How do conservative organizations define and respond to Christian nationalism?
Executive summary
Conservative organizations most often frame Christian nationalism as a set of pro‑religion, pro‑family, and pro‑traditional‑values policy aims—sometimes expressed as “biblical principles” for government—and many back Project 2025, a Heritage Foundation‑led blueprint that critics say would concentrate presidential power and reshape institutions to reflect conservative Christian views [1] [2]. Opponents inside faith communities and civil‑liberties groups argue Project 2025 and allied campaigns amount to Christian nationalist regime change that threatens pluralism and the separation of church and state [3] [4].
1. How conservative groups define Christian nationalism: “Biblical principles” as policy
Conservative organizations and authors tied to Project 2025 describe their project in explicitly religious terms—seeking to embed “biblical principles” in policymaking and to restore a traditional definition of family and marriage as a social foundation—language that proponents present as defending religious liberty and social order [1] [2]. Heritage Foundation materials and allied advisers recommend policy shifts across departments (Education, HHS, DOJ) to align federal action with those values, framing the moves as governance reforms rather than an attack on pluralism [2].
2. What Project 2025 reveals about conservative strategy
Project 2025 is the clearest articulation of how a coalition of conservative groups propose to operationalize Christian‑inflected policy: hundreds of recommendations, personnel plans and executive‑order templates intended to be deployed early in an administration, including measures that critics say would dismantle administrative safeguards and concentrate power in the presidency [1] [2]. Supporters cast this as a comprehensive presidential transition plan; critics inside and outside faith communities call it a blueprint for remaking government to reflect conservative Christian priorities [1] [4].
3. Critics’ account: theocratic or authoritarian danger
Religious‑liberty and democracy advocates argue Project 2025’s recommendations would erode the separation of church and state and impose a single religious worldview on a diverse nation, with proposals to “maintain a biblically based…definition of marriage and family” and to remake agencies seen as hostile to those views [2] [4]. Organizations such as the Kettering Foundation and Interfaith Alliance characterize the plan as aiming to make civil‑society institutions “hard targets” and warn of widespread institutional change that could suppress dissenting views [3] [4].
4. Internal conservative and faith pushback: contested terrain
Not all religious leaders or conservative faith groups endorse the Christian‑nationalist label or Project 2025. Reporting shows an active intra‑faith debate: coalitions of Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians and conservative evangelicals are organizing against Christian nationalism as a theological and political danger, arguing that it corrupts Christianity and democracy [5]. That resistance demonstrates that the movement’s aims are contested within religious conservatism itself, not unanimously accepted across all conservative faith communities [5].
5. Tactics: mobilization, personnel, and legal architecture
Available reporting maps three practical levers conservatives pursue: staffing (placing sympathetic officials across agencies), legal and regulatory rollback (repealing orders, reinstating personnel systems), and policy reframing (religious‑freedom claims to justify changes in civil‑rights and family law). Critics interpret those levers as deliberate moves to entrench a Christian nationalist governing logic; supporters present them as correcting what they call bureaucratic overreach and protecting conscience rights [1] [2] [4].
6. Implications for democracy and religious pluralism
Scholars and civic groups in the reporting link Christian nationalist goals to broader global patterns where leaders use majoritarian religious identity to centralize power—citing cases like Hungary, Brazil and elsewhere—suggesting the U.S. stakes are both institutional and cultural: who sets public definitions of family, citizenship and the proper bounds of religious liberty [3] [6]. Opponents warn these changes would shrink space for religious minorities and dissenting views; proponents argue they restore a rightful public role for Christianity [3] [2].
7. Limitations of current reporting and unanswered questions
Available sources document Project 2025’s recommendations and show vigorous opposition from faith leaders and civil‑liberties groups, but they do not provide comprehensive evidence on how widely conservative organizations outside the Heritage‑led coalition uniformly define Christian nationalism or how many will implement every proposal [1] [7]. Long‑term political effects—which proposals would survive legal challenges or public resistance—are not settled in the cited reporting [2] [4].
Conclusion
Conservative organizations frame Christian nationalism as a policy agenda rooted in “biblical principles” and institutional reform; Project 2025 is the most concrete expression of that approach and reveals a strategy centered on personnel, legal architecture and cultural framing. That strategy is fiercely contested: a coalition of religious leaders and civil‑society groups portray it as a blueprint for theocratic or authoritarian change, while proponents cast it as defense of religious liberty and traditional social order [1] [5] [4].