What do you think?
Rate this book
The Religion of American Greatness: What's Wrong with Christian Nationalism
MP3 CD Format Long before it featured dramatically in the 2016 presidential election, Christian nationalism had sunk deep roots in the United States. From America's beginning, Christians have often merged their religious faith with national identity. But what is Christian nationalism? How is it different from patriotism? Is it an honest quirk, or something more threatening?
Paul D. Miller, a Christian scholar, political theorist, veteran, and former White House staffer, provides a detailed portrait of--and case against--Christian nationalism. Building on his practical expertise not only in the archives and classroom but also in public service, Miller unravels this ideology's historical importance, its key tenets, and its political, cultural, and spiritual implications.
Miller shows what's at stake if we misunderstand the relationship between Christianity and the American nation. Christian nationalism--the religion of American greatness--is an illiberal political theory, at odds with the genius of the American experiment, and could prove devastating to both church and state. Christians must relearn how to love our country without idolizing it and seek a healthier Christian political witness that respects our constitutional ideals and a biblical vision of justice.
Paul D. Miller, a Christian scholar, political theorist, veteran, and former White House staffer, provides a detailed portrait of--and case against--Christian nationalism. Building on his practical expertise not only in the archives and classroom but also in public service, Miller unravels this ideology's historical importance, its key tenets, and its political, cultural, and spiritual implications.
Miller shows what's at stake if we misunderstand the relationship between Christianity and the American nation. Christian nationalism--the religion of American greatness--is an illiberal political theory, at odds with the genius of the American experiment, and could prove devastating to both church and state. Christians must relearn how to love our country without idolizing it and seek a healthier Christian political witness that respects our constitutional ideals and a biblical vision of justice.
1 pages, Audio CD
Published August 30, 2022
102 people are currently reading
3556 people want to read
About the author
Paul D. Miller
11 books95 followersPaul D. Miller writes widely on American foreign policy and international affairs, just war, political theory, theology, culture, and film. He is a senior fellow at the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at the Atlantic Council. You can also find him on LinkedIn, Amazon, Letterboxd, and Wikipedia.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 109 reviews
September 12, 2022
Summary: A conservative’s critique of Christian nationalism, distinguishing it from patriotism, and making a case against it both biblically and as an illiberal theory that is at odds with the American experiment of a constitutional democratic republic.
What first caught my attention with this book is that it is written by a White, theologically conservative, Afghanistan war veteran who served in the George W. Bush White House and at the CIA as an intelligence analyst, is pro-life, lives in Texas, and reads the Declaration of Independence to his kids on the Fourth of July. He is also a Georgetown University professor who offers a scholarly treatment that both carefully explains Christian nationalism on its own terms and offers a well-supported critique of it, both as a Christian and as a patriot who passionately believes in the American experiment.
He begins as all good academics by discussing what nationalism is and differentiates it from patriotism, which he supports. He offers this definition:
“Nationalism is the belief that humanity is divisible into internally coherent, mutually distinct cultural units which merit political independence and human loyalty because of their purported ability to provide meaning, purpose, and value in human life; and that governments are supposed to protect and promote the cultural identities of their respective nations” (p. 5).
He then looks at the American version of this, arguing that the particular cultural identity that American nationalists seek to protect is Anglo-Protestantism. What is problematic with this is that cultural identities have blurry boundaries that don’t align with political boundaries. The consequence is illiberal forms of government that marginalize and disadvantage ethnic, religious, linguistic, and other cultural groupings, treating them as second class citizens. Far from promoting national unity, this results in fragmentation and division.
The Christian, evangelical version of this takes a universal faith and weds it to identity politics, reducing it to a tribal faith rather than a faith for every tribe. Miller spends a good deal of time discussing the concepts of “nations” and “peoples” in the Bible and argues that the template of Israel cannot be used to uphold the United States as a uniquely chosen nation under God. He concludes that Christian nationalism is a form of idolatry. He traces the uneasy tension between nationalism and republicanism throughout the history of the Christian right.
Whereas other commentators of a more progressive bent automatically associate Christian nationalism with racism, Miller focuses on the illiberality of nationalism in how it thinks about race, inequality, and naming and remedying the sins of the past. Some may consider this a distinction without a difference, but I appreciate the measured tone and the focus on consequences rather than on the labels we apply.
He discusses the embrace of the former president’s form of Christian nationalism and its attraction for White evangelicals. One of the most telling aspects of this discussion is the suspicion of elites as well as the fear of elite efforts to restrict religious expression. I’ve experienced that in university ministry where universities used institutional power to attempt to restrict access of religious groups on campus (and I met the contributor of the foreword, David French, in conjunction with standing against these efforts). I observed the condescension with which religious convictions were treated. I chose to love those who treated me as an enemy but I can understand how this sense of grievance can be played upon to oppose and defeat “progressive elites,” something I think few progressives really grasp. Miller observes that “while conservatives are proud of their bubble, progressives deny they are in one.”
Miller concludes in arguing that national identity is not bad–we just need a better story than nationalism, one rooted in our history that both celebrates our ideals, especially as they have distinguished us in practice, as well as our ugly failures, that inspire us to overcome and strive for a better future. He argues for a kind of open exceptionalism in which we hold the nation up to the light of our high ideals combined with Niebuhrian humility that faces our national sins and failures. He believes pastors can do a better job in careful teaching that gives the lie to the idea of America as the new Israel, chosen of God and thinking beyond specific issues as to how to engage politically in a pluralistic society and the duties of responsible citizenship.
Miller is self-aware enough to recognize that many Christian nationalists won’t read his book. I hope some will because they will meet someone who actually cares about much of what they care for, who genuinely loves America, and is equally critical of progressives for their own brand of illiberalism. He writes as one who sees the religion of American greatness as an idol, a counterfeit version of the great vision of our faith of God’s love for all the nations of the earth. Miller is unwilling to see it reduced to one puny White evangelical tribe identified with a mere vision of national identity.
He also sees nationalist efforts, Christian or otherwise, as incongruous with our national experiment of a constitutional form of democratic republicanism. He alludes to writing not only a similar critique of progressivism but also a book outlining his ideas of a “framework of ordered liberty.” I hope he gets to write both of those books, but especially the third, which I think will offer great help for all of those who want to think politically beyond the issues that so often divide us.
____________________
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher.
What first caught my attention with this book is that it is written by a White, theologically conservative, Afghanistan war veteran who served in the George W. Bush White House and at the CIA as an intelligence analyst, is pro-life, lives in Texas, and reads the Declaration of Independence to his kids on the Fourth of July. He is also a Georgetown University professor who offers a scholarly treatment that both carefully explains Christian nationalism on its own terms and offers a well-supported critique of it, both as a Christian and as a patriot who passionately believes in the American experiment.
He begins as all good academics by discussing what nationalism is and differentiates it from patriotism, which he supports. He offers this definition:
“Nationalism is the belief that humanity is divisible into internally coherent, mutually distinct cultural units which merit political independence and human loyalty because of their purported ability to provide meaning, purpose, and value in human life; and that governments are supposed to protect and promote the cultural identities of their respective nations” (p. 5).
He then looks at the American version of this, arguing that the particular cultural identity that American nationalists seek to protect is Anglo-Protestantism. What is problematic with this is that cultural identities have blurry boundaries that don’t align with political boundaries. The consequence is illiberal forms of government that marginalize and disadvantage ethnic, religious, linguistic, and other cultural groupings, treating them as second class citizens. Far from promoting national unity, this results in fragmentation and division.
The Christian, evangelical version of this takes a universal faith and weds it to identity politics, reducing it to a tribal faith rather than a faith for every tribe. Miller spends a good deal of time discussing the concepts of “nations” and “peoples” in the Bible and argues that the template of Israel cannot be used to uphold the United States as a uniquely chosen nation under God. He concludes that Christian nationalism is a form of idolatry. He traces the uneasy tension between nationalism and republicanism throughout the history of the Christian right.
Whereas other commentators of a more progressive bent automatically associate Christian nationalism with racism, Miller focuses on the illiberality of nationalism in how it thinks about race, inequality, and naming and remedying the sins of the past. Some may consider this a distinction without a difference, but I appreciate the measured tone and the focus on consequences rather than on the labels we apply.
He discusses the embrace of the former president’s form of Christian nationalism and its attraction for White evangelicals. One of the most telling aspects of this discussion is the suspicion of elites as well as the fear of elite efforts to restrict religious expression. I’ve experienced that in university ministry where universities used institutional power to attempt to restrict access of religious groups on campus (and I met the contributor of the foreword, David French, in conjunction with standing against these efforts). I observed the condescension with which religious convictions were treated. I chose to love those who treated me as an enemy but I can understand how this sense of grievance can be played upon to oppose and defeat “progressive elites,” something I think few progressives really grasp. Miller observes that “while conservatives are proud of their bubble, progressives deny they are in one.”
Miller concludes in arguing that national identity is not bad–we just need a better story than nationalism, one rooted in our history that both celebrates our ideals, especially as they have distinguished us in practice, as well as our ugly failures, that inspire us to overcome and strive for a better future. He argues for a kind of open exceptionalism in which we hold the nation up to the light of our high ideals combined with Niebuhrian humility that faces our national sins and failures. He believes pastors can do a better job in careful teaching that gives the lie to the idea of America as the new Israel, chosen of God and thinking beyond specific issues as to how to engage politically in a pluralistic society and the duties of responsible citizenship.
Miller is self-aware enough to recognize that many Christian nationalists won’t read his book. I hope some will because they will meet someone who actually cares about much of what they care for, who genuinely loves America, and is equally critical of progressives for their own brand of illiberalism. He writes as one who sees the religion of American greatness as an idol, a counterfeit version of the great vision of our faith of God’s love for all the nations of the earth. Miller is unwilling to see it reduced to one puny White evangelical tribe identified with a mere vision of national identity.
He also sees nationalist efforts, Christian or otherwise, as incongruous with our national experiment of a constitutional form of democratic republicanism. He alludes to writing not only a similar critique of progressivism but also a book outlining his ideas of a “framework of ordered liberty.” I hope he gets to write both of those books, but especially the third, which I think will offer great help for all of those who want to think politically beyond the issues that so often divide us.
____________________
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received a complimentary review copy of this book from the publisher.
