What is the academic definition of Christian nationalism in political science?

1. How scholars cut through the jargon: a working definition with measurable elements

Political scientists define Christian nationalism as an ideology arguing that a nation’s laws, symbols, and institutions should reflect and promote a particular Christian identity; the core claim is fusion of church and state rather than merely personal religiosity. That working definition appears across descriptive overviews and peer-reviewed measures: encyclopedic treatments emphasize legal fusion and state promotion of Christianity, naming policy goals such as prayer in public schools, public religious symbols, and government support for Christian institutions ^[1]. Empirical studies operationalize the concept with survey batteries linking agreement with statements that bind American identity to Christianity; these batteries create categories like Adherents, Sympathizers, Skeptics, and Rejecters to allow comparative analysis of prevalence and correlates ^[2]. Scholars stress that the concept varies by country and historical context, so the definitional core centers on institutional fusion and national identity, not simply high church attendance ^{[1] [3]}.

2. Competing framings: political-science neutral definition versus theological critique

Academic political science frames Christian nationalism as an ideology with civic and policy implications—a descriptive, comparative tool to study state-religion relations and political behavior—while theological and pastoral critiques portray it as a moral distortion or idolatry that subordinates religious conscience to state power. Encyclopedic and political studies treat it as antidemocratic and exclusionary in practice when enacted by state institutions ^[1]. By contrast, theological accounts define it in moral-theological terms—calling it political idolatry that weaponizes faith for xenophobic and militaristic ends—and they often aim to mobilize faith communities against it ^[4]. Both frames converge on concern about social marginalization of non-Christians and pluralistic norms, but they diverge on method and audience: political scientists seek measurement and causal analysis, while theologians issue normative repudiations and pastoral strategies ^{[5] [4]}.

3. What recent empirical work actually finds about who holds these views

Recent survey-based research quantifies Christian nationalist sentiment and links it to political behavior: PRRI’s multi-state analysis uses a five-question battery to show that roughly three in ten Americans are Adherents or Sympathizers, with concentrations among white evangelical Protestants and frequent attenders, and strong correlations with support for specific political figures and parties ^[2]. Other scholarly analyses using the Baylor and similar datasets identify demographic patterns—predominantly white, conservative, and evangelical—and theological dispositions like belief in prophetic authority and prosperity teachings among the strongest adherents ^[5]. These findings support political-science characterizations that Christian nationalism predicts policy positions and voting patterns, especially alignment with conservative Republican politics; scholars caution, however, that Christian nationalist sentiment is heterogeneous and not limited to a single denomination or social class ^{[2] [5]}.

4. Historical and cross-national perspective that complicates a U.S.-centric picture

Historical and comparative accounts show Christian nationalism is not uniquely American and has long precedents where state identity was explicitly tied to a dominant church—examples include Ireland’s constitutional recognition of Catholicism and Korea’s national identity shaped by Christian movements—demonstrating that state-religion fusion appears in diverse legal and historical forms ^[1]. Comparative descriptions note that Christian nationalism adapts to local institutions and partisan landscapes: in Europe it can align with conservative or far-right parties; in Latin America it can form coalitions across Catholic and evangelical actors; in post-Soviet states it intermingles with Orthodox clerical power ^[3]. Thus, a strict U.S. label misses broader patterns: scholars emphasize variable content and consequences across regimes and legal frameworks while maintaining the definitional core of religious-national fusion ^{[1] [3]}.

5. Points of disagreement and potential research biases to watch

Scholars disagree about causal claims and normative weight: some research emphasizes the measurable political effects of Christian nationalism on voting and policy; other accounts—especially theological critiques—assert a direct moral link to xenophobia, white supremacy, and authoritarianism ^{[6] [4]}. There is also debate about measurement validity: survey batteries capture attitudes tying Christianity to national identity, but critics argue they may conflate cultural pride with exclusionary policy preferences. Researchers warn of sampling and framing biases—overrepresentation of certain denominations or political cohorts can skew prevalence estimates—so interpretative caution is necessary when moving from survey association to claims about causation or uniform ideology ^{[2] [5]}.

6. Bottom line for students and policymakers: what this definition lets you do

Using the political-science definition—an ideology advocating formal or cultural fusion of Christianity with national identity and policy—enables precise measurement, cross-national comparison, and causal hypothesis testing about policy outcomes and partisan alignment ^{[1] [2]}. It also clarifies normative stakes: when fusion influences law and public institutions, it raises pluralism and equality concerns. Policymakers and scholars should use the definitional clarity to distinguish between personal faith and political movements seeking institutional power, track demographic and attitudinal trends over time, and design interventions that protect constitutional pluralism while respecting religious liberty ^{[1] [2]}.