What do you think?
Rate this book
Unlearning Christian Nationalism: How I Escaped
The Handmaid's Tale depicts a religious dystopia, but I lived in the real thing - the rise of Christian Nationalism in America. What I discovered when I escaped might shock you, but it also might be the key to your own liberation.
In this unflinching expose, I
How American Christianity became a weapon instead of a way of loveWhy the "persecution complex" is actually about maintaining powerThe ancient Hebrew concept that exposes modern Christian hypocrisyHow to distinguish between authentic faith and nationalist ideologyA path forward for those who refuse to choose between Jesus and justice
You'll discover the uncomfortable The biggest threat to Christianity isn't atheism or secularism or any other ism, it's believers who've convinced themselves their hatred is holy, their exclusion is godly, and their cruelty is Christ-like.
This book is for you
You feel spiritually homeless after leaving toxic church cultureYou're tired of choosing between your faith and your conscienceYou suspect something is deeply wrong with American ChristianityYou're ready to unlearn everything you thought you knew about following Jesus
From the Crusades to MAGA rallies, the pattern is When faith becomes a tool of empire, people get hurt. Real people.
Because the deadliest lies are the ones we tell ourselves in God's name.
In this unflinching expose, I
How American Christianity became a weapon instead of a way of loveWhy the "persecution complex" is actually about maintaining powerThe ancient Hebrew concept that exposes modern Christian hypocrisyHow to distinguish between authentic faith and nationalist ideologyA path forward for those who refuse to choose between Jesus and justice
You'll discover the uncomfortable The biggest threat to Christianity isn't atheism or secularism or any other ism, it's believers who've convinced themselves their hatred is holy, their exclusion is godly, and their cruelty is Christ-like.
This book is for you
You feel spiritually homeless after leaving toxic church cultureYou're tired of choosing between your faith and your conscienceYou suspect something is deeply wrong with American ChristianityYou're ready to unlearn everything you thought you knew about following Jesus
From the Crusades to MAGA rallies, the pattern is When faith becomes a tool of empire, people get hurt. Real people.
Because the deadliest lies are the ones we tell ourselves in God's name.
310 pages, Kindle Edition
Published August 4, 2025
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
June 18, 2026
Todd Eubanks' "Unlearning Christian Nationalism" has a problem deeper than politics. the problem is not merely that he dislikes Christian Nationalism, nor even that the paints with too broad a brush (which he does). The deeper problem with "Unlearning Christian Nationalism is that it is a work of theological unlearning disguised as moral clarity. It's earlier title, "Unlearning Christianity," was far more honest. The newer title deceptively narrows the target, but the argument itself does not.
This is not simply a book warning Christians against idolatrous patriotism, racial partiality, or shallow "Churchianity." Those would be worthy targets. Christians should absolutely reject any attempt to treat America as though it were identical to the kingdom of God, or to treat national loyalty as equal to fidelity to Christ. But Eubanks goes further. Not only does he address the shortcomings and outright failings of professing Christians, he attacks the very framework of true, historical Christianity itself. He casts suspicion on the certainty, authority, moral boundaries, biblical law Christian society, and the duty of the nations to acknowledge God as God and to kiss the Son.
And he justifies it under the guise of every liberal's favorite word: "love." The problem is, he keeps using that word, and I do not think it means what he thinks it means.
Oh, sure, Eubanks presents a complete word study on the Hebrew word "shav'," but throughout the book "love" functions as his supreme moral standard. It is the measure by which he rebukes conservative Christians, Christian Nationalists, political protestants, traditionalists, really anyone who believes contrary to himself. But for all his appeals to "love," he never provides a serious biblical definition of it. He does not define love by the character of God. He does not define it by the law of God. He does not define it by Christ's own words: "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments." He does not even define it by Paul's inspired description of "love" in 1 Corinthians 13. Probably because that inconvenient part about how love "does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth".
Instead, "love" becomes a floating sentiment, which Eubanks arbitrarily uses to mean openness, inclusion, affirmation, doubt, and nonjudgment. Whatever is firm becomes unloving. Whatever is certain becomes dangerous. Whatever draws a moral boundary becomes suspect. Whatever sounds gentle, therapeutic, or culturally palatable to itching ears becomes more Christ-like. This, however is not biblical love. But this is not biblical love. This is modern liberal moralistic slop dressed in a Christian vocabulary.