June 15, 2022
I received a copy of this book through a Goodreads Giveaway. Great resource on an issue threatening our country and the church. Christian nationalism - the toxic blend of American myth and heretical religion - is eating us alive. This book will help you understand why and point you toward possible was to address it. Great resource.
June 11, 2022
(3/5) I'm DNFing this book, not because it's not good or because the content isn't needed (it sorely is). I just had a really hard time getting into it, even as an academic; I've been trying to read it for literally three months but it just doesn't flow and it's hard to commit time to reading it. This book read like a dissertation, which is fine for some readers, but perhaps I'm burnt out on dissertation-reading for the near future and should return to it in a few years. I think this book is timely, and the author is respectable and moderate (I would say more conservative than me). However, I think it unlikely that the audience that would benefit most (those entrenched in Christian nationalism) would commit to reading it fully because of the convoluted language and academic jargon.
Thanks to NetGalley and the publisher for an advance copy of this book in exchange for an honest review.
Thanks to NetGalley and the publisher for an advance copy of this book in exchange for an honest review.
November 11, 2023
Careful. Evenhanded. Promises to punch left next. I believe him.
November 4, 2022
This may be the best book I have read this year. Or at least the most valuable. I really should sit down and organize my thoughts enough to write a proper review, but I at least want to jot some stuff down and maybe save a few quotes.
There are a number of books that accuse conservatives of being “White Nationalists” or “Christian Nationalists,” and most of these come from the viewpoint of the Left. Miller makes his critique from the perspective of a conservative Christian himself. Making an argument for or against Christian Nationalism requires nuance and a careful definition of terms. Miller seems to get it right.
Miller notes that Christian conservatism is actually a combination of small r republicanism and nationalism. The republican portion (popular sovereignty, the rule of law, checks and balances among divided branches of government, etc.) is completely compatible with Christianity, but the nationalist portion is not.
This book provides a critical reminder that our mission as followers of Christ cannot be equated with the Republican Party platform. Or indeed any party platform. As CSL warned:
‘In 1941, CS Lewis warned against forming a “Christian party,“ because such a party would inevitably represent only a part, not a whole, of Christianity, and would necessarily ally itself with non-Christian allies. “The principle which divides it from its brethren and unites it to its political allies will not be theological,“ but social, cultural, and political. This party would not represent “Christianity,“ but one particular gathering of Christians and non-Christians bound together by a common political agenda. “It will be not simply a part of Christendom, but a part claiming to be the whole,” which is both bearing false witness and using the name of the Lord in vain. “By the mere act of calling itself the Christian Party it implicitly accuses all Christians who do not join it of apostasy and betrayal.“ Forming such a party and calling it “Christian”, succumbs to “the temptation of claiming for our favorite opinions that kind and degree of certainty and authority which really belongs only to our Faith.“ In time, Christians in the Christian Party would see their political goals as holy crusades and become willing to justify any means in their pursuit. Lewis’ warning is apt for today’s White American Christians tempted to view themselves as the “Christian Party,“ or America as a “Christian nation.“‘
Once again I discovered that Bob had already written an excellent summary and review, therefore I will excuse myself from the attempt.
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
Please pardon the following quoterrhea, but I couldn’t help myself:
“The common good – ordered liberty and human flourishing, not the pursuit of our own tribe’s power and privilege – must be the animating vision of Christian participation in American democracy.”
‘Nationalism fulfills all the criteria of a religion. It is a set of symbols that establishes powerful moods that last for centuries. It describes a general order for life, an orienting framework with a standard of right and wrong, a sense of purpose and direction. And it roots this general order in a an “aura of factuality,“ a story about the nation’s ancient roots and primal existence which seems feasible because the nation preexists us and outlives us. I have argued that nationalism is illiberal, prone to oppression, complicit in racism, and more. But those critiques pale in comparison to this final one: nationalism, in its ideal form, is a religion – which means nationalism is idolatry. Loving one’s country is a positive virtue, but nationalism, as we have encountered it throughout this book, is the opposite. CS Lewis (echoing Augustine) rightly noted that the love of country is good, but all goods must rightly must be rightly ordered. The love of country “becomes a demon when it becomes a god.“‘
“Christian republicanism would celebrate the achievement of true religious freedom for all, including for non-Christians, and true disestablishment, even of Christian churches. Christians are right to worry about some of the legal developments of recent decades and about the deterioration of public schooling. But the solution is not to resurrect the old Protestant establishment. When Christians make our focus the restoration of Christian cultural power, when we evince nostalgia for the old establishment, we send a clear signal that our true priority is preserving tribal privileges or getting a legal carve-out for our preferences, not achieving equal justice for all.”
“But if we are to both honor and critique the founders, the founders are not the final authority of justice and not the sole source of our national identity. We can only recognize our misdeeds if we have a standard outside and above our tribe to judge it. Our American identity cannot end with Anglo-Protestant tribalism… We must aspire to incorporate universal ideals which grow us beyond the provincialism of our tribe, challenge us to see beyond the horizon within which we were raised, and hold us accountable even for crimes our tribe may condone. That is why American identity should be founded first and foremost on the ideals of the American experiment as reflected in the US Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the writings of Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass, the sermons and speeches of Martin Luther King Jr., and others of the great papers of American history. If you do not know or do not agree with the American creed, in an important sense you are not truly or fully American, even if you hold American citizenship.”
“Shorn of any fixed moral commitments, progressivism deteriorates into the lowest common denominator available within the rhetoric of freedom: individual autonomy, personal discovery, self expression, fulfillment, and empowerment. But what is there to discover within the empty progressive self? What is there to express? The lonely progressive self gravitates to the only commitments and attachments available in a world stripped of God, nature, reason, community, and tradition: commonalities of race, class, and gender, which are experienced both as inescapable, essential defining attributes and as constricting burdens that must be transcended, transgressed, redefined, and thrown off in a never-ending replay of personal liberation. In this light, the progressive commitments to abortion, the sexual revolution, and identity politics are a feature, not a bug, of the movement. They express the fundamental core of what progressivism is: a rebellion against any and all constraints and limitations on personal independence, including the limits of nature itself. Similarly, the hectoring, authoritarian temperament that gives rise to speech codes and cancel culture flows naturally from progressivism. Progressivism is a religion, but one without grace. It is a return to Puritan roots in the worst sense of the word, an endless crusade of moral reform with no forgiveness, no atonement, and no savior.”
“Anglo-Protestantism has lacked the accountability and the humility that comes from suffering, persecution, or simply from being relatively small and powerless. “As iron sharpens iron so one man sharpens another“. But that only works between two pieces of iron; Anglo-Protestantism in its power, is tempered steel. I do not mean that as a compliment: I mean that Anglo-Protestantism has been so powerful that it has sometimes been hardhearted and ignorant, historically insensitive to what it is like not to be Anglo-Protestant, which means it was not shaped by the iron-sharpening feedback of other historical communities, other Christian traditions, that could have helped sand off its rough edges or hold up its reflection to itself. Anglo Protestantism has been, in historical terms, rich, powerful, and secure. Why would we expect it to be spiritually healthy?”
“Only in defeat will there be opportunity to recover an older, wiser Christian prophetic voice, one that loves America but does not worship her, one that articulates the old idea of Christian republicanism in good and sincere faith as an ethic of equal justice for all. Such a recovery would use the initial residual cultural power of American Christianity to pursue the common good — but would not confuse or conflate the two and, if ever they conflict, would prioritize the latter over the former. The common good – ordered liberty and human flourishing, not the pursuit of our own tribe’s power and privilege— must be the animating vision of Christian participation in American democracy.“
There are a number of books that accuse conservatives of being “White Nationalists” or “Christian Nationalists,” and most of these come from the viewpoint of the Left. Miller makes his critique from the perspective of a conservative Christian himself. Making an argument for or against Christian Nationalism requires nuance and a careful definition of terms. Miller seems to get it right.
Miller notes that Christian conservatism is actually a combination of small r republicanism and nationalism. The republican portion (popular sovereignty, the rule of law, checks and balances among divided branches of government, etc.) is completely compatible with Christianity, but the nationalist portion is not.
This book provides a critical reminder that our mission as followers of Christ cannot be equated with the Republican Party platform. Or indeed any party platform. As CSL warned:
‘In 1941, CS Lewis warned against forming a “Christian party,“ because such a party would inevitably represent only a part, not a whole, of Christianity, and would necessarily ally itself with non-Christian allies. “The principle which divides it from its brethren and unites it to its political allies will not be theological,“ but social, cultural, and political. This party would not represent “Christianity,“ but one particular gathering of Christians and non-Christians bound together by a common political agenda. “It will be not simply a part of Christendom, but a part claiming to be the whole,” which is both bearing false witness and using the name of the Lord in vain. “By the mere act of calling itself the Christian Party it implicitly accuses all Christians who do not join it of apostasy and betrayal.“ Forming such a party and calling it “Christian”, succumbs to “the temptation of claiming for our favorite opinions that kind and degree of certainty and authority which really belongs only to our Faith.“ In time, Christians in the Christian Party would see their political goals as holy crusades and become willing to justify any means in their pursuit. Lewis’ warning is apt for today’s White American Christians tempted to view themselves as the “Christian Party,“ or America as a “Christian nation.“‘
Once again I discovered that Bob had already written an excellent summary and review, therefore I will excuse myself from the attempt.
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
Please pardon the following quoterrhea, but I couldn’t help myself:
“The common good – ordered liberty and human flourishing, not the pursuit of our own tribe’s power and privilege – must be the animating vision of Christian participation in American democracy.”
‘Nationalism fulfills all the criteria of a religion. It is a set of symbols that establishes powerful moods that last for centuries. It describes a general order for life, an orienting framework with a standard of right and wrong, a sense of purpose and direction. And it roots this general order in a an “aura of factuality,“ a story about the nation’s ancient roots and primal existence which seems feasible because the nation preexists us and outlives us. I have argued that nationalism is illiberal, prone to oppression, complicit in racism, and more. But those critiques pale in comparison to this final one: nationalism, in its ideal form, is a religion – which means nationalism is idolatry. Loving one’s country is a positive virtue, but nationalism, as we have encountered it throughout this book, is the opposite. CS Lewis (echoing Augustine) rightly noted that the love of country is good, but all goods must rightly must be rightly ordered. The love of country “becomes a demon when it becomes a god.“‘
“Christian republicanism would celebrate the achievement of true religious freedom for all, including for non-Christians, and true disestablishment, even of Christian churches. Christians are right to worry about some of the legal developments of recent decades and about the deterioration of public schooling. But the solution is not to resurrect the old Protestant establishment. When Christians make our focus the restoration of Christian cultural power, when we evince nostalgia for the old establishment, we send a clear signal that our true priority is preserving tribal privileges or getting a legal carve-out for our preferences, not achieving equal justice for all.”
