How do major Christian denominations formally define and respond to Christian nationalism?
Executive summary
Major Christian denominations define “Christian nationalism” as an ideology that fuses Christian identity with national identity and seeks privileged status for Christianity in the state, and many mainline bodies have moved from study to formal opposition—issuing resolutions, educational initiatives, and public statements warning that the fusion distorts faith and threatens democracy [1] [2] [3]. Responses vary sharply across the landscape: some denominations explicitly condemn Christian nationalism and mobilize resources to counter it, while others treat the term more cautiously or differentiate between benign civic faith and militant or exclusionary forms [4] [5].
1. How denominations define the term: theological and civic lines
Mainline Protestant bodies and ecumenical groups typically define Christian nationalism as an ideology that “demands Christianity be privileged by the State” and conflates Christian and national identity—a definition that emphasizes political privilege, exclusion of religious minorities, and theological distortion—language reflected in statements from interdenominational campaigns and denominational commentaries [1] [3] [2]. Scholarly and civic summaries expand the idea into a spectrum—from historic civic forms that fused religious language with national identity to modern nostalgic, identitarian, and sometimes militant variants—underscoring that meaning varies by context [6] [7].
2. Formal condemnations and organized opposition
Several organized responses are explicit: the Christians Against Christian Nationalism campaign, backed by Baptist and other groups, frames the ideology as incompatible with Christian teaching and American pluralism and urges public repudiation and civic engagement across faith lines [1] [3]. The United Methodist Church has published explanatory material rejecting the conflation of national and spiritual priorities and urging formation that resists idolatry of the nation [2]. These institutional definitions often pair moral critique with practical recommendations for congregational education.
3. Resolutions, studies and denominational politics
Denominational governance bodies are increasingly treating Christian nationalism as a formal agenda item: the Episcopal Church and Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) have considered or proposed measures to study and address the phenomenon, and regional United Methodist conferences have passed resolutions that go beyond national statements—showing that official responses range from study commissions to binding policy proposals [4] [8]. Those procedural steps reflect internal debates about tone and scope: some leaders press for explicit condemnation and pastoral resources, while others prefer study and discernment before policy.
4. Evangelical and conservative denominational stances: nuance and pushback
Not all Christian institutions align with the explicit condemnations of mainline bodies; influential evangelical and conservative outlets urge caution, distinguishing between a civic religiosity that supports moral public witness and the extremist fringes that deserve critique, and some thinkers argue the phrase is overused or weaponized in political fights [5] [3]. This contested framing creates space for disagreements over whether certain political positions constitute Christian nationalism or legitimate religious civic engagement.
5. Why institutions act: democracy, public witness and institutional risk
Denominational action is driven by a combination of theological concern and institutional self-preservation: leaders warn that Christian nationalism risks “moral cover” for political violence and the erosion of religious freedom, and they link the movement to real-world harms such as intimidation and attacks on houses of worship—claims emphasized by advocacy groups and religious liberty organizations [2] [1] [9]. At the same time, survey data showing substantial public support for the idea of the U.S. as a Christian nation among certain groups helps explain why denominations feel urgency to clarify doctrine and pastoral practice [10] [11].
6. Open questions, internal divides and limits of reporting
Reporting and institutional statements reveal clear trends but also limits: sources show growing denominational engagement (resolutions, studies, campaigns) and differing emphases across traditions, yet available materials do not uniformly catalog every major denomination’s formal definition or every conservative rebuttal—meaning some institutional positions may be underreported in these sources [4] [8]. Further research into Catholic bishops’ conferences, Orthodox jurisdictions, and the array of independent evangelical networks would be necessary to map the full spectrum of formal definitions and responses.