What is the academic definition of Christian nationalism?

1. Why scholars say Christian nationalism matters to politics and democracy

Academic work foregrounds Christian nationalism as a political project that does more than express private faith: it claims public primacy for a specific Christian identity and seeks state enforcement of that identity. Researchers like Whitehead and Perry characterize it as a demand that the government defend a Christian-derived national identity and policy agenda, linking the ideology to support for authoritarian social control, rigid social hierarchies, and exclusionary boundaries around race and sexuality ^{[1] [3]}. Empirical studies connect Christian nationalist attitudes to partisan behavior, support for particular leaders, and skepticism toward pluralistic democratic norms; case studies and surveys show correlations with anti-immigrant sentiment and opposition to LGBTQ+ rights. These findings make Christian nationalism a significant variable for understanding contemporary political mobilization, voting patterns, and threats to inclusive civic institutions, while also prompting debates about causality and measurement.

2. How academics define it—core elements and competing lists

Definitions converge on a few core elements: fusion of religion and nation, preference for policies reflecting a specific Christian identity, and advocacy for state endorsement or privileges for that identity. Some scholars offer a five-element typology—traditional hierarchy, ethno-racial boundary maintenance, neoliberal economic preferences, authoritarian social control, and populist victim narratives—while others emphasize theological capture by nationalist myths or “political idolatry” as central ^{[1] [4]}. Cross-national research treats the phenomenon as variable: in countries with established state churches, the project may look like preserving a Christian status, whereas in pluralist democracies it can appear as a grassroots movement seeking influence. These conceptual maps highlight both a political program and a cultural-identity project, but they also reveal that scholars disagree about whether to prioritize ideological content, sociological base, or institutional aims in any single definition ^[3].

3. Measurement controversies: why some scholars warn against overreach

Methodological critiques stress that popular survey scales and operational definitions can be ambiguous, conflating religious conservatism, civic religion, and nationalist sentiment. A prominent critique argues that existing measures mix affective attachment to Christianity, nostalgia for a cultural past, and explicit policy preferences without clearly distinguishing them, producing findings that are difficult to interpret and easy to overgeneralize ^[2]. This literature calls for latent-class methods, refined survey items, and attention to cultural versus institutional dimensions, arguing that some claims about the size and political power of Christian nationalism rest on contested measurement choices. The debate matters because policy implications and civic responses differ if Christian nationalism is a discrete, concentrated movement versus a diffusely distributed set of attitudes overlapping with other conservative beliefs ^[2].

4. Evidence on social composition and overlap with other ideologies

Empirical studies report disproportionate representation of certain demographic groups—especially among white evangelical Protestants in US studies—and frequent overlaps with racialized identity politics and right-wing populism. Several analyses link Christian nationalist attitudes to white supremacist currents or to “white Christian nationalism” designations where the religious claim is explicitly racialized ^{[3] [5]}. Internationally, surveys show variation: measures of “religious nationalism” produce higher self-identification in some countries than others, underscoring local histories and institutional contexts ^[3]. Scholarly caution remains: while correlations with anti-pluralist and exclusionary politics are robust in many datasets, academics emphasize careful unpacking of which components—religious symbolism, policy positions, or identity narratives—drive political behavior in different settings ^[6].

5. Where the literature moves next: conceptual clarity and practical consequences

Current research trajectories call for more precise conceptualization, comparative frameworks, and methodological innovation to distinguish Christian nationalism from related phenomena like civic republicanism, religious conservatism, and cultural Christianity. Recent work proposes taxonomy-based analyses and political-theological scrutiny to map the full spectrum from benign civic religion to coercive theocratic projects ^{[7] [8]}. Scholars also prioritize studying how Christian nationalist rhetoric functions in institutions—media, churches, political organizations—and how it intersects with legal claims, policy initiatives, and civic resistance. The literature’s next phase aims to translate conceptual advances into clearer public-facing definitions so policymakers, religious leaders, and civil society can target specific harms without mislabeling broad religious practice ^{[2] [6]}.