“But if we are to both honor and critique the founders, the founders are not the final authority of justice and not the sole source of our national identity. We can only recognize our misdeeds if we have a standard outside and above our tribe to judge it. Our American identity cannot end with Anglo-Protestant tribalism… We must aspire to incorporate universal ideals which grow us beyond the provincialism of our tribe, challenge us to see beyond the horizon within which we were raised, and hold us accountable even for crimes our tribe may condone. That is why American identity should be founded first and foremost on the ideals of the American experiment as reflected in the US Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the writings of Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass, the sermons and speeches of Martin Luther King Jr., and others of the great papers of American history. If you do not know or do not agree with the American creed, in an important sense you are not truly or fully American, even if you hold American citizenship.”
“Shorn of any fixed moral commitments, progressivism deteriorates into the lowest common denominator available within the rhetoric of freedom: individual autonomy, personal discovery, self expression, fulfillment, and empowerment. But what is there to discover within the empty progressive self? What is there to express? The lonely progressive self gravitates to the only commitments and attachments available in a world stripped of God, nature, reason, community, and tradition: commonalities of race, class, and gender, which are experienced both as inescapable, essential defining attributes and as constricting burdens that must be transcended, transgressed, redefined, and thrown off in a never-ending replay of personal liberation. In this light, the progressive commitments to abortion, the sexual revolution, and identity politics are a feature, not a bug, of the movement. They express the fundamental core of what progressivism is: a rebellion against any and all constraints and limitations on personal independence, including the limits of nature itself. Similarly, the hectoring, authoritarian temperament that gives rise to speech codes and cancel culture flows naturally from progressivism. Progressivism is a religion, but one without grace. It is a return to Puritan roots in the worst sense of the word, an endless crusade of moral reform with no forgiveness, no atonement, and no savior.”
“Anglo-Protestantism has lacked the accountability and the humility that comes from suffering, persecution, or simply from being relatively small and powerless. “As iron sharpens iron so one man sharpens another“. But that only works between two pieces of iron; Anglo-Protestantism in its power, is tempered steel. I do not mean that as a compliment: I mean that Anglo-Protestantism has been so powerful that it has sometimes been hardhearted and ignorant, historically insensitive to what it is like not to be Anglo-Protestant, which means it was not shaped by the iron-sharpening feedback of other historical communities, other Christian traditions, that could have helped sand off its rough edges or hold up its reflection to itself. Anglo Protestantism has been, in historical terms, rich, powerful, and secure. Why would we expect it to be spiritually healthy?”
“Only in defeat will there be opportunity to recover an older, wiser Christian prophetic voice, one that loves America but does not worship her, one that articulates the old idea of Christian republicanism in good and sincere faith as an ethic of equal justice for all. Such a recovery would use the initial residual cultural power of American Christianity to pursue the common good — but would not confuse or conflate the two and, if ever they conflict, would prioritize the latter over the former. The common good – ordered liberty and human flourishing, not the pursuit of our own tribe’s power and privilege— must be the animating vision of Christian participation in American democracy.“
July 31, 2025
This was quite an interesting journey. I started listening to this book several months ago thinking I was going to agree with what it had to say. The introduction seemed to confirm this, as Miller stated that he wrote the book for people who were college-educated and not fond of Christian Nationalism (which incidentally, was also my stance). Yet as I started reading, I found that there were many things he was saying that I could not get behind. When he said, “How hard is it to say both drag queens and fundamentalist Christians can both use the library and host events there?” He lost me. I put down the book (metaphorically of course) and started reading and listening to other things on the topic (including Doug Wilson 🫨). I then picked the book up again several months later and started over. Again I was quite surprised by some of the things he proposed and found his argument anemic from both the Bible and Christian history. I’m no expert but I think there have been some good thinkers whom he should have interacted with (Calvin or Augustine comes to mind).
Once he starts going into Hebrew and Greek words as an argument against Nationalism, he shows he is out of his depth in handling linguistic terms and thinks that the Bible needs to function as a lexicon. It’s a small point but my interest in the languages and linguists necessitates that I must point it out. When he forays into racism he truly lost me. He talks about “other types of racism” that are invisible to whites. “Unless the US Census shows equal outcomes for any subgroup, then we are racist.” I did find “Covert racism that doesn’t use racial terminology” to be a good joke but I don’t think he intended it to be as such. He also does a good wave of the hand against other arguments by saying how “yes the Bible is true but our interpretations are not infallible.” True, but you must still interact with these positions that claim to be backed up by scripture and not just use the same “arguments” as the postmodernists.
The section where he goes into the differences of the “evangelical elites” vs the normal evangelical is interesting, as I’m not sure how this backs up his point, except for the fact that we just need to “trust the experts.” I don’t think Russell Moore is a good example of an “elite evangelical” that we should follow, but at least he has funding from Soros! As any good academic does he wades into the “Trump is bad territory” and explains how even if Trump appoints conservative SC Justices who overturn anti-Christian policies (Roe v Wade), we will lose a generation of Christians. Again, I don’t watch the evangelical stock market, but I do think that way more people are going back to church now.
He ends with describing a Christian Nationalist by saying, “If you believe that the government should do things to ensure America continues to be a Christian nation you are a Christian nationalist.” Well, I think that summarizes my view quite nicely now (although maybe Anglo-Protestant is a better term). The government will push a country one way or another and I prefer it to be towards Christ. The government will value a religion and I prefer that to be Christianity and not pluralism (polytheism). The fact that this book was written for someone exactly like me and yet pushed me to the complete opposite conclusion just shows the power that a pen can have, so Paul… keep writing!!
Once he starts going into Hebrew and Greek words as an argument against Nationalism, he shows he is out of his depth in handling linguistic terms and thinks that the Bible needs to function as a lexicon. It’s a small point but my interest in the languages and linguists necessitates that I must point it out. When he forays into racism he truly lost me. He talks about “other types of racism” that are invisible to whites. “Unless the US Census shows equal outcomes for any subgroup, then we are racist.” I did find “Covert racism that doesn’t use racial terminology” to be a good joke but I don’t think he intended it to be as such. He also does a good wave of the hand against other arguments by saying how “yes the Bible is true but our interpretations are not infallible.” True, but you must still interact with these positions that claim to be backed up by scripture and not just use the same “arguments” as the postmodernists.
The section where he goes into the differences of the “evangelical elites” vs the normal evangelical is interesting, as I’m not sure how this backs up his point, except for the fact that we just need to “trust the experts.” I don’t think Russell Moore is a good example of an “elite evangelical” that we should follow, but at least he has funding from Soros! As any good academic does he wades into the “Trump is bad territory” and explains how even if Trump appoints conservative SC Justices who overturn anti-Christian policies (Roe v Wade), we will lose a generation of Christians. Again, I don’t watch the evangelical stock market, but I do think that way more people are going back to church now.
He ends with describing a Christian Nationalist by saying, “If you believe that the government should do things to ensure America continues to be a Christian nation you are a Christian nationalist.” Well, I think that summarizes my view quite nicely now (although maybe Anglo-Protestant is a better term). The government will push a country one way or another and I prefer it to be towards Christ. The government will value a religion and I prefer that to be Christianity and not pluralism (polytheism). The fact that this book was written for someone exactly like me and yet pushed me to the complete opposite conclusion just shows the power that a pen can have, so Paul… keep writing!!
May 31, 2025
If Russell Moore provided the pastoral perspective and Tim Alberta provided the journalist's perspective, then Paul Miller uses "The Religion of American Greatness" to seemingly provide the intellectual/academic perspective on the issue of Christian Nationalism.
Miller's book is exhaustively researched and supported. He seems to cover every base, responding to possible objections before the reader even sees them. Although repetitive at times, the book called for my entire mental focus and delivered on its promise to offer a cohesive and strong argument against Christian Nationalism.
I am very appreciative that Miller acknowledges that he is writing "against" his own people in some sense. Yet, he is quick to condemn the opposite ideology, that of leftist progressivism. I commend him for his ability to acknowledge every side of an argument, yet still thoroughly prove his conclusions in favor of one.
A great read.
Miller's book is exhaustively researched and supported. He seems to cover every base, responding to possible objections before the reader even sees them. Although repetitive at times, the book called for my entire mental focus and delivered on its promise to offer a cohesive and strong argument against Christian Nationalism.
I am very appreciative that Miller acknowledges that he is writing "against" his own people in some sense. Yet, he is quick to condemn the opposite ideology, that of leftist progressivism. I commend him for his ability to acknowledge every side of an argument, yet still thoroughly prove his conclusions in favor of one.
A great read.
January 22, 2024
Summary: The best critique of Christian Nationalism I have read, because Miller so clearly understands the reasons that Christian Nationalism can be attractive and reasonable.
There have been various books about Christian Nationalism; initially, they were all condemning, and more recently, a few made positive cases for Christian Nationalism. The Religion of American Greatness is a conservative (theologically and politically) case against Christian Nationalism, one that does mention but does not focus on Trump. And one that is generous in its assumptions about why some find the movement toward Christian Nationalism appealing.
His fifth chapter, Nationalism, Cultural Pluralism and Identity Politics, is a good example of where I agree broadly with the conclusions and disagree with how he got there. As a broad stroke, he points out the weaknesses of the Nationalist orientation and the methodology of using the state to maintain a particular cultural orientation over time. To illustrate this, he commends freedom of speech and the rule of law, which must be done for all to have a sense of fairness and equity. He uses the "Drag Queen Story Hour" complaint as an illustration and, I think, rightly critiques how it is used to stir up a culture war agenda. This brings him to consider whether Christian Nationalism is a type of identity politics. I understand this point, and I do not entirely disagree with it, but I think he misses the reasons that we need to repair past harm and how minority identity sociologically works. (Although he does have a stronger call for repair of past harm later in the book.) I believe that Christian Nationalists are acting as an identity group, but what needs to be teased out more is whether that identity group has justification in their complaint. (But that is more about sociology than political science.) Regardless of the accuracy of the complaints, his ability to take those complaints seriously is the book's strength.
