What do you think?
Rate this book
Taking America Back for God: Christian Nationalism in the United States
Why do so many conservative Christians continue to support Donald Trump despite his many overt moral failings? Why do many Americans advocate so vehemently for xenophobic policies, such as a border wall with Mexico? Why do many Americans seem so unwilling to acknowledge the injustices that ethnic and racial minorities experience in the United States? Why do a sizeable proportion of Americans continue to oppose women's equality in the workplace and in the home?
To answer these questions, Taking America Back for God points to the phenomenon of "Christian nationalism," the belief that the United States is-and should be-a Christian nation. Christian ideals and symbols have long played an important role in American public life, but Christian nationalism is about far more than whether the phrase "under God" belongs in the pledge of allegiance. At its heart, Christian nationalism demands that we must preserve a particular kind of social order, an order in which everyone--Christians and non-Christians, native-born and immigrants, whites and minorities, men and women recognizes their "proper" place in society. The first comprehensive empirical analysis of Christian nationalism in the United States, Taking America Back for God illustrates the influence of Christian nationalism on today's most contentious social and political issues.
Drawing on multiple sources of national survey data as well as in-depth interviews, Andrew Whitehead and Samuel Perry document how Christian nationalism shapes what Americans think about who they are as a people, what their future should look like, and how they should get there. Americans' stance toward Christian nationalism provides powerful insight into what they think about immigration, Islam, gun control, police shootings, atheists, gender roles, and many other political issues-very much including who they want in the White House. Taking America Back for God is a guide to one of the most important-and least understood-forces shaping American politics.
To answer these questions, Taking America Back for God points to the phenomenon of "Christian nationalism," the belief that the United States is-and should be-a Christian nation. Christian ideals and symbols have long played an important role in American public life, but Christian nationalism is about far more than whether the phrase "under God" belongs in the pledge of allegiance. At its heart, Christian nationalism demands that we must preserve a particular kind of social order, an order in which everyone--Christians and non-Christians, native-born and immigrants, whites and minorities, men and women recognizes their "proper" place in society. The first comprehensive empirical analysis of Christian nationalism in the United States, Taking America Back for God illustrates the influence of Christian nationalism on today's most contentious social and political issues.
Drawing on multiple sources of national survey data as well as in-depth interviews, Andrew Whitehead and Samuel Perry document how Christian nationalism shapes what Americans think about who they are as a people, what their future should look like, and how they should get there. Americans' stance toward Christian nationalism provides powerful insight into what they think about immigration, Islam, gun control, police shootings, atheists, gender roles, and many other political issues-very much including who they want in the White House. Taking America Back for God is a guide to one of the most important-and least understood-forces shaping American politics.
288 pages, Hardcover
First published February 3, 2020
293 people are currently reading
3027 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 152 reviews
September 30, 2020
This book is an absolute must-read to understand the current religious and political climate in America right now. The authors have done extensive research to better understand what Christian Nationalism is and who Christian Nationalists are.
They define Christian nationalism as “Christian nationalism is a cultural framework—a collection of myths, traditions, symbols, narratives, and value systems—that idealizes and advocates a fusion of Christianity with American civic life” (10). Though holding the term “Christian”, Christian nationalism is not the same as religion: “the “Christianity” of Christian nationalism represents something more than religion. As we will show, it includes assumptions of nativism, white supremacy, patriarchy, and heteronormativity, along with divine sanction for authoritarian control and militarism. It is as ethnic and political as it is religious” (10)
Along those lines, the authors separate Christian nationalism from the traditional American “civic religion.” American civic religion has looked to parts of scripture such as the prophets to call citizens to civic engagement and the institution of just politics and so forth. Contrast this with Christian nationalism which Christian nationalism is rarely concerned with instituting explicitly “Christ-like” policies, or even policies reflecting New Testament ethics at all. Rather, Christian nationalists view God’s expectations of America as akin to his commands to Old Testament Israel. Like Israel, then, America should fear God’s wrath for unfaithfulness while assuming God’s blessing—or even mandate—for subduing the continent by force if necessary” (11).
Christian nationalism is more political than religious. Thus, a person’s identity as a Christian nationalist has more to do with if they are politically conservative than if they are a white evangelical. That point is one of the biggest takeaways from the book: Christian nationalist does not equal white evangelical. Plenty of white evangelicals are Christian nationalists, but not all Christian nationalists are white evangelicals. One point they emphasize throughout is that once Christian nationalism is taken into account, those who actively practice religion (attend church, pray, read Bible) are nearly the opposite of Christian nationalists. Christian nationalists, for example, are anti-immigration, while religious practitioners are more likely to be pro-immigration.