True biblical love is not soft, effeminate permissiveness. Biblical love rejoices in the truth. Biblical love obeys God's commands and teaches others to do the same. Biblical love rebukes sin, protects the innocent, guards the church, honors God's law, and refuses to call evil good. The love of God does not dissolve righteousness, but establishes it. And any definition of "love" that cannot say "no," cannot judge, cannot call out wickedness, cannot defend the innocent, and cannot submit to God's commands is not real love at all. It's vain sentimentality. It's shav'.
If Eubanks is going to preach at Christians about misusing God's name as "shav'," then he does not get to, in the same breath, defend the very sins God plainly condemns in His word. He doesn't get to lecture Christians about the 3rd commandment while providing moral cover to violations of the 6th. If, in the same moral universe, abortion can be called "healthcare," then the problem is not that Eubanks is looking at the 3rd commandment too deeply. It's that he understands it selectively.
Abortion is not healthcare. It is the intentional destruction of innocent human life. It is a violation of "You shall not murder." To dress it up in the language of compassion, justice, or loving your neighbor is not "prophetic," as one reviewer wrote. It's the moral inversion mentioned in Isaiah 5:20. It is precisely the kind of thing his own treatment of shav' ought to condemn. But Eubanks wants to have his theologically shallow, liberal cake and eat it too.
If it is vain to attach God's name to national idolatry (which it is), then it is also vain to attach Christian love to child-sacrifice (Lev. 18:21, Deut. 12:31, Ps. 106:37–38). If it is vain to use Scripture as a cover for blatant racism (which it is), it is equally vain to use Christian compassion as a cover for the sexual immorality God plainly condemns (Lev. 18:22, Lev. 20:13, Jude 1:7, Rom. 1:26-28, 1 Cor. 6:9-10, 1 Tim. 1:8-11). If misrepresenting God while invoking His moral authority is shav', then permitting anything which God forbids is shav'.
This reveals the central inconsistency of the book. Eubanks is very concerned about some commandments whenever they can be used against conservative Christians. He is far less concerned about commandments that indict the moral assumptions of modern liberalism. He can rebuke Christians for misusing the Lord's name, while excusing, minimizing, and even blessing violations of God's law when that violation fits the moral vocabulary of the age.
His handling of history follows the same pattern. The Quakers are treated with sympathy, almost as prophetic victims, moral exemplars of what Christians should be. All the while, their serious theological errors are completely ignored. Quakerism cannot be honestly assessed without discussing its departure from historic Protestant orthodoxy, its elevation of inward experiences, and its weakening of Scriptural authority. Which shouldn't come as a surprise, considering that is precisely what Eubanks appears to promote.
The same charitability, however, is not extended to the Crusaders, Reformers, or Puritans, who are rigorously vilified throughout the book. Their failures are foregrounded and sensationalized. Their political sins are emphasized and prophesized as a future second coming. Meanwhile, their achievements, faithfulness, and significance to Christianity are completely ignored.
The very men who the Lord used to recover justification by faith, defended the authority of Scripture, preach the holiness of God, build the Protestant Church, catechize households, and shape the Christian civilization Eubanks himself enjoys are reduced to cautionary tales about power.
The same weakness appears in the book's heavy dependence on personal anecdotes. Eubanks tells stories of church hurt, hypocrisy, and plenty of "this one time, this person did this thing. Therefore, ChRiStIaN nAtIoNaLiSm!" Anecdotes are not exegesis, nor do emotional stories bear the weight of doctrine.
This is where the book repeatedly confuses misuse with essence. Because some Christian have misused or misapplied the 3rd commandment, Eubanks begins unraveling biblical moral categories. Because some Christians have idolized America, he grows suspicious of public Christianity. Because some churches have been harsh, he treats moral boundaries as dangerous. Because some professing Christians have been hypocritical, he casts suspicion on the very certainty, authority, and law that expose hypocrisy in the first place.
But the answer to bad Christianity is never less Christianity.