Kevin Kruse, in his book White Flight, suggests that the rise of the libertarian wing of the GOP was facilitated because many White citizens viewed integration not as a requirement for fair treatment of all, but as the government removing their exclusive access to parks, public transportation, schools, residential communities, etc and "giving it" to Black citizens. In other words, the result of integration was not viewing these spaces as newly integrated, but that an integrated park went from being a "White only" park to a "Black only" park. There is some sense that Christian Nationalism, as Miller is identifying here, views itself as an embattled identity group, but there needs to be an honest grappling with whether that is true (Miller is not assuming that it is) and if prior movements toward equity were addressing a real issue. Because this book is not written to me (as I will say more about later), many of my complaints about the book are about the fact that it does not address issues in the order I would prefer, even though he does address almost everything I would like him to address. He keeps the target audience squarely in view so that he can persuade.
It is also in this chapter that Miller asserts that Natural Law is the way forward in determining what is good for the flourishing of all. This is a minimal understanding of Natural Law, but it needs to be more detailed to know whether I agree with it as a concept. I don't think invoking Natural Law is a benefit here. I primarily object to Natural Law because of the ways I see it used to uphold cultural preferences, including how some Christian Nationalists use it to assume white normative beliefs (which Miller regularly points out as a problem.) But again, the target audience does not need the detail that I would like and has less opposition to Natural Law than I do as a progressive.
At the root, his critique of Nationalism is that it rejects (lowercase r) republican values that the country is founded on. Miller has no illusions that the history of the US has not lived up to its ideals. He understands those prior weaknesses and believes we should learn that history, which is why he views the rejection of those ideals as so dangerous. He critiques the Christian part of Christian Nationalism as a type of idolatry (not unlike what Andrew Whitehead did in American Idolatry)
It matters that Miller is approaching this as a political scientist. He is well-versed in theology and understands history and sociology well. Different academic disciplines approach their areas of study differently. There are good sections where Miller reviews the approaches of historians and sociologists who also study Christian Nationalism. There is much he agrees with and much he disagrees with. He knows Christian Nationalism has a historical background, as Mark Noll and Jamar Tisby point out. But more than history, he thinks that sociologists and polling over-identify Christian Nationalism because some of the tendencies that make people open to Christian Nationalism do not mean that people are Christian Nationalists. He believes that many reasons people are open to their influence are the natural tendency toward shared stories and poor discipleship (with at least part of the issue being distrust of institutions and expertise) but explicit agreement with the larger theory of Christian Nationalism. But he does believe that the openness to the shared stories that Christian Nationalists tell could mean that more people will become stronger Christian Nationalists if we do not directly address the problems of Christian Nationalism.
This is a book that is attempting to persuade those that can be persuaded. He is aware that many who read this book are already persuaded, especially those like me who are progressive. It is not that he doesn't want me to read the book; he wants me to read the book and learn to apply similar principles to critique progressivism. But he is writing the book for theological and political conservatives to push back against both theological idolatry and political illiberalism.
Overall, I think it is the best book on Christian Nationalism that I have read, not because I agree with all of it, but because I disagree with significant parts of it, especially many parts in chapter 10 about how we should positively think of the country and the idea of a national story. I think it is the best book on Christian Nationalism because Miller, as a politically and theologically conservative, pro-patriotism veteran with years of work within both political and theological institutions, has done the best to understand the positive reasons for the attraction to Christian Nationalism and therefore his critiques of Christian Nationalism are more potent because they are generous in the assessment of motivation and reason while narrow in critique.
I am unquestionably a progressive in theology and politics. I anticipate that I will disagree strongly with his future book on the dangers of progressivism, but I will pay attention to it in part because I know that I have read this book where his critique of those that are closer to his own beliefs are handled with care but devastatingly thorough attention. What I am most wary about in The Religion of American Greatness is the areas where he is hinting about what is objectionable about progressivism. As much as I think he is generous toward understanding Christian Nationalism, the broad strokes about progressivism, especially in the introduction and conclusion, are not generous attempts to understand. Lines like "Progressivism is a religion, but one without grace" and "...the progressive commitments to abortion, the sexual revolution, and identity politics are a feature, not a bug, of the movement. They express that the fundamental core of progressivism is a rebellion against any and all constraints on personal independence, including the limits of nature itself."
Again, I don't want to divert from what I think is the best book on Christian Nationalism I have read by concentrating too much on something that is not the book's focus. But Miller, in his descriptions here of progressivism, is talking about a purely secular movement and ignores the history of Evangelical progressivism, which he discussed earlier in the book in favorable terms. There is a need to critique progressivism, but I hope that when Miller gets to his book-length treatment of progressivism, he is as generous as he is here.
One more note: I am not new to this topic; I have read at least a half dozen books that are directly or indirectly about Christian Nationalism and have a decent background in theology and political theory. This book is pitched at an educated layperson, but I was surprised how many reviews on Goodreads complained about it being dense. One of the problems that he identifies is Noll's Scandal of the Evangelical Mind. This is a college-level book on Christian political theory, but it is accessible. Miller is careful to define what he means by terms because the terms matter to this debate. I do not think he should have written a longer book, but those complaining about it being too dense or too long have not sufficiently understood the problem.
This post was originally posted to my blog at https://bookwi.se/the-religion-of-ame...
There have been various books about Christian Nationalism; initially, they were all condemning, and more recently, a few made positive cases for Christian Nationalism. The Religion of American Greatness is a conservative (theologically and politically) case against Christian Nationalism, one that does mention but does not focus on Trump. And one that is generous in its assumptions about why some find the movement toward Christian Nationalism appealing.
His fifth chapter, Nationalism, Cultural Pluralism and Identity Politics, is a good example of where I agree broadly with the conclusions and disagree with how he got there. As a broad stroke, he points out the weaknesses of the Nationalist orientation and the methodology of using the state to maintain a particular cultural orientation over time. To illustrate this, he commends freedom of speech and the rule of law, which must be done for all to have a sense of fairness and equity. He uses the "Drag Queen Story Hour" complaint as an illustration and, I think, rightly critiques how it is used to stir up a culture war agenda. This brings him to consider whether Christian Nationalism is a type of identity politics. I understand this point, and I do not entirely disagree with it, but I think he misses the reasons that we need to repair past harm and how minority identity sociologically works. (Although he does have a stronger call for repair of past harm later in the book.) I believe that Christian Nationalists are acting as an identity group, but what needs to be teased out more is whether that identity group has justification in their complaint. (But that is more about sociology than political science.) Regardless of the accuracy of the complaints, his ability to take those complaints seriously is the book's strength.
Kevin Kruse, in his book White Flight, suggests that the rise of the libertarian wing of the GOP was facilitated because many White citizens viewed integration not as a requirement for fair treatment of all, but as the government removing their exclusive access to parks, public transportation, schools, residential communities, etc and "giving it" to Black citizens. In other words, the result of integration was not viewing these spaces as newly integrated, but that an integrated park went from being a "White only" park to a "Black only" park. There is some sense that Christian Nationalism, as Miller is identifying here, views itself as an embattled identity group, but there needs to be an honest grappling with whether that is true (Miller is not assuming that it is) and if prior movements toward equity were addressing a real issue. Because this book is not written to me (as I will say more about later), many of my complaints about the book are about the fact that it does not address issues in the order I would prefer, even though he does address almost everything I would like him to address. He keeps the target audience squarely in view so that he can persuade.
It is also in this chapter that Miller asserts that Natural Law is the way forward in determining what is good for the flourishing of all. This is a minimal understanding of Natural Law, but it needs to be more detailed to know whether I agree with it as a concept. I don't think invoking Natural Law is a benefit here. I primarily object to Natural Law because of the ways I see it used to uphold cultural preferences, including how some Christian Nationalists use it to assume white normative beliefs (which Miller regularly points out as a problem.) But again, the target audience does not need the detail that I would like and has less opposition to Natural Law than I do as a progressive.
At the root, his critique of Nationalism is that it rejects (lowercase r) republican values that the country is founded on. Miller has no illusions that the history of the US has not lived up to its ideals. He understands those prior weaknesses and believes we should learn that history, which is why he views the rejection of those ideals as so dangerous. He critiques the Christian part of Christian Nationalism as a type of idolatry (not unlike what Andrew Whitehead did in American Idolatry)
It matters that Miller is approaching this as a political scientist. He is well-versed in theology and understands history and sociology well. Different academic disciplines approach their areas of study differently. There are good sections where Miller reviews the approaches of historians and sociologists who also study Christian Nationalism. There is much he agrees with and much he disagrees with. He knows Christian Nationalism has a historical background, as Mark Noll and Jamar Tisby point out. But more than history, he thinks that sociologists and polling over-identify Christian Nationalism because some of the tendencies that make people open to Christian Nationalism do not mean that people are Christian Nationalists. He believes that many reasons people are open to their influence are the natural tendency toward shared stories and poor discipleship (with at least part of the issue being distrust of institutions and expertise) but explicit agreement with the larger theory of Christian Nationalism. But he does believe that the openness to the shared stories that Christian Nationalists tell could mean that more people will become stronger Christian Nationalists if we do not directly address the problems of Christian Nationalism.
This is a book that is attempting to persuade those that can be persuaded. He is aware that many who read this book are already persuaded, especially those like me who are progressive. It is not that he doesn't want me to read the book; he wants me to read the book and learn to apply similar principles to critique progressivism. But he is writing the book for theological and political conservatives to push back against both theological idolatry and political illiberalism.
Overall, I think it is the best book on Christian Nationalism that I have read, not because I agree with all of it, but because I disagree with significant parts of it, especially many parts in chapter 10 about how we should positively think of the country and the idea of a national story. I think it is the best book on Christian Nationalism because Miller, as a politically and theologically conservative, pro-patriotism veteran with years of work within both political and theological institutions, has done the best to understand the positive reasons for the attraction to Christian Nationalism and therefore his critiques of Christian Nationalism are more potent because they are generous in the assessment of motivation and reason while narrow in critique.