“Stated simply: being an evangelical, or even a white evangelical as pollsters often define that category, tells us almost nothing about a person’s social attitudes or behavior once Christian nationalism has been considered. The two categories often overlap, to be sure. Roughly half of evangelicals (by some definitions) embrace Christian nationalism to some degree. And yet what is really influencing Americans’ behavior? Being affiliated with evangelicalism? Holding to traditional views about the Bible? Or advocating Christian nationalism? As it turns out, being an evangelical does not lead one to enthusiastically support border walls with Mexico; favoring Christian nationalism does. Being an evangelical does not seem to sour Americans’ attitudes toward stronger gun control legislation; endorsing Christian nationalism does. Being an evangelical was not an important predictor of which Americans voted for Donald Trump in 2016; supporting Christian nationalism was. Readers should keep this in mind throughout” (29).
Throughout the book they examine all these points in more depth. They describe four groups: Ambassadors are wholly supportive of Christian nationalism, Accomodators lean that direction, Rejecters wholly reject Christian nationalism and Resisters lean towards rejection. Through discussing topics such as orders and boundaries, they look at how each of these groups differs in how it views the world.
The conclusion brings it all together and again emphasizes why this topic is important:
“Acknowledging the importance of Christian nationalism also introduces the precision that our public discourse on religion and politics so desperately needs. For the past few years journalists and political commentators have obsessed over why “white evangelicals,” voted for President Trump. In reality, however, it is not just being evangelical or even being a white evangelical that truly matters. Rather, it is the degree to which Americans—perceiving current political conflicts through the lens of Christian nationalism—wish to institutionalize conservative “Christian” cultural preferences in America’s policies and self-identity. Recognizing the power of Christian nationalism helps us acknowledge not only the diversity within particular religious traditions but also why those of different religious traditions who are Ambassadors tend to vote and act in very similar ways. Evangelicals and mainline Protestants who are Ambassadors are much more alike politically than are Ambassadors and Resisters who are both mainline Protestants. Moreover, Christian nationalism is not bound to any particular religious group. . . Christian nationalism is significant because calls to “take America back for God” are not primarily about mobilizing the faithful toward religious ends ” (152-153)
And
“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. This serves to legitimate the demands, wants, and desires of those embracing Christian nationalism in the transcendent. If God says the United States should take a particular stance, or pass a specific law, who are we to argue? Christian nationalism is used to defend against shifts in the culture toward equality for groups that have historically lacked access to the levers of power—women, sexual, racial, ethnic, and religious minorities” (152-153)
Overall, a very important book in understanding Christian nationalism.
They define Christian nationalism as “Christian nationalism is a cultural framework—a collection of myths, traditions, symbols, narratives, and value systems—that idealizes and advocates a fusion of Christianity with American civic life” (10). Though holding the term “Christian”, Christian nationalism is not the same as religion: “the “Christianity” of Christian nationalism represents something more than religion. As we will show, it includes assumptions of nativism, white supremacy, patriarchy, and heteronormativity, along with divine sanction for authoritarian control and militarism. It is as ethnic and political as it is religious” (10)
Along those lines, the authors separate Christian nationalism from the traditional American “civic religion.” American civic religion has looked to parts of scripture such as the prophets to call citizens to civic engagement and the institution of just politics and so forth. Contrast this with Christian nationalism which Christian nationalism is rarely concerned with instituting explicitly “Christ-like” policies, or even policies reflecting New Testament ethics at all. Rather, Christian nationalists view God’s expectations of America as akin to his commands to Old Testament Israel. Like Israel, then, America should fear God’s wrath for unfaithfulness while assuming God’s blessing—or even mandate—for subduing the continent by force if necessary” (11).
Christian nationalism is more political than religious. Thus, a person’s identity as a Christian nationalist has more to do with if they are politically conservative than if they are a white evangelical. That point is one of the biggest takeaways from the book: Christian nationalist does not equal white evangelical. Plenty of white evangelicals are Christian nationalists, but not all Christian nationalists are white evangelicals. One point they emphasize throughout is that once Christian nationalism is taken into account, those who actively practice religion (attend church, pray, read Bible) are nearly the opposite of Christian nationalists. Christian nationalists, for example, are anti-immigration, while religious practitioners are more likely to be pro-immigration.
“Stated simply: being an evangelical, or even a white evangelical as pollsters often define that category, tells us almost nothing about a person’s social attitudes or behavior once Christian nationalism has been considered. The two categories often overlap, to be sure. Roughly half of evangelicals (by some definitions) embrace Christian nationalism to some degree. And yet what is really influencing Americans’ behavior? Being affiliated with evangelicalism? Holding to traditional views about the Bible? Or advocating Christian nationalism? As it turns out, being an evangelical does not lead one to enthusiastically support border walls with Mexico; favoring Christian nationalism does. Being an evangelical does not seem to sour Americans’ attitudes toward stronger gun control legislation; endorsing Christian nationalism does. Being an evangelical was not an important predictor of which Americans voted for Donald Trump in 2016; supporting Christian nationalism was. Readers should keep this in mind throughout” (29).
