Believers’ Summit several months later in July 2024, Trump told those gathered, “Get out and vote just this time. You won’t have to do it anymore. Four more years it will be fixed. It’ll be fine. You won’t have to vote anymore, my beautiful Christians. You’ve got to get out and vote. In four years, you don’t have to vote again, we’ll have it fixed so good you’re not going to have to vote.” This apparent promise to end future elections was a classic example of Trump rhetoric—using language to motivate his intended audience but employing enough ambiguity to escape any claims that he, in this instance, made a direct promise to roll back voting access and cripple American democracy.

Since 2015 when Donald Trump burst onto the national political scene, commentators have highlighted numerous examples of authoritarianism in his speeches. And in each of these cases, Trump is appealing directly to American Christians, promising privilege and power, so long as they pledge their support to him as the only leader willing to fight for them. Trump routinely taps into the desire of many Americans to make the United States a properly “Christian” nation, one made for people like them.

Years of social scientific research demonstrate that a vital element of Christian nationalism is authoritarianism. Americans who consistently embrace Christian nationalism are primed to walk down authoritarian paths to ensure their rightful place atop the national hierarchy. We also know a strong connection exists between Christian nationalism and a comfort with violence and the weakening of democratic values. So, when Trump uses Christian nationalist rhetoric he is, in a sense, preaching directly to a choir ready and willing to make his rhetoric a reality.

What is Christian Nationalism?

Christian nationalism is a cultural framework aimed at fusing together a particularly conservative expression of Christianity with various aspects of America’s civic and social life. It holds that all levels of our government should preserve and defend this cultural framework as central to our national identity, that it should determine who can engage in various forms of civic participation, and that it should be pivotal to feelings of social belonging.

A key aspect of this definition of Christian nationalism is the phrase “a particularly conservative expression of Christianity.” It refers to the fact that the Christianity of Christian nationalism is a specific expression—overwhelmingly conservative both theologically and politically. So, it isn’t just referring to historic Christian beliefs like the divinity of Jesus or eternal salvation. Rather, it includes a collection of cultural elements alongside those widely shared Christian beliefs. I like to refer to these elements as “cultural baggage.” In survey after survey, research demonstrates the Christianity of Christian nationalism contains the following cultural elements.

Traditionalist Social Arrangements

Let’s begin with the first element of Christian nationalism—a desire for a society organized according to traditionalist social arrangements and hierarchies. A strong nation is one where men and women are complementary in their roles where men lead and women support, couples are ideally heterosexual, and families contain a mom and dad committed to procreation. American citizens and families that represent these ideals should have the easiest access to civil rights and liberties. Those who do not embrace these ideals are consequently viewed as something less than a “true American.” LGBTQ citizens may be denied the opportunity to adopt. Single, childless women who own cats get denigrated as what is wrong with the country, as J.D. Vance once claimed. For many Americans who embrace Christian nationalism, the United States has largely abandoned structuring itself according to these arrangements. These folks believe this is a dangerous predicament where the Christian God might soon punish our country for our sins.

Strong Ethno-racial Boundaries

The second element of Christian nationalism is strict ethno-racial boundaries. The narratives and symbols inherent to the cultural framework of Christian nationalism imagine the United States as created by white, Anglo-Protestant men, according to white, Anglo-Protestant values, for the benefit of modern day white, Anglo-Protestant natural-born citizens. It is this group who should remain central to the country’s cultural identity and political leadership, as ethnic diversity is not our national strength, but a hindrance. To maintain control, however, these lines have been moved multiple times throughout our nation’s history. For instance, up until the middle of the 20^th century, Catholics were racialized as non-white and un-American. Even into the 1960s, white Christian Protestant leaders, like Billy Graham, were opposed to John F. Kennedy’s candidacy for President since he was Catholic. But soon after, during the rise of the Moral Majority in the 1970s, conservative Catholics and Protestants found common political cause—so much so that conservative Catholics now occupy five of the nine seats on the United States Supreme Court.

Therefore, the “white” of white Christian nationalism refers not to skin color, but to how white Americans, as a group, tend to have greater access to power, privilege, wealth, and other benefits bestowed by various social institutions. So, non-white Americans can and do embrace white Christian nationalism in service of upholding the values, habits, beliefs, behaviors, and attitudes that perpetuate the status quo that tends to benefit white Americans. People who embrace Christian nationalism believe racial or ethnic groups talking about racial inequality are denigrating this country, where all have equal opportunity.