This is equally true in the lives of individual Christians, the Christian Church as a whole, and even politically and nationally. The answer to bad Christianity is not vague spirituality or liberalized morality. The answer or bad Christianity is repentance and a return to the true worship of God according to His word.
In our private worship.
In our family worship.
In our public worship.
In our Church.
And yes, even as a nation.
Anything less is therapeutic doubt dressed up as humility.
Anything less is suspicion of God and His word.
Anything less is shav'.
To be clear, Christians must reject all forms of idolatry, MAGA types included. Christians must reject all sinful partiality, racial types included. Christians must reject all forms of hypocritical, empty religion, nationalist types included. But Eubanks' book doesn't merely call Christians to repent of Christless conservative Christianity. It calls them to embrace a different form of Christless Christianity in another ditch: a Christless liberal Christianity where biblical love is rejected, God's law is abandoned unless it is helpful in defeating the opposition, certainty is dangerous, and true Christianity is something to be unlearned.
The earlier title told the truth.
"Unlearning Christianity" is exactly what Eubanks wants the reader to do.
The revised title, "Unlearning Christian Nationalism," gives the impression of a narrower critique, but the argument is anything but narrow. Eubanks is not simply asking Christians to abandon nationalism.
He is asking them to abandon Christianity, all together.
And he has the audacity to call it "love," when in reality, it is just the same old shav'.
This is not simply a book warning Christians against idolatrous patriotism, racial partiality, or shallow "Churchianity." Those would be worthy targets. Christians should absolutely reject any attempt to treat America as though it were identical to the kingdom of God, or to treat national loyalty as equal to fidelity to Christ. But Eubanks goes further. Not only does he address the shortcomings and outright failings of professing Christians, he attacks the very framework of true, historical Christianity itself. He casts suspicion on the certainty, authority, moral boundaries, biblical law Christian society, and the duty of the nations to acknowledge God as God and to kiss the Son.
And he justifies it under the guise of every liberal's favorite word: "love." The problem is, he keeps using that word, and I do not think it means what he thinks it means.
Oh, sure, Eubanks presents a complete word study on the Hebrew word "shav'," but throughout the book "love" functions as his supreme moral standard. It is the measure by which he rebukes conservative Christians, Christian Nationalists, political protestants, traditionalists, really anyone who believes contrary to himself. But for all his appeals to "love," he never provides a serious biblical definition of it. He does not define love by the character of God. He does not define it by the law of God. He does not define it by Christ's own words: "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments." He does not even define it by Paul's inspired description of "love" in 1 Corinthians 13. Probably because that inconvenient part about how love "does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth".
Instead, "love" becomes a floating sentiment, which Eubanks arbitrarily uses to mean openness, inclusion, affirmation, doubt, and nonjudgment. Whatever is firm becomes unloving. Whatever is certain becomes dangerous. Whatever draws a moral boundary becomes suspect. Whatever sounds gentle, therapeutic, or culturally palatable to itching ears becomes more Christ-like. This, however is not biblical love. But this is not biblical love. This is modern liberal moralistic slop dressed in a Christian vocabulary.
True biblical love is not soft, effeminate permissiveness. Biblical love rejoices in the truth. Biblical love obeys God's commands and teaches others to do the same. Biblical love rebukes sin, protects the innocent, guards the church, honors God's law, and refuses to call evil good. The love of God does not dissolve righteousness, but establishes it. And any definition of "love" that cannot say "no," cannot judge, cannot call out wickedness, cannot defend the innocent, and cannot submit to God's commands is not real love at all. It's vain sentimentality. It's shav'.
If Eubanks is going to preach at Christians about misusing God's name as "shav'," then he does not get to, in the same breath, defend the very sins God plainly condemns in His word. He doesn't get to lecture Christians about the 3rd commandment while providing moral cover to violations of the 6th. If, in the same moral universe, abortion can be called "healthcare," then the problem is not that Eubanks is looking at the 3rd commandment too deeply. It's that he understands it selectively.
Abortion is not healthcare. It is the intentional destruction of innocent human life. It is a violation of "You shall not murder." To dress it up in the language of compassion, justice, or loving your neighbor is not "prophetic," as one reviewer wrote. It's the moral inversion mentioned in Isaiah 5:20. It is precisely the kind of thing his own treatment of shav' ought to condemn. But Eubanks wants to have his theologically shallow, liberal cake and eat it too.