I am unquestionably a progressive in theology and politics. I anticipate that I will disagree strongly with his future book on the dangers of progressivism, but I will pay attention to it in part because I know that I have read this book where his critique of those that are closer to his own beliefs are handled with care but devastatingly thorough attention. What I am most wary about in The Religion of American Greatness is the areas where he is hinting about what is objectionable about progressivism. As much as I think he is generous toward understanding Christian Nationalism, the broad strokes about progressivism, especially in the introduction and conclusion, are not generous attempts to understand. Lines like "Progressivism is a religion, but one without grace" and "...the progressive commitments to abortion, the sexual revolution, and identity politics are a feature, not a bug, of the movement. They express that the fundamental core of progressivism is a rebellion against any and all constraints on personal independence, including the limits of nature itself."
Again, I don't want to divert from what I think is the best book on Christian Nationalism I have read by concentrating too much on something that is not the book's focus. But Miller, in his descriptions here of progressivism, is talking about a purely secular movement and ignores the history of Evangelical progressivism, which he discussed earlier in the book in favorable terms. There is a need to critique progressivism, but I hope that when Miller gets to his book-length treatment of progressivism, he is as generous as he is here.
One more note: I am not new to this topic; I have read at least a half dozen books that are directly or indirectly about Christian Nationalism and have a decent background in theology and political theory. This book is pitched at an educated layperson, but I was surprised how many reviews on Goodreads complained about it being dense. One of the problems that he identifies is Noll's Scandal of the Evangelical Mind. This is a college-level book on Christian political theory, but it is accessible. Miller is careful to define what he means by terms because the terms matter to this debate. I do not think he should have written a longer book, but those complaining about it being too dense or too long have not sufficiently understood the problem.
This post was originally posted to my blog at https://bookwi.se/the-religion-of-ame...
December 27, 2022
I recommend this to every American. Miller has a balanced view of both political sides. He helps us all look at ourselves critically to make a better America for us all.
October 17, 2024
DNFing because i get the points he’s making and im good to leave it LOL. a conservative take on what’s wrong with the influx of christian nationalism we’re seeing in republican circles and in what Trump stands for and will implement if reelected. this was super helpful in fine tuning and articulating my thoughts heading into november, and while i lean way left of this author, his Biblical points and way he laid out definitions of what’s so very wrong with this movement was well done and so helpful. felt like reading a dense textbook though so 3 stars.
May 19, 2023
Thoughtful and seriously written (appropriate as it addresses serious issues), this was a compelling critique of American Christian Nationalism and its champions like the former president and (more importantly) his predecessors, from someone who is politically astute, geopolitically aware, historically conscious, and religiously orthodox.
June 15, 2024
Chapter 10 was pretty based all things considered I suppose and Frederick Douglass is super based ofc. Oh. And Chick Fil-A is mid.
UPDATE:
PAUL MILLER IS SO BASED TOO!! Hearing him talk about foreign policy was just so awesome!!! #PAULMILLERFORPRESIDENT
UPDATE:
PAUL MILLER IS SO BASED TOO!! Hearing him talk about foreign policy was just so awesome!!! #PAULMILLERFORPRESIDENT
April 3, 2023
3 1/2 stars
Paul Miller and I have at least two things in common - we're both white, and we're both Christians. But Paul Miller is many things I'm not - an academic, political theorist, veteran, former White House staffer for Bush, and a Republican. And that's exactly why I decided to read his book on Christian Nationalism (CN). I wanted to read a critique of CN from an "insider" who has rejected it instead - someone whose life experience and scholarship gives him a unique perspective on the destructiveness of CN in our country.
The author sets out to build a case against CN, and he certainly accomplishes his goal. Through a thorough examination of the historical roots of CN (white Christians merging their faith with their national identity), he guides the reader to consider the dangers and consequences of this toxic ideology, which has already done great harm to America and the witness of the Christian Church.
The author analyses the current rise of CN, and the effectiveness of Trump to mix religious speech & symbols with fear mongering tactics to lure millions of conservative Christians into the CN camp. And sadly, many were already there. Miller examines the motivations and agenda of the CN movement and makes clear the threat CN poses to the US remaining a democratic republic.
My biggest issue with the book is his lack of balance when referring to the Democratic Party. Not because I am one. Not because I believe they need defending. But because through out the book he tells us over and over how convicted he is that the Left is wrong. Period. Even as he calls out the racism that is a component of Christian Nationalism, he refuses to give any credit to what's been accomplished by the Democratic Party to advance the cause of justice. He also makes assumptions as to who can be a Democrat/Progressive and who cannot...and according to Miller, a Christ following person cannot. It's such a departure from the thoughtfulness with which he handles most of the other issues in the books.
Ultimately, I do believe that Paul Miller proves CN to be antidemocratic, illiberal, unbiblical and inconsistent with authentic gospel witness (as Samuel Perry says in his review), and in need of serious rebuke in conservative churches across our country. And I appreciate his call for pastors to do just that.
Paul Miller and I have at least two things in common - we're both white, and we're both Christians. But Paul Miller is many things I'm not - an academic, political theorist, veteran, former White House staffer for Bush, and a Republican. And that's exactly why I decided to read his book on Christian Nationalism (CN). I wanted to read a critique of CN from an "insider" who has rejected it instead - someone whose life experience and scholarship gives him a unique perspective on the destructiveness of CN in our country.
The author sets out to build a case against CN, and he certainly accomplishes his goal. Through a thorough examination of the historical roots of CN (white Christians merging their faith with their national identity), he guides the reader to consider the dangers and consequences of this toxic ideology, which has already done great harm to America and the witness of the Christian Church.
The author analyses the current rise of CN, and the effectiveness of Trump to mix religious speech & symbols with fear mongering tactics to lure millions of conservative Christians into the CN camp. And sadly, many were already there. Miller examines the motivations and agenda of the CN movement and makes clear the threat CN poses to the US remaining a democratic republic.
My biggest issue with the book is his lack of balance when referring to the Democratic Party. Not because I am one. Not because I believe they need defending. But because through out the book he tells us over and over how convicted he is that the Left is wrong. Period. Even as he calls out the racism that is a component of Christian Nationalism, he refuses to give any credit to what's been accomplished by the Democratic Party to advance the cause of justice. He also makes assumptions as to who can be a Democrat/Progressive and who cannot...and according to Miller, a Christ following person cannot. It's such a departure from the thoughtfulness with which he handles most of the other issues in the books.
Ultimately, I do believe that Paul Miller proves CN to be antidemocratic, illiberal, unbiblical and inconsistent with authentic gospel witness (as Samuel Perry says in his review), and in need of serious rebuke in conservative churches across our country. And I appreciate his call for pastors to do just that.
April 25, 2022
Thanks NetGalley and IVP Academic for this e-ARC!
I enjoyed Miller's work even as someone who probably would disagree with him on many other social issues. I liked that he has a balanced and critical perspective on Christian nationalism, rightly distinguishing it from Christian republicanism, which is desirable for America. His analysis of middle America is also really astute. He is also aware of how race, class, and education play a role in explaining why non-White Christians do not appear to succumb to Christian nationalism, which historically has pretty racist tendencies.
I docked a star because he got unnecessarily partisan/critical of the left in a couple of paragraphs in his confusion. I felt that these criticisms actually didn't contribute to his main argument at all, and marred some of its credibility. Although I suppose some criticism of the left has to be added in to appease the people whom this book was written for even if, as Miller himself admits, not many of them might read this book.
I still enjoyed this book on the whole even though it took me ages to finish because I don't have extensive knowledge on Christianity and American politics beyond the information I get via news sites and some Googling. I would recommend it to people regardless of their political leanings.
I enjoyed Miller's work even as someone who probably would disagree with him on many other social issues. I liked that he has a balanced and critical perspective on Christian nationalism, rightly distinguishing it from Christian republicanism, which is desirable for America. His analysis of middle America is also really astute. He is also aware of how race, class, and education play a role in explaining why non-White Christians do not appear to succumb to Christian nationalism, which historically has pretty racist tendencies.
I docked a star because he got unnecessarily partisan/critical of the left in a couple of paragraphs in his confusion. I felt that these criticisms actually didn't contribute to his main argument at all, and marred some of its credibility. Although I suppose some criticism of the left has to be added in to appease the people whom this book was written for even if, as Miller himself admits, not many of them might read this book.
I still enjoyed this book on the whole even though it took me ages to finish because I don't have extensive knowledge on Christianity and American politics beyond the information I get via news sites and some Googling. I would recommend it to people regardless of their political leanings.
October 8, 2025
I should begin by saying that I am very grateful for this work and those like it. Like Dr. Miller, I too am concerned with the Christian nationalist movement, and I have been disappointed by several in my own churches that have found themselves justifying the un-Christian stances of the Trump-era right wing political movement.
The second thing I would say about this book, is that I thought I would dislike it early on. I started to read it because a friend expressed confusion about why his more conservative Christian friends had no issue with the Department of War (sigh) releasing a social media post of a gentlemen reciting the Lord's Prayer over images of soldiers preparing and training for action. I don't align myself with either political party, but it seemed in the first chapter that Dr. Miller is mainly a republican, writing to republicans to argue against Trump and the tidal wave of Christian nationalism. He writes to progressives, "if you are so fixated on what America got wrong that you cannot celebrate the American creed and enjoy some schmaltzy patriotism on the Fourth of July, you've entirely lost the plot" (26). Now I am no leftist, but I've listened to enough Rage Against the Machine and spoken to enough Native Americans to see injustice as baked into the American experiment. And while I don't think Dr. Miller wrote to persuade folks like me that never identified as a republican, this quip seemed to condescendingly dismissed the lamentations of Native peoples, African Americans, and others who can't just gloss over "what America got wrong." He also repeated throughout the book talks about "evangelicals" as if that is a measurable category of actual people who exist (they don't).
Fast forward to his chapters on defining Christian nationalism. I don't study this stuff deeply, so this was hard for me, but he highlights four figures who he thinks represents the best thinkers of the movement. This was a good chapter, but it felt out of touch for my world. My friends that I'd label as Christian Nationalist (or who embrace the title themselves) are mostly influenced by Fox News, Doug Wilson, Stephen Wolfe, Rushdoony, Greg Bahnsen, and R. L. Dabney (more recently Charlie Kirk). I had not heard of any of his thinkers, so their thoughts don't seem influence those I interact with.
Enter Miller's defense of democracy and classical liberalism. He writes, 'Neutrality sounds very complicated in theory but is rarely that hard in practice" (101). The presuppositionalist in me (I may not be one, but I think they're right enough a lot of the time) can't ignore how much he defends for a neutrality that isn't sustainable. He goes on in the quote above to clarify "with limited exceptions around family law and civil rights." But we know that the neutrality principle doesn't stop there. And the RATM headbanger buried deep in my psyche can't help but see that none of these debates are morally neutral and unspoiled by racism.