Populism and Conspiratorial Thinking

The third element of Christian nationalism is an embrace of populism and conspiratorial thinking. The populist impulse that this country was made for the common man and woman creates space for Americans to embrace feelings of victimization—that certain “elites” are trying to persecute them—which lends itself to adopting more conspiratorial thinking. For example, Americans embracing Christian nationalism are more likely to adhere to QAnon, believe the “Big Lie,” endorse false claims about scientific findings like vaccinations, and subscribe to various other conspiracy theories.

Authoritarian Social Control

The final cultural element is particularly important in our current context: a comfort with authoritarian social control. In the cultural framework of Christian nationalism, the United States has a special covenantal relationship with the Christian God, which is why our nation is so exceptional compared to other nations. Because the world is a chaotic place, the Christian God places demands on the United States. If we fail to meet those demands and live up to certain standards, our standing with God is in jeopardy. Robert Jeffress, the senior pastor of First Baptist Dallas, sums it up this way when describing the contents of his book America is a Christian Nation: “many concerning changes have taken place in our nation in recent years, including legalized same-sex marriages, altered views of gender, and a dramatic escalation of anti-Christian socialism. It is increasingly clear that America has strayed far from its biblical foundation. . . the United States was founded predominantly by Christians who wanted to build a Christian nation on the foundation of God’s will. Furthermore, these men believed that the future success of our country depended upon our fidelity to Christian beliefs.”

To ensure the United States will live up to these “Christian beliefs,” the country needs strong rules and strong rulers who, through the threat of violence (or actual violence), defend and enforce the desired social hierarchies and ethno-racial boundaries. For instance, when Robert Jeffress was asked to defend his support for Donald Trump in the 2016 election, he said, “I don’t want some meek and mild leader or somebody who’s going to turn the other cheek. I’ve said I want the meanest, toughest SOB I can find to protect this nation.” Another example is from self-proclaimed Christian nationalist and author Stephen Wolfe in his recent book, where he pines for more authoritarian measures to achieve a more “Christian” nation. He advocates for installing a “Christian prince” who would employ a “measured and theocratic Caesarism.” This leader would exert authority for ordering the nation and leading it to greatness.

How does a comfort with authoritarian social control translate to our everyday lives in the United States? There are two primary avenues, both supported by extensive empirical evidence: embracing political violence and opposing democratic values.

Authoritarian Social Control and Political Violence        

In my book American Idolatry, I show how violence serves as a fundamental attribute of Christian nationalism in relation to two other attributes: power and fear. Christian nationalism is focused on maintaining privileged access to political power, allowing any group to do what they want despite resistance. Holding privileged access to power raises the specter of someday losing such access. So, with power comes fear and a sense of threat that “they” are coming to take power. When facing that possibility, a group will increasingly embrace violence to defend their position.

There’s a particular logic at work here. Conservative political and religious leaders claim that politics in the United States is a battle between good and evil. Using various scriptures from the Christian Bible, such leaders implore American Christians to fight back against evil using any means necessary, even hinting toward violence. The current Speaker of the House of Representatives, Mike Johnson, illustrates this very connection. At a Christian women’s conference, he declared, “Obviously, this is an increasingly hostile culture. We all know that. We need to understand why that is, and we need to commit to do our part to confront it. The kingdom of God allows aggression.”

If God commands Christians to take this country back, can they avoid doing whatever it takes? Even if that includes rolling back democracy and embracing violence to install a God-ordained leader?

Those who embrace Christian nationalism are more likely to support various forms of violence, including state-sanctioned violence. In the 2022 book The Flag and the Cross, authors Philip Gorski and Samuel Perry show that Americans who embrace Christian nationalism are more likely to say authorities should use any means necessary to achieve law and order; for instance, they believe the biggest problem with the death penalty is that we do not use it enough. These same folks also embrace political violence if it serves to achieve their desired outcome.