If it is vain to attach God's name to national idolatry (which it is), then it is also vain to attach Christian love to child-sacrifice (Lev. 18:21, Deut. 12:31, Ps. 106:37–38). If it is vain to use Scripture as a cover for blatant racism (which it is), it is equally vain to use Christian compassion as a cover for the sexual immorality God plainly condemns (Lev. 18:22, Lev. 20:13, Jude 1:7, Rom. 1:26-28, 1 Cor. 6:9-10, 1 Tim. 1:8-11). If misrepresenting God while invoking His moral authority is shav', then permitting anything which God forbids is shav'.
This reveals the central inconsistency of the book. Eubanks is very concerned about some commandments whenever they can be used against conservative Christians. He is far less concerned about commandments that indict the moral assumptions of modern liberalism. He can rebuke Christians for misusing the Lord's name, while excusing, minimizing, and even blessing violations of God's law when that violation fits the moral vocabulary of the age.
His handling of history follows the same pattern. The Quakers are treated with sympathy, almost as prophetic victims, moral exemplars of what Christians should be. All the while, their serious theological errors are completely ignored. Quakerism cannot be honestly assessed without discussing its departure from historic Protestant orthodoxy, its elevation of inward experiences, and its weakening of Scriptural authority. Which shouldn't come as a surprise, considering that is precisely what Eubanks appears to promote.
The same charitability, however, is not extended to the Crusaders, Reformers, or Puritans, who are rigorously vilified throughout the book. Their failures are foregrounded and sensationalized. Their political sins are emphasized and prophesized as a future second coming. Meanwhile, their achievements, faithfulness, and significance to Christianity are completely ignored.
The very men who the Lord used to recover justification by faith, defended the authority of Scripture, preach the holiness of God, build the Protestant Church, catechize households, and shape the Christian civilization Eubanks himself enjoys are reduced to cautionary tales about power.
The same weakness appears in the book's heavy dependence on personal anecdotes. Eubanks tells stories of church hurt, hypocrisy, and plenty of "this one time, this person did this thing. Therefore, ChRiStIaN nAtIoNaLiSm!" Anecdotes are not exegesis, nor do emotional stories bear the weight of doctrine.
This is where the book repeatedly confuses misuse with essence. Because some Christian have misused or misapplied the 3rd commandment, Eubanks begins unraveling biblical moral categories. Because some Christians have idolized America, he grows suspicious of public Christianity. Because some churches have been harsh, he treats moral boundaries as dangerous. Because some professing Christians have been hypocritical, he casts suspicion on the very certainty, authority, and law that expose hypocrisy in the first place.
But the answer to bad Christianity is never less Christianity.
This is equally true in the lives of individual Christians, the Christian Church as a whole, and even politically and nationally. The answer to bad Christianity is not vague spirituality or liberalized morality. The answer or bad Christianity is repentance and a return to the true worship of God according to His word.
In our private worship.
In our family worship.
In our public worship.
In our Church.
And yes, even as a nation.
Anything less is therapeutic doubt dressed up as humility.
Anything less is suspicion of God and His word.
Anything less is shav'.
To be clear, Christians must reject all forms of idolatry, MAGA types included. Christians must reject all sinful partiality, racial types included. Christians must reject all forms of hypocritical, empty religion, nationalist types included. But Eubanks' book doesn't merely call Christians to repent of Christless conservative Christianity. It calls them to embrace a different form of Christless Christianity in another ditch: a Christless liberal Christianity where biblical love is rejected, God's law is abandoned unless it is helpful in defeating the opposition, certainty is dangerous, and true Christianity is something to be unlearned.
The earlier title told the truth.
"Unlearning Christianity" is exactly what Eubanks wants the reader to do.
The revised title, "Unlearning Christian Nationalism," gives the impression of a narrower critique, but the argument is anything but narrow. Eubanks is not simply asking Christians to abandon nationalism.
He is asking them to abandon Christianity, all together.
And he has the audacity to call it "love," when in reality, it is just the same old shav'.
September 19, 2025
Only for fans of Howard Zinn's "Peoples' History of the United States."
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews