In defence of Christian nationalism

Michael Reade | Comment

Date posted: 13 Feb 2026

Photo by Michael Starkie on Unsplash

Political theology at its best can be an edifying pursuit as we learn together how to engage faithfully in our post-Christendom nation. However, the subject of "Christian nationalism" has become a flashpoint, where rigorously irenic disagreement seems to have been sacrificed for a series of alarmist diatribes.

Whilst legitimate critiques can be made of any number of the sprawling ideologies labelled "Christian nationalism," it does not serve anyone well to overreact. Indeed, those who ricochet against Christian nationalism are in danger of not only forcing today’s church into passionless political passivity, but also anathematising the vast majority of Christians throughout history who faithfully pursued Christian influence at a national level.

As someone who is sympathetic to several of the political aims of Christian nationalism, I would like to offer what I hope will be an illuminating contribution to the ongoing debate by responding to some recent critiques.

Reformed political theology

Recent en articles from Ryan Burton King ("Should we ban public displays of non-Christian faiths?") and Dave Williams ("'Christian nationalism’: An analysis") appeal favourably to the Baptist political tradition, which holds that "it is beyond the proper bounds of governments to intrude in matters of religion." However, it is worth acknowledging that, in the context of early modern Protestantism, this is a fairly fringe minority report.

As Williams concedes, the theological bases of Christian nationalism were "accepted by the Reformers including Luther, Calvin and Zwingli." (One wonders whether he would as comfortably call these "heretical" as he does modern Christian nationalists.)

Overwhelmingly, the Protestant tradition was consistent in affirming that the state should function not as a neutral umpire but as a minister of God (Romans 13v4), explicitly subject to the kingship of Christ.

J.I. Packer commends this as one of the areas where modern evangelicals are excelled by our Reformed forebears. He writes: "Christians in the West are found to be on the whole passionless, passive … they leave public affairs to go their own way and neither expect nor … seek influence beyond their own Christian circle. [But] the Puritans prayed and laboured for a holy England and New England, sensing that where privilege is neglected and unfaithfulness reigns national judgement threatens." ^[1]

The great Puritan John Owen proclaimed that the nations of the earth "must be consecrated to the Lord, ... advance his ways ... [and] act as kingdoms and governments no longer against him, but for him." ^[2] You do not have to search far to find that this approach is extremely well represented throughout the history of the church, especially in classical Protestantism.

A good summary of the Reformed argument for Christian governance is offered by James Baird in the form of a syllogism:
First Premise: Government must promote the public good.
Second Premise: As the only true religion, Christianity is part of the public good.
Conclusion: Government must promote Christianity as the only true religion. ^[3]

Notice that this approach does not rely on England or America being the kingdom of God, or even on political action building the kingdom of God or fulfilling the great commission. It does not deny the spirituality of the church or the distinction between Christ’s common and spiritual kingdoms. It simply argues that a just government, according to the proper function of government revealed in Scripture and nature (that is, to promote the public good), must promote Christianity as the true religion.

Some objections

Several have objected to Christian nationalism, arguing that Christian theology demands political liberalism, that is to say a principled pluralism and public neutrality. I will seek to address three common objections.

The church, not the state, is the kingdom of God.

King writes: "Christ’s Kingdom is spiritual in nature, and the church (not the United Kingdom) is the holy nation recipient of Christ’s promises and covenant."

Williams writes: "It is the preaching of the gospel and the work of the Holy Spirit which bring people into God’s Kingdom and extend Christ’s Kingdom rule—not worldly power tools such as the state."

I happen to agree with both. Whilst some Christian nationalists no doubt see political activity as extending God’s kingdom, this is not the classic Reformed view.

In fact, the Puritans forcefully rejected the idea that the Christian nation was the "kingdom of God" in the same way as Old Testament Israel. ^[4] Rather, they articulated a "two kingdoms" distinction, with both the church (which is spiritual) and the state (which is temporal) explicitly submitted to Christ, and in which the Christian government wielded the sword of temporal judgement as God’s minister.
We are exiles and strangers in the world.

Williams claims that his opposition to Christian nationalism is "clear from the New Testament" based on the paradigm of believers as "exiles in this world." But what he claims is "clear" was evidently not clear enough to persuade the majority of Protestant Reformers and Puritans.

He surely does not wish to suggest that these were unfamiliar with the New Testament or the notion that Christians are pilgrims in this world.

The fact that we have an eternal, heavenly home does not diminish our responsibility to seek the common good of the temporary polis in which we live (Jeremiah 29v7). For most historic Christian theologians, that common good includes the promotion of Christianity.

Of course, there is a temptation for Christians who live in a Christian nation to become attached to the world and forget their heavenly home. Of course, pursuing a godly state could draw the mind away from our heavenly inheritance, just as pursuing godly work or marriage or parenting could. But that is not a reason to abandon these things.
The government should maintain freedom of conscience.

Both King and Williams appeal to liberty of conscience as a reason for political pluralism, but this is misleading. The Reformed political tradition entails neither Orwellian thought control nor Roman Catholic-style inquisitions. The state has no authority over one’s inner life and conscience. However, the idea that this means that everyone should have freedom always to act in line with their conscience is nonsense. The government does have authority over our external life.

This was sophisticatedly explained by the Bern Synod, a gathering of Reformed ministers in 1532, which exhorted the government to "apply his authority as God’s maidservant, preserving the external aspects of the doctrine and life of the gospel among their subjects," acknowledging that "while the progress of grace is to be promoted by the temporal magistrate insofar as it relates to external affairs, it does not lie in the power of man to set in motion or carry forward the inward development of these things in the heart." Therefore, "no magistrate should compel the conscience, or command and forbid with respect to anything more than what is outward. ... However, he should not on this account refrain from pursuing a godly government in outward things." ^[5]

In other words, the liberty of conscience means that you are allowed to believe whatever you like, but not practise whatever you like.

Of course, everyone acknowledges this to some extent. The question is whether public displays of idolatrous worship threaten the public good. I contend that they do.

Does this matter?

Modern British evangelicals might doubt the relevance of this. What good is it to theorise about a Christian state when our actual state is entrenchedly secular. Survey data shows that "British Christians have become accustomed to their political impotence." ^[6] Perhaps the strongest objection to British Christian nationalism is this: it is unattainable. Therefore, let me suggest three practical, attainable outworkings of Reformed political theology which, if followed, could make us a great blessing to our nation.

First, we must be weaned off political liberalism. In the present political order, liberalism is implausible for Christians.

Perhaps it seemed plausible when, as Aaron Renn describes, "Christianity [was] a valid option within a pluralistic public square." But now that Christian morality is increasingly regarded as harmful and "a threat to the public good," the idea of a neutral, arbitrating state is increasingly obsolete. ^[7]

Graham Shearer notes Tim Farron and Kate Forbes as two examples of "admirable" British politicians who took political liberalism at its word only to be subsequently betrayed by its intolerance for Christianity. ^[8]

Political pluralism is neither a strategically or a theologically sound option for evangelicals. We would do very well to abandon our attachment to it.
Second, many post-Christendom nations are wrestling with the place of Christianity in their constitutions. At his coronation, our King was required to swear to "maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel" and to "maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law." Should Christians embrace a liberal iconoclasm with regard to such things? Are we called to purge the secular space of such religious intrusions? No.

Christians should be thankful when civil institutions acknowledge the lordship of Christ and pray for them to honour their Christian heritage. It is perfectly appropriate for the state to use its authority to point its subjects towards true religion. There is no imperative to secularise.
Finally, short of gaining immediate power to erect a Christian state, these principles can help individual Christians to know what posture to assume as we engage in political life. Christians working in the public square, or attending protests, or voting in elections, do not need to forget our religious convictions and adopt a position of neutrality. Rather, as far as possible, we are called to bring God’s perfect law to bear in all that we do.

Both Dave Williams and Ryan Burton King have chosen to write responses:

Dave's response can be read here
Ryan's response can be read here