How peculiar is Christian nationalism, the effort by self-identified conservative Christians to impose a totalitarian theocracy in the U.S., a stronghold of modern secularism? This religious nationalist movement, which emerged prominently in the 1980s, raises serious concerns from both a Christ-centric and a contemporary perspective.

It is clear that early Christians would denounce such a movement, as they believed humanity was burdened by original sin and incapable of self-redemption. They maintained that the Church is merely awaiting Jesus' second coming, during which divine intervention would rectify all wrongs.

Many white conservative Evangelicals seem to believe that their support for Trump aligns with divine intentions. In reality, these individuals often appear to be opportunists and demagogues, seeking immediate power at the expense of true believers, rather than aiming for spiritual enlightenment in the afterlife.

For liberal secularists, the rise of Christian nationalism represents a deeply troubling affront to logic, ethics, and taste. The core tenets held by conservative Christians are viewed as absurd; indeed, many atheists tend to have a more profound understanding of religious contexts than numerous Christians, and Christian theology has been overtaken by more pragmatic philosophies and lifestyles.

Tim Alberta, an Evangelical who has rejected both this nationalism and its Trumpian influence, argues that “the forces of Christian nationalism — those who aim to dismantle the separation between Church and state, advocating for far-right religious control over government and fundamental institutions — are now gaining strength within both the Church and the Republican Party.”

A notable similarity between Donald Trump and these so-called "Christians" lies in their focus on personal grievances. Trump's complaints stem from his self-centered sense of entitlement; he feels slighted if he perceives that others do not recognize his supposed greatness as a businessman, entertainer, and politician.

In contrast, white Evangelicals feel aggrieved due to their sense of disconnection from modern advancements. They bemoan how human rights are now granted based on secular principles, grounded in reason and mutual respect, without reliance on ancient beliefs or superstition. In effect, these Evangelicals could be seen as disruptors within the liberal political landscape, aiming to dismantle American institutions, which they view as affronts to divine authority.

Having been influenced by a narrow interpretation of the Bible, this extreme form of conservatism not only resents “wokeness” but also the secular humanism and pragmatic approach of the Founding Fathers. These self-proclaimed Christians insist that the U.S. was founded as a Christian nation, thus labeling modern secularism as anti-American rather than merely un-Christian. However, neutral historians affirm that while early European settlers were Christians, the U.S. was founded on the deistic principles of its Founders, who sought a middle ground between theism and atheism.

The Founding Fathers separated Church and State for a crucial reason, having witnessed the chaos of religious conflicts in Europe. This separation allowed for a freedom of religion that acknowledged a diverse range of beliefs. The intent was not to favor one religion over another but to ensure that no single faith dominated public life. Implicitly, the deism of the Founders suggested that since God retreated after establishing Creation, no religion is inherently superior enough to overshadow others.

Nevertheless, the American Christian nationalist simultaneously venerates the U.S. alongside the Bible, Trump, and Jesus. Arguably, Christianity resembles a polytheistic faith filled with idols and selective adherence to doctrines, making this nationalism less bizarre than indefensible. After Christians deified Jesus in the second century, some Roman emperors recognized that Christianity aligned with state propaganda, as it adapted the Greco-Roman myth of dying and rising deities through a Jewish lens.

On the surface, Christianity critiques and denounces worldly power, yet it simultaneously elevates Jesus as a figure of authority. Anyone who superficially connects with Jesus can claim to be Christian, which allowed Christianity to serve the interests of the Roman Empire, especially from the late fourth century onward. Christianity eventually splintered into Eastern and Western factions, and later into Catholic and Protestant branches. While some of these interpretations stay true to Jesus’ countercultural messages, the overwhelming variety of Christian adaptations makes genuine authenticity a rare occurrence.

Ironically, while white Evangelicals portray themselves as Christ-like victims of secular institutions, they often embody the role of persecutors, betraying Jesus’ countercultural ideals as they seek to impose their authoritarian views on liberals. In contrast, liberals advocate for multicultural acceptance, allowing all citizens the freedom to pursue their own definitions of happiness.

Recognizing the absence of an ultimate divine revelation, and acknowledging that humanity must address its own challenges, forms the foundation of the American Revolution. This movement represented a break from the stagnation of medieval European Christendom, establishing a forward-thinking nation capable of learning from past errors by remaining open to rational alternatives. Thus, it was deism, and consequently secularism, that drove this progress rather than the explicit application of Christian dogmas.

Is Evangelical Christianity under siege in America? No, this sect is merely losing in a relatively open arena of ideas and lifestyles. Within a liberal framework characterized by capitalism, democracy, and individual freedoms, some ideologies rise while others diminish. To gain traction, one must convince others of the validity of their ideas; if they fail due to flawed premises or a disconnect from contemporary values, they must adapt or risk obsolescence.

The American South has endured this humiliation since long before President Reagan amplified the voices of Christian nationalists and their so-called “Moral Majority.” This resentment, rooted in the aftermath of the Civil War, continues to linger. Even prior to this, Christendom grappled with the consequences of modern revolutions, as the advancement of science, philosophy, democracy, capitalist interests, and the emergence of a diverse America undermined Christianity’s medieval dominance in Europe.

The crux of the issue is that conservative, fundamentalist Christianity is out of place in the modern world. White Evangelical Christianity represents a remnant of medieval thought, putting it at odds not only with the most extreme forms of liberalism but with nearly all contemporary principles and institutions.

Christian nationalists believe their outsider status makes them Christ-like, given that Jesus’ movement was also countercultural. They fantasize that, with divine assistance, a counterculture could supplant mainstream moral decay without succumbing to its flaws. Thus, they envision a Christian theocracy not as a contradiction but as a fulfillment of Jesus’ vision for the “spiritually impoverished.”

However, by donning suits and acting as polished advocates for corporate interests and American imperialism, the leaders of white Evangelical Christianity reveal their lack of spiritual poverty, making them as un-Christian as their critics.

Tim Alberta expresses hope that the grotesque nature of Christian nationalism has not tarnished the reputation of Evangelical Christianity. Such optimism is misplaced, as a genuine apocalyptic counterculture would not be so intertwined with a Christian theology historically marred by worldly ambitions. A more significant pursuit than rigid adherence to Christian doctrine would be to embrace a perspective akin to Jesus’ stance on the divide between spirituality and secular politics, thus being only nominally Christian.

The fundamentalist beliefs surrounding Jesus’ sacrificial death and resurrection, impending divine judgment, and the inerrancy of the Bible are all outdated and irrelevant. What would resonate with someone like Jesus is the ongoing need for cultural revitalization through the insights of radical spiritualists, mystics, philosophers, artists, and philanthropists. The fundamentalist focus on ancient doctrines indicates a failure to grasp the larger picture. Such individuals are akin to the “Pharisees” as depicted in the New Testament, having lost their way due to idolatry, rendering them spiritually impoverished.

What does it mean to embody spiritual poverty in a modern Christian context? It entails a total surrender to God, which Socrates referred to as his daemon, aligning with an unconscious, countercultural vision of an ideal world. The founders of major religions, along with revolutionary thinkers in philosophy, art, and technology, draw from a wellspring of human creativity, each interpreting existential truths in their unique ways. No two revelations are identical, particularly across millennia. While ancient and contemporary countercultural figures share formal similarities, the content of their messages will inevitably vary.

White Evangelicals remain tethered to outdated visions, making their religious impositions both irksome and intellectually indefensible. Herein lies another parallel between Evangelical Christians and Donald Trump: both display questionable tastes in cultural expressions.