Throughout the book they examine all these points in more depth. They describe four groups: Ambassadors are wholly supportive of Christian nationalism, Accomodators lean that direction, Rejecters wholly reject Christian nationalism and Resisters lean towards rejection. Through discussing topics such as orders and boundaries, they look at how each of these groups differs in how it views the world.
The conclusion brings it all together and again emphasizes why this topic is important:
“Acknowledging the importance of Christian nationalism also introduces the precision that our public discourse on religion and politics so desperately needs. For the past few years journalists and political commentators have obsessed over why “white evangelicals,” voted for President Trump. In reality, however, it is not just being evangelical or even being a white evangelical that truly matters. Rather, it is the degree to which Americans—perceiving current political conflicts through the lens of Christian nationalism—wish to institutionalize conservative “Christian” cultural preferences in America’s policies and self-identity. Recognizing the power of Christian nationalism helps us acknowledge not only the diversity within particular religious traditions but also why those of different religious traditions who are Ambassadors tend to vote and act in very similar ways. Evangelicals and mainline Protestants who are Ambassadors are much more alike politically than are Ambassadors and Resisters who are both mainline Protestants. Moreover, Christian nationalism is not bound to any particular religious group. . . Christian nationalism is significant because calls to “take America back for God” are not primarily about mobilizing the faithful toward religious ends ” (152-153)
And
“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. This serves to legitimate the demands, wants, and desires of those embracing Christian nationalism in the transcendent. If God says the United States should take a particular stance, or pass a specific law, who are we to argue? Christian nationalism is used to defend against shifts in the culture toward equality for groups that have historically lacked access to the levers of power—women, sexual, racial, ethnic, and religious minorities” (152-153)
Overall, a very important book in understanding Christian nationalism.
May 23, 2023
I’ve been sitting on this for weeks now, wrestling with just how to present a book that could make people mad for numerous reasons. Whether you feel the book too harsh or not harsh enough, this is good social science work because at the end, no one’s really happy.
Published in early 2020, Taking America Back for God challenged many of my assumptions and proved enlightening to questions I’ve asked myself often: Why did (and do) so many Christians support a morally dubious Donald Trump? Or promote policies that are decidedly antithetical to a biblical ethic?
One of an increasing number of books examining the often curious, sometimes frustrating link between the Evangelical church and conservative politics, it is perhaps more nuanced than another popular work from 2020, Jesus and John Wayne. Where J&JW is an examination of the history of evangelicalism’s increasing embrace of “Masculine Christianity,” TABFG is a sociological study of who it was precisely that supported Donald Trump in 2016, and by extension, the politics of the far right.
Sociologists Whitehead and Perry have taken great pains to lay out their methodology and data sources openly and plainly with numerous interviews, tables, and appendices to supplement their findings (sure to appease Monday morning sociology quarterbacks).
After laying out their methodology and background, the authors quickly identify what they feel is the strongest predictor of support for Donald Trump: a belief in Christian Nationalism. More so than any other demographic: more than race, economic position, religion in general, Christian Nationalism was the most consistent driving force of people likely to support Trump.
Asking a series of questions that end with a direct, “Is America a Christian nation?” the authors created a scale which placed respondents into four categories: Rejectors, Resistors, Accommodators, and Ambassadors of Christian Nationalism. This scale regularly predicted degrees of support or opposition to Chrisitian Nationalism.
While the survey answers varied far and wide, the authors found Christian Nationalism to be less an acute religious philosophy, but more so a cultural framework of control and tradition. In essence, Christian Nationalism seeks to impose a system of order and control on society at large, or put simply, to maintain “the way things *should* be” regardless of the will of the majority. At its heart, Christian Nationalism presents a framework that supports an authoritative ideal of “Christian values” that finds itself increasingly out of step with the culture at large. Over the survey span of a decade, “Ambassadors” as a group in particular show dwindling numbers, either because of an aging population or the gradual societal shift away from policies they support.
However, instead of placing the blame of Christian Nationalism (or Masculine Christianity) at the feet of Evangelicals, an encouraging (for me anyway) result of the study showed Evangelicals and Christian Nationalists are NOT synonymous. Rather, the study found that the more religiosity a respondent exhibited, the less likely the respondent supported Christian Nationalism. On the contrary, they are *more* likely to support biblical social justice and actively care for the poor and the less socially desirable/social capital deficient.