But now fast forward to his chapter on Nationalism and the Bible and his scathing critique of the use of 2 Chron. 7:14 applied to the US or his identification of nationalism with idolatry. Superb. Enter chapter 8 on the Christian Right's Illiberalism in which he appears to really see the plight of the poor and historically oppressed peoples that I thought he dismissed early on. He writes, "the only place a statue of Robert E. Lee or Jefferson Davis should be found is a museum, a battlefield, a cemetery, or a junkyard" (172). Or again, "No individual white parent has to be personally bigoted for the system to continue producing unequal outcomes along racial lines. All they have to do is want the best for their children and think that other parents' problems and broader social ills are not their not theirs to solve" (183). Or again, "White American Christians' prioritization of group self-interest above republican principles manifested in their lack of attention to racial equality is the clearest proof that their operative political theology is nationalism, not republicans and that nationalism is illiberal and results in racial injustice" (187).
Finally, the concluding section on Frederick Douglass was mind blowing. I have taught his "What is the Fourth of July to the Negro?" but did not know his thought evolved and want to dig further into that development.
The second thing I would say about this book, is that I thought I would dislike it early on. I started to read it because a friend expressed confusion about why his more conservative Christian friends had no issue with the Department of War (sigh) releasing a social media post of a gentlemen reciting the Lord's Prayer over images of soldiers preparing and training for action. I don't align myself with either political party, but it seemed in the first chapter that Dr. Miller is mainly a republican, writing to republicans to argue against Trump and the tidal wave of Christian nationalism. He writes to progressives, "if you are so fixated on what America got wrong that you cannot celebrate the American creed and enjoy some schmaltzy patriotism on the Fourth of July, you've entirely lost the plot" (26). Now I am no leftist, but I've listened to enough Rage Against the Machine and spoken to enough Native Americans to see injustice as baked into the American experiment. And while I don't think Dr. Miller wrote to persuade folks like me that never identified as a republican, this quip seemed to condescendingly dismissed the lamentations of Native peoples, African Americans, and others who can't just gloss over "what America got wrong." He also repeated throughout the book talks about "evangelicals" as if that is a measurable category of actual people who exist (they don't).
Fast forward to his chapters on defining Christian nationalism. I don't study this stuff deeply, so this was hard for me, but he highlights four figures who he thinks represents the best thinkers of the movement. This was a good chapter, but it felt out of touch for my world. My friends that I'd label as Christian Nationalist (or who embrace the title themselves) are mostly influenced by Fox News, Doug Wilson, Stephen Wolfe, Rushdoony, Greg Bahnsen, and R. L. Dabney (more recently Charlie Kirk). I had not heard of any of his thinkers, so their thoughts don't seem influence those I interact with.
Enter Miller's defense of democracy and classical liberalism. He writes, 'Neutrality sounds very complicated in theory but is rarely that hard in practice" (101). The presuppositionalist in me (I may not be one, but I think they're right enough a lot of the time) can't ignore how much he defends for a neutrality that isn't sustainable. He goes on in the quote above to clarify "with limited exceptions around family law and civil rights." But we know that the neutrality principle doesn't stop there. And the RATM headbanger buried deep in my psyche can't help but see that none of these debates are morally neutral and unspoiled by racism.
But now fast forward to his chapter on Nationalism and the Bible and his scathing critique of the use of 2 Chron. 7:14 applied to the US or his identification of nationalism with idolatry. Superb. Enter chapter 8 on the Christian Right's Illiberalism in which he appears to really see the plight of the poor and historically oppressed peoples that I thought he dismissed early on. He writes, "the only place a statue of Robert E. Lee or Jefferson Davis should be found is a museum, a battlefield, a cemetery, or a junkyard" (172). Or again, "No individual white parent has to be personally bigoted for the system to continue producing unequal outcomes along racial lines. All they have to do is want the best for their children and think that other parents' problems and broader social ills are not their not theirs to solve" (183). Or again, "White American Christians' prioritization of group self-interest above republican principles manifested in their lack of attention to racial equality is the clearest proof that their operative political theology is nationalism, not republicans and that nationalism is illiberal and results in racial injustice" (187).
Finally, the concluding section on Frederick Douglass was mind blowing. I have taught his "What is the Fourth of July to the Negro?" but did not know his thought evolved and want to dig further into that development.
January 27, 2025
It is a bit refreshing to listen in on this internal debate among modern Christians about the Trump & MAGA specifically and fascistic Christian nationalism generally. I mean that it is good to know, some Christian thinkers are disseminating second-thoughts on that whole trend. Millers sees nationalism as Conflating "nation" (which is ephemeral, cultural, ill-defined) with "state", which is formally and legally defined as well as enforced. Apparently a lot that resonates with me is here distilled from Taking America Back for God: Christian Nationalism in the United States. See a detailed review of that book here.
A summary of the arguments:
[I read the unabridged audiobook published by christianaudio.com narrated by [author:Mike Lenz|17900958].]
A summary of the arguments:
Whitehead and Perry found evidence of illiberal views associated with Christian nationalism in the polling data. They found that Christian nationalists are more likely to believe immigrants increase crime (they don’t) and undermine American culture. They tend to believe that it is important to have been born in the United States and to have American ancestry to be accounted fully American, rejecting naturalized citizens and recent immigrants as coequal citizens. They are the most likely to admit they would feel uncomfortable if their daughter married an African American, to believe that the police treat Blacks and Whites equally, and to blame police shootings of African Americans on the victim rather than the police. They are most likely to perceive Muslims and atheists as a threat. The strongest supporters of Christian nationalism support prayer in schools and the display of religious symbols in public life and believe that being a Christian is important to being truly American. None of these beliefs have any logical connection to Christianity or to Christian republicanism, and many of them are directly opposed to it.
... the movement has some troubling attitudes toward race and identity. ...Whitehead and Perry conclude the worst:Christian nationalism gives divine sanction to ethnocentrism and nativism. Recall that prominent Ambassadors rationalized stronger borders on the grounds that God himself uses walls to protect and preserve his people . . . it is likely that biblical justifications are simply masking ethno-racial understandings of “us” and “them.” In effect, Christian nationalism lets them neutralize disputed assumptions about American identity and who belongs by cloaking their views in religious symbolism.
...Christian nationalism has provided the unifying myths, traditions, narratives, and value systems that have historically been deployed to preserve the interests of those who wish to halt or turn back changes occurring within American society...
Christian nationalism idealizes a mythic society in which real Americans—White, native- born, mostly Protestants—maintain control over access to society’s social, cultural, and political institutions, and “others” remain in their proper place. It therefore seeks strong boundaries to separate “us” from “them,” preserving privilege for its rightful recipients while equating racial and religious outsiders with criminality, violence, and inferiority.
...Christian nationalism is, therefore, ultimately about privilege. It co-opts Christian language and iconography in order to cloak particular political or social ends in moral and religious symbolism.
[I read the unabridged audiobook published by christianaudio.com narrated by [author:Mike Lenz|17900958].]
July 19, 2023
"The difference between unhealthy Christian nationalism and healthy Christian political witness is clear, in the big picture. If you believe that the government should do things to ensure that America continues to be a Christian nation, you are a Christian nationalist. If you want to use immigration policy or school curriculum to create or reinforce the idea of a Christian nation, you are a Christian nationalist."
Christian nationalism is not Christianity, and are in fact at odds with it. Reflecting upon whether our political engagement in favour of Christianity is rooted in actual Christian principles, or rather a loyalty to our Christian tribe, is absolutely key. If fear of losing our Christian values to the secular society fuels our political engagement, we might quickly steer off the right path. This might be obvious to most when it comes to America, Trump, DeSantis and the Christian nationalist movement in the US. But even in my country of Norway it's evident a lot of Christians are more occupied in grasping for political power to reclaim Norway as a Christian country rather than simply preach the Gospel of Christ, and engage in politics through the lens of his holy will. After all, Jesus himself said his kingdom is not of this world. The only Christian nation on this earth is the Church. If you disagree with what is written here, or are concerned of the implications, you should definitely read this book. Paul Miller is a devout republican who gracefully yet firmly pulls apart the tenets of Christian nationalism (aka, the identity politics of white Anglo-Protestant Evangelicals), and shows why in fact Christians should not embrace it, even in its most reasonable shapes. In his next book he is apparently addressing the Progressive movement in America, and I'm very much looking forward to it.
Christian nationalism is not Christianity, and are in fact at odds with it. Reflecting upon whether our political engagement in favour of Christianity is rooted in actual Christian principles, or rather a loyalty to our Christian tribe, is absolutely key. If fear of losing our Christian values to the secular society fuels our political engagement, we might quickly steer off the right path. This might be obvious to most when it comes to America, Trump, DeSantis and the Christian nationalist movement in the US. But even in my country of Norway it's evident a lot of Christians are more occupied in grasping for political power to reclaim Norway as a Christian country rather than simply preach the Gospel of Christ, and engage in politics through the lens of his holy will. After all, Jesus himself said his kingdom is not of this world. The only Christian nation on this earth is the Church. If you disagree with what is written here, or are concerned of the implications, you should definitely read this book. Paul Miller is a devout republican who gracefully yet firmly pulls apart the tenets of Christian nationalism (aka, the identity politics of white Anglo-Protestant Evangelicals), and shows why in fact Christians should not embrace it, even in its most reasonable shapes. In his next book he is apparently addressing the Progressive movement in America, and I'm very much looking forward to it.
August 28, 2023
What's wrong with Christian Nationalism? Valid question, needs addressing very much and quickly before the Christian Taliban takes over America by lethal force if necessary. My only problem with a book such as this is if I were writing it, there's no freaking way I could stop at 300 pages. Or 500 pages. Or 750 pages. I don't know if I couldn't stop at 2,000 pages. I don't think I could stop at 75,000 words. Because of my background and upbringing and the connections my influencers had, I've been exposed to this shit, and to insidious plans, planning, goals, proposed actions to reach those goals, long-term strategies, horrible statements, beliefs and goals, and more, and as I grew up and moved on -- trying to survive in that sickness -- I never thought that most of that crap would come true. I mean, we were simultaneously brainwashed daily to KNOW we victims we going to be hunted down and killed by the secular world and we were pressure-asked daily that when they demand they put the "mark of the beast on you" -- literally your FOREHEAD or hand (insanity) -- typically interpreted if not 666 literally, then more conveniently our US social security number, and if we agreed to it, we would be damned to hell for eternity by our loving creator/father and if we did the "right" thing, we'd be martyrs destined for heaven while the government blew our brains off right on the spot. That's sick shit to shove down a 2-year old's throat, a 4-year-old, ANY fucking age! Those of us old enough to have survived that during the '70s suffered trauma for years, decades, still from being forced to watch notorious propaganda films like the 1973 film A Thief in the Night and its sequels as well as other similar media (those awesome Dove tracs which also scared the shit out of me). Suffice it to say it took me years to figure out you can't take over the country by violent insurrection while the government is simultaneously executing you for being a damn Christian. And yet that's exactly what so many of these people unconsciously believe -- unconsciously cause it's drilled into their heads til they don't think about it anymore, if they ever did. I swear, worse than Jonestown. And yet we're a Christian country, founded on Christian (Calvinist) beliefs and principles and its our duty to return the country to those foundational cores, whatever means necessary. Aside from being factually inaccurate, how to normal-seeming, and in many cases well educated responsible professionals go from their normal seeming lives to monsters like this without blinking an eye? Well, I'm reading some historical books that I think give us clues as well as warnings. One I think that fits the situation perfectly is titled "Hitler's True Believers: How Ordinary People Became Nazis." (Another one might be "Nazi Women: The Attraction of Evil.")
So after ranting, I'll stop now because I literally could go on for months without stopping. Needless to say, the author broaches an important topic but could have expanded and gone much further, thought that wasn't his goal or even necessary, so that's just personal preference. I've been stunned to see so much of what was being "plotted" back in the 1960s and '70s (and onward) has come to fruition in so many ways, and that leaves me fearful for the future of this country at a minimum. (FYI, when I saw exposure to big people and big plans, I'm talking about things like lunching with Jerry Falwell in Lynchburg, meeting and talking educational goals with Bill Bright, hearing things by Dobson, James Kennedy, certain Graham family members -- I have books autographed to me by a number of these people, and others! -- and so many more, year by year until I fled for my safety and sanity in my 20s.) Recommended book. Recommended lifelong therapy for the tons of people like me, sadly. This is an important book and I hope many will read it and have their eyes opened, if they don't already.
So after ranting, I'll stop now because I literally could go on for months without stopping. Needless to say, the author broaches an important topic but could have expanded and gone much further, thought that wasn't his goal or even necessary, so that's just personal preference. I've been stunned to see so much of what was being "plotted" back in the 1960s and '70s (and onward) has come to fruition in so many ways, and that leaves me fearful for the future of this country at a minimum. (FYI, when I saw exposure to big people and big plans, I'm talking about things like lunching with Jerry Falwell in Lynchburg, meeting and talking educational goals with Bill Bright, hearing things by Dobson, James Kennedy, certain Graham family members -- I have books autographed to me by a number of these people, and others! -- and so many more, year by year until I fled for my safety and sanity in my 20s.) Recommended book. Recommended lifelong therapy for the tons of people like me, sadly. This is an important book and I hope many will read it and have their eyes opened, if they don't already.
September 1, 2022
While I am familiar with the argument Dr. Miller makes from other conservative thinkers, like David French and Jonah Goldberg, and though it seemed a bit repetitive oftentimes, I cannot stress how timely this book is and its constructive critiques are. With clearly defined terms and what I think are very characterizations of his subject matter, it's a read I want to recommend to everyone in the modern Christian church. I am very aware that many will resist its ideas. However, the audience that may need to hear his healthy exhortation the most cannot be forced to listen.
January 23, 2024
Though mainly about Christian nationalism and its threat to democracy, I think the part I found most compelling was his conclusion and call for evangelicals to return back to a biblical understanding of governance. Miller comes down hard and holds strong opinions, so I believe his message may turn away those who need to hear it. But I found his message convicting and a great starting point for dialogue with loved ones.
Read
July 25, 2022You can listen to my interview with the author here, if you're looking for a thrilling-adjacent way to spend an hour that is :)
Especially highlighted are my general agreements with his overall theme and my mild disagreement with his attempt to separate politics from culture...
https://episodes.castos.com/626060559...
Especially highlighted are my general agreements with his overall theme and my mild disagreement with his attempt to separate politics from culture...
https://episodes.castos.com/626060559...
May 3, 2023
I thought I had an understanding of nationalism (and was not inclined to it). When understood, it is worse than I thought. I am in broad agreement with Paul Miller. The book was fairly readable (it was a bit academic at times). The unfortunate conclusion is that he (and I) are largely without a political home today. I would recommend the book.
May 11, 2023
Writing as an evangelical American, Miller's critique of Christian Nationalism is nuanced and respectful, but still spot-on in its condemnations. Especially if you come from a place where you interact often with people who tend toward Christian Nationalist sympathies, this book will give you a vocabulary to identify and explain, with true Christian charity, the problems with that ideology.
September 9, 2022
Solid content. And I agree with the conclusions. But, it feels like it could be a shorter book or even an extended series of blog posts.
July 11, 2023
Timely, charitable, and helpful, if occasionally suffering from logical leaps or unsubstantiated claims. I would highly recommend this book.
September 7, 2023
Heck Christian Nationalism.
June 17, 2025
Desperately hopeful and frighteningly well reasoned. In an ideal world, the presidency (and by extension citizenship) might come with a reading list. This book could be on it.
July 24, 2025
Better than I thought it would be. Lost me for a few chapters (over my head), but the last half of the books for me was so good. Balanced as an author could be for this subject. Great understanding of Christian nationalism and many of the national issues we are experiencing right now.
January 12, 2023
SUMMARY: Many books taking on the subject of Christian nationalism identify, and rightly so, the idolatry, racism, and tribalism of the movement, but few theologically, academically, historically, and charitably dismantle the movement as well as Paul D. Miller, does in The Religion of American Greatness. But, dismantling Christian nationalism was not his sole goal in writing the book--he hopes his book assists Christians with being better witnesses.
"I hope this is useful for readers who already agree with its basic message by clarifying exactly what Christian nationalism is, why Christian nationalism is bad, and what its damaging implications are," Miller writes. "thus equipping you to be better Christian witnesses in the public square and better teachers in your own churches, families, and schools."
The book starts out slow as Miller, rightfully, defines his terms such as republicanism, history, heritage, evangelical, White Anglo Protestantism, and, of course, Christian nationalism before digging into the reasons for the resurgence of nationalism in the 21st century.
"The resurgence of nationalism in the twenty-first century is a response to decades of weakening national identities driven by globalization and tribalization…Globalization led to deindustrialization; the loss of manufacturing jobs, and the homogenizing and depressing sameness of 'McWorld,' as Benjamin Barber termed the global monoculture that was everywhere and nowhere."
What makes Christian nationalism unique "is that it defines America as a Christian nation and it wants the government to promote a specific Anglo-Protestant cultural template as the official culture of the country."
This doesn't necessarily, although it often does, manifest itself in the political agenda of Christian nationalists, but in the attitude that they hold: "an unstated presumption that Christians are entitled to primacy of place in the public square because they are heirs of the true or essential heritage of American culture, that Christians have a presumptive right to define the meaning of the American experiment because they see themselves as America’s architects, first citizens, and guardians."
Miller methodically, and charitably, takes on three main points that Christian nationalists make for the movement - "that humanity is divisible into cultural units, that cultural units should be the foundation of political order, and that Anglo-Protestantism is essential for democracy." He does not mock nor demean the points, but robustly refutes them by showing the inconsistencies in their arguments.
For example, Miller says that the argument that humanity is divisible into cultural units is false since "the groups we are part of—our peoples, cultures, or heritage—are fluid and malleable; we create and refashion them with our participation; cultures overlap; the boundaries between them are fuzzy and indistinct."
In the following chapter, he argues against Christian nationalism where he says the ideals of the movement are historically unAmerican and create division rather than unity
"At no point has America’s culture been defined by its concern to 'preserve' anything, but rather to constantly reinvent everything," Miller writes. "Because nationalism is arbitrary and relies on coercion and exclusion to fabricate a national identity, it fosters division, not cohesion; fragmentation, not unity. Nationalism undermines its own goals."
Miller, perhaps, makes the strongest argument against Christian nationalism from a theological point of view. He takes common Biblical passages such as 2 Chronicles 7:14 and Psalm 33:12 that are used to justify nationalism and clearly points out that the verses are talking about Israel and the church--not the United States.
"America is not Israel: the church is. Americans are not God’s chosen people; those who trust in Jesus from every tribe, tongue, people, and nation are. The divine mission of God’s chosen people is not to spread political liberty, national sovereignty, or capitalism; it is to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ," Miller writes. "America is not a 'Christian nation,' except in the descriptive sense that most Americans have always been professing Christians and Christianity has shaped much of our culture and history. The church is the one and only true Christian nation."
One of the major problems with Christian nationalism, and why it seduces so many Christians is that it is an ideology that functions similarly to a religion.
"It is a set of symbols that establishes powerful moods that last for centuries. It describes a general order for life, an orienting framework with a standard of right and wrong, a sense of purpose and direction. And it roots the general order in an 'aura of factuality,' a story about the nation’s ancient roots and primal existence which seems feasible because the nation preexists us and outlives us."
Miller spends a large part of the book on the Christian Right and how many of their ideals and beliefs overlap with Christian nationalist beliefs and ideals. We appreciate Miller's candidness as he doesn't mince words when parsing out the differences between the Christian Right and Christianity.
"The Christian Right is identity politics for tribal evangelicals, a response to the decline of Anglo-Protestant power, more than a movement or ordered liberty and equal justice for all," Miller says. "Christianity is a set of beliefs about ultimate things—most importantly, about the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ."
Miller concludes the book with advice to both Christians and pastors on how Christians can distinctly speak out against Christian nationalism. It starts with learning our nation's history--the good and the bad.
"To beat nationalism, we need to tell a better story…The national story can and must include both triumphs and failures because that is the best way to include everyone—victor and victim alike—and to inspire people with a sense of responsibility."
Historian Robert McKenzie , in We the Fallen People agrees.