(Image source: Patrick Semansky for Associated Press)

In a 2023 report from the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI), 40 percent of Christian nationalism adherents agreed that “Because things have gotten so far off track, true American patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save our country.” Over 50 percent of these same folks agreed “there is a storm coming soon that will sweep away the elites in power and restore the rightful leaders.”

Recent research from political scientists Miles Armaly, David Buckley, and Adam Enders shows the relationship of Christian nationalism to support for political violence is contingent on several factors. Not all Americans who embrace Christian nationalism are running around looking to engage in violence. Rather, their comfort with political violence is activated once they begin receiving cues from trusted political leaders that highlight their perceived victimhood, demand the defense of racial boundaries—like limiting immigration, opposing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, or battling “wokeness”—and ask them to fight back against “nefarious elites” intent on their destruction. Americans who embrace Christian nationalism are especially susceptible to receiving these cues because they tend to immerse themselves in echo chambers where conspiratorial thinking is much more prevalent. They have been repeatedly told, and have come to believe, that their right to worship will be limited, their Bibles will be taken away, and they will be an oppressed people once they are racially and religiously outnumbered. For some, their whole way of life and America’s special covenantal relationship with the Christian God hangs in the balance.

This fear helps make sense of violent outbursts like the January 6^th insurrection. The Americans who made their way to the Capitol received the necessary cues from leaders, inside echo chambers rife with conspiratorial thinking, which activated the latent potential of Christian nationalism and a comfort with violence to try to achieve their desired political outcomes. And as we will soon see, a desire to weaken democratic practices dovetails with this comfort with political violence.

Authoritarian Social Control and Weakening Democratic Values

Closely related to comfort with political violence is support for weakening democratic values to ensure political outcomes. In this sense, the undermining of democratic values is a subtle but much more nefarious threat than outright political violence to any pluralistic democratic system. Put another way, there is no need to enact political violence—like attacking the Capitol—if the outcomes to elections in the United States are all but ensured for one side. This is yet another part of the playbook for authoritarian leaders.

Christian nationalism, authoritarian social control, and undermining democratic norms have a long history in the United States. For instance, leaders of the influential Religious Right were focused on not only getting the “right” people to vote (like conservative, white, evangelical Christians) but limiting access to the vote so the “wrong” people cannot vote. Consider the words of Paul Weyrich, a leader in the Religious Right, speaking to a convention of pastors and political leaders in Dallas, Texas in 1980:

“Now many of our Christians have what I call the goo-goo syndrome — good government. They want everybody to vote. I don’t want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of people, they never have been from the beginning of our country and they are not now. As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.”

Paul Weyrich and those who embrace Christian nationalism today recognize that if the only people voting are folks like them, well, then “democracy” works just fine. But if everyone is allowed to vote, the chances they will achieve their desired outcomes likely declines. In numerous surveys of the American public, we see the desire to restrict access to the democratic process lives on in the attitudes of the American public who embrace Christian nationalism.

For example, in expert testimony my colleague Samuel Perry and I submitted to the January 6^th committee in the U.S. House of Representatives, we show how Americans who embrace Christian nationalism are more likely to agree with the statements, “We make it too easy to vote,” “I would support a law requiring Americans to pass a basic civics test to vote,” and “I would support a law revoking the voting rights for certain criminal offenders for life.” These same folks are also more likely to believe voting is a “privilege” rather than a right. This is an important distinction because privileges can be limited or revoked. Those who do not align with what it takes to be a “true” American are liable to be denied access to the democratic process.

As we move toward the 2024 election, we must recognize the cultural and political significance of Christian nationalism. It is predicated on the assumption that only some Americans may lay claim to the full rights of citizenship. It is fine with weakening democratic values and political violence to achieve desired ends, placing its supporters in fundamental opposition to a pluralistic democratic society. Political leaders with autocratic tendencies, like Donald Trump, who are willing to embrace Christian nationalism can find millions of Americans primed to accept authoritarianism if it delivers on a promise of political privilege and power, all in the service of taking America back for God.

Andrew Whitehead is Professor of Sociology at Indiana University Indianapolis. He is the author of two award-winning books on Christian nationalism, American Idolatry: How Christian Nationalism Betrays the Gospel and Threatens the Church and Taking America Back for God: Christian Nationalism in the United States, which was co-authored with Samuel Perry.