"I'm convinced that faithful remembering is critical to faithful living," McKenzie says. "I'm distressed by the 'historylessness' that generally characterizes American Christians. Among its other costs, our historical amnesia contributes directly to our dysfunctional engagement with contemporary politics, a pattern distinguished chiefly by its worldly pragmatism and shallowness."
"I fear we are giving the culture reason to view followers of Christ as simply one more interest group, one more strategically savvy voting bloc willing to trade political support for political influence."
One of our favorite parts of the book is the end of the final chapter where he exhorts pastors to talk about Christian nationalism and what it means to engage in the political sphere with a uniquely Christian view.
"Quietism is itself a public, political stance: your congregations absorb the lesson that Christianity has no particular implications except to endorse the pro-life movement," Miller pens. "and thus, there is no particular problem with the de facto Christian nationalism that dominates much of White evangelical political life."
The church, when done correctly, can serve as a model for the rest of the world where people who do not agree are united in their love for Jesus. A community that pursues the common good for all people. A community that treats all humans with dignity and respect.
"People need to be taught how to live as part of a body, how to understand and live out our roles as a member of a church, citizen of a nation, and resident of a community," Miller says. " In our self-centered, narcissistic, individuaistic, expressionist age, we are incompetent in the arts of living together. We may be naturally social and political animals, but we still have to acquire the cultivated virtues of citizens. Churches must help form us into better political animals."
While we do not recommend this book as a starting point on Christian nationalism, for that we suggest The Flag and the Cross , we appreciated how thoroughly Miller takes on the subject. For those looking for a deep dive, you cannot do any better.
KEY QUOTE: "The danger of nationalism is not that it encourages us to cultivate loyalty to and affection for our country—which is inescapable—but that it endows the state with almost limitless jurisdiction to reshape culture, imagines the nation as a quasi-religious body, and exacerbates sectarian and ethnic cleavages at home. Christians who uncritically buy into nationalism are giving support to an incoherent secular idea with a troubled historical record and making themselves credulous supporters of a dangerous and thoughtless theology."
MORE: Visit SundaytoSaturday.com where we curate topics for a disillusioned church.
"I hope this is useful for readers who already agree with its basic message by clarifying exactly what Christian nationalism is, why Christian nationalism is bad, and what its damaging implications are," Miller writes. "thus equipping you to be better Christian witnesses in the public square and better teachers in your own churches, families, and schools."
The book starts out slow as Miller, rightfully, defines his terms such as republicanism, history, heritage, evangelical, White Anglo Protestantism, and, of course, Christian nationalism before digging into the reasons for the resurgence of nationalism in the 21st century.
"The resurgence of nationalism in the twenty-first century is a response to decades of weakening national identities driven by globalization and tribalization…Globalization led to deindustrialization; the loss of manufacturing jobs, and the homogenizing and depressing sameness of 'McWorld,' as Benjamin Barber termed the global monoculture that was everywhere and nowhere."
What makes Christian nationalism unique "is that it defines America as a Christian nation and it wants the government to promote a specific Anglo-Protestant cultural template as the official culture of the country."
This doesn't necessarily, although it often does, manifest itself in the political agenda of Christian nationalists, but in the attitude that they hold: "an unstated presumption that Christians are entitled to primacy of place in the public square because they are heirs of the true or essential heritage of American culture, that Christians have a presumptive right to define the meaning of the American experiment because they see themselves as America’s architects, first citizens, and guardians."
Miller methodically, and charitably, takes on three main points that Christian nationalists make for the movement - "that humanity is divisible into cultural units, that cultural units should be the foundation of political order, and that Anglo-Protestantism is essential for democracy." He does not mock nor demean the points, but robustly refutes them by showing the inconsistencies in their arguments.
For example, Miller says that the argument that humanity is divisible into cultural units is false since "the groups we are part of—our peoples, cultures, or heritage—are fluid and malleable; we create and refashion them with our participation; cultures overlap; the boundaries between them are fuzzy and indistinct."
In the following chapter, he argues against Christian nationalism where he says the ideals of the movement are historically unAmerican and create division rather than unity
"At no point has America’s culture been defined by its concern to 'preserve' anything, but rather to constantly reinvent everything," Miller writes. "Because nationalism is arbitrary and relies on coercion and exclusion to fabricate a national identity, it fosters division, not cohesion; fragmentation, not unity. Nationalism undermines its own goals."
Miller, perhaps, makes the strongest argument against Christian nationalism from a theological point of view. He takes common Biblical passages such as 2 Chronicles 7:14 and Psalm 33:12 that are used to justify nationalism and clearly points out that the verses are talking about Israel and the church--not the United States.
"America is not Israel: the church is. Americans are not God’s chosen people; those who trust in Jesus from every tribe, tongue, people, and nation are. The divine mission of God’s chosen people is not to spread political liberty, national sovereignty, or capitalism; it is to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ," Miller writes. "America is not a 'Christian nation,' except in the descriptive sense that most Americans have always been professing Christians and Christianity has shaped much of our culture and history. The church is the one and only true Christian nation."
One of the major problems with Christian nationalism, and why it seduces so many Christians is that it is an ideology that functions similarly to a religion.
"It is a set of symbols that establishes powerful moods that last for centuries. It describes a general order for life, an orienting framework with a standard of right and wrong, a sense of purpose and direction. And it roots the general order in an 'aura of factuality,' a story about the nation’s ancient roots and primal existence which seems feasible because the nation preexists us and outlives us."
Miller spends a large part of the book on the Christian Right and how many of their ideals and beliefs overlap with Christian nationalist beliefs and ideals. We appreciate Miller's candidness as he doesn't mince words when parsing out the differences between the Christian Right and Christianity.
"The Christian Right is identity politics for tribal evangelicals, a response to the decline of Anglo-Protestant power, more than a movement or ordered liberty and equal justice for all," Miller says. "Christianity is a set of beliefs about ultimate things—most importantly, about the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ."
Miller concludes the book with advice to both Christians and pastors on how Christians can distinctly speak out against Christian nationalism. It starts with learning our nation's history--the good and the bad.
"To beat nationalism, we need to tell a better story…The national story can and must include both triumphs and failures because that is the best way to include everyone—victor and victim alike—and to inspire people with a sense of responsibility."
Historian Robert McKenzie , in We the Fallen People agrees.
"I'm convinced that faithful remembering is critical to faithful living," McKenzie says. "I'm distressed by the 'historylessness' that generally characterizes American Christians. Among its other costs, our historical amnesia contributes directly to our dysfunctional engagement with contemporary politics, a pattern distinguished chiefly by its worldly pragmatism and shallowness."
"I fear we are giving the culture reason to view followers of Christ as simply one more interest group, one more strategically savvy voting bloc willing to trade political support for political influence."
One of our favorite parts of the book is the end of the final chapter where he exhorts pastors to talk about Christian nationalism and what it means to engage in the political sphere with a uniquely Christian view.
"Quietism is itself a public, political stance: your congregations absorb the lesson that Christianity has no particular implications except to endorse the pro-life movement," Miller pens. "and thus, there is no particular problem with the de facto Christian nationalism that dominates much of White evangelical political life."
The church, when done correctly, can serve as a model for the rest of the world where people who do not agree are united in their love for Jesus. A community that pursues the common good for all people. A community that treats all humans with dignity and respect.
"People need to be taught how to live as part of a body, how to understand and live out our roles as a member of a church, citizen of a nation, and resident of a community," Miller says. " In our self-centered, narcissistic, individuaistic, expressionist age, we are incompetent in the arts of living together. We may be naturally social and political animals, but we still have to acquire the cultivated virtues of citizens. Churches must help form us into better political animals."
While we do not recommend this book as a starting point on Christian nationalism, for that we suggest The Flag and the Cross , we appreciated how thoroughly Miller takes on the subject. For those looking for a deep dive, you cannot do any better.
KEY QUOTE: "The danger of nationalism is not that it encourages us to cultivate loyalty to and affection for our country—which is inescapable—but that it endows the state with almost limitless jurisdiction to reshape culture, imagines the nation as a quasi-religious body, and exacerbates sectarian and ethnic cleavages at home. Christians who uncritically buy into nationalism are giving support to an incoherent secular idea with a troubled historical record and making themselves credulous supporters of a dangerous and thoughtless theology."
MORE: Visit SundaytoSaturday.com where we curate topics for a disillusioned church.
December 31, 2022
The Religion of American Greatness is great for people trying to see things from the perspective of American conservatives, particularly that of American Christian Nationalists. It helped me realize the importance of history and religion to White Christians in America, and how these can easily be twisted into nationalism and racism.
It would have been a much better read had the writer not made his biases so overt. As someone who repeatedly mentions the need to not just acknowledge the past mistakes of their nation, but to also celebrate the good that it has done throughout history, he hardly mentions all the other social accomplishments of America aside from racial equality (which somehow feels like low-hanging fruit), and never gives any due credit to the importance of progressivism in the achievement of said accomplishments. That, as well as his constant need to inject his partisanship in ways that almost feel off-topic, his reliance on the bible in matters of ethics and morality—not to mention his condescension towards virtually everyone—tarnishes his credibility in spite of his scholarly background.
3 stars. The Religion of American Greatness should be a good book to help Christian Republicans from straying too far to the right by appealing to their Christian values and their patriotism; unfortunately, Miller writes this glorified dissertation in a way that may be too wordy and convoluted for those who actually need to hear his message.
For others who, like me, are simply trying to understand why many Americans are drawn to Trump, a better book would be Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right.
It would have been a much better read had the writer not made his biases so overt. As someone who repeatedly mentions the need to not just acknowledge the past mistakes of their nation, but to also celebrate the good that it has done throughout history, he hardly mentions all the other social accomplishments of America aside from racial equality (which somehow feels like low-hanging fruit), and never gives any due credit to the importance of progressivism in the achievement of said accomplishments. That, as well as his constant need to inject his partisanship in ways that almost feel off-topic, his reliance on the bible in matters of ethics and morality—not to mention his condescension towards virtually everyone—tarnishes his credibility in spite of his scholarly background.
3 stars. The Religion of American Greatness should be a good book to help Christian Republicans from straying too far to the right by appealing to their Christian values and their patriotism; unfortunately, Miller writes this glorified dissertation in a way that may be too wordy and convoluted for those who actually need to hear his message.
For others who, like me, are simply trying to understand why many Americans are drawn to Trump, a better book would be Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 109 reviews