Overall, I found this to be an excellent examination of people’s view of the question, “is America a Christian nation?” and how that manifests itself within the current political spectrum. I appreciated the data, the straight forward and transparent nature of the work.
And if you’ve made it this far, you might possibly care about my opinion. In short: Christian Nationalism represents a clear and present danger to the country at large and the American Church in particular. It presents a seduction of control and domination that directly inspired the events of January 6th, perpetuates the Big Lie that the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump, and continues to taint the Gospel of Christ with the idea that America is ‘won’ for God through political strength, at any cost.
Published in early 2020, Taking America Back for God challenged many of my assumptions and proved enlightening to questions I’ve asked myself often: Why did (and do) so many Christians support a morally dubious Donald Trump? Or promote policies that are decidedly antithetical to a biblical ethic?
One of an increasing number of books examining the often curious, sometimes frustrating link between the Evangelical church and conservative politics, it is perhaps more nuanced than another popular work from 2020, Jesus and John Wayne. Where J&JW is an examination of the history of evangelicalism’s increasing embrace of “Masculine Christianity,” TABFG is a sociological study of who it was precisely that supported Donald Trump in 2016, and by extension, the politics of the far right.
Sociologists Whitehead and Perry have taken great pains to lay out their methodology and data sources openly and plainly with numerous interviews, tables, and appendices to supplement their findings (sure to appease Monday morning sociology quarterbacks).
After laying out their methodology and background, the authors quickly identify what they feel is the strongest predictor of support for Donald Trump: a belief in Christian Nationalism. More so than any other demographic: more than race, economic position, religion in general, Christian Nationalism was the most consistent driving force of people likely to support Trump.
Asking a series of questions that end with a direct, “Is America a Christian nation?” the authors created a scale which placed respondents into four categories: Rejectors, Resistors, Accommodators, and Ambassadors of Christian Nationalism. This scale regularly predicted degrees of support or opposition to Chrisitian Nationalism.
While the survey answers varied far and wide, the authors found Christian Nationalism to be less an acute religious philosophy, but more so a cultural framework of control and tradition. In essence, Christian Nationalism seeks to impose a system of order and control on society at large, or put simply, to maintain “the way things *should* be” regardless of the will of the majority. At its heart, Christian Nationalism presents a framework that supports an authoritative ideal of “Christian values” that finds itself increasingly out of step with the culture at large. Over the survey span of a decade, “Ambassadors” as a group in particular show dwindling numbers, either because of an aging population or the gradual societal shift away from policies they support.
However, instead of placing the blame of Christian Nationalism (or Masculine Christianity) at the feet of Evangelicals, an encouraging (for me anyway) result of the study showed Evangelicals and Christian Nationalists are NOT synonymous. Rather, the study found that the more religiosity a respondent exhibited, the less likely the respondent supported Christian Nationalism. On the contrary, they are *more* likely to support biblical social justice and actively care for the poor and the less socially desirable/social capital deficient.
Overall, I found this to be an excellent examination of people’s view of the question, “is America a Christian nation?” and how that manifests itself within the current political spectrum. I appreciated the data, the straight forward and transparent nature of the work.
And if you’ve made it this far, you might possibly care about my opinion. In short: Christian Nationalism represents a clear and present danger to the country at large and the American Church in particular. It presents a seduction of control and domination that directly inspired the events of January 6th, perpetuates the Big Lie that the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump, and continues to taint the Gospel of Christ with the idea that America is ‘won’ for God through political strength, at any cost.
April 21, 2023
3 stars, rounding up from 2.5.
This was interesting, but I had mixed feelings about this book. The authors, who are sociologists, are clearly perplexed over why people who identify as Christians would support Trump, who is so, well, un-Christlike.
According to the authors, what they call Christian Nationalism isn’t really a religious outlook, but rather a particular political and cultural view. This view holds that our country was founded on Christian principles, and that our culture would be better served by continuing to follow those principles. The authors came up with a set of questions that allows them to score their subjects based on their level of agreement with this outlook, and then divide them into 4 categories. They use the rather inflammatory term Christian Nationalists for one extreme of the spectrum, while the other extreme is simply labeled Rejectors. This opposite extreme maintains that religion should be a personal matter only, and should not be a factor in governance or have a significant role in civic life.
Despite the perfunctory disclaimer that they really don’t mean “nationalism” in the same sense as in “White Nationalism,” or as in the “National Socialist German Workers (Nazi) Party,” they are still content to use this inflammatory terminology throughout the rest of the book. It would seem to be more evenhanded to label each end of the spectrum. I would suggest Cultural Christian Traditionalists and Secular/Separationists.
Some of their analysis of each of the 4 categories is pretty interesting, but they consistently portray the views of the Secular/Separationists as normal and expected, while the very existence of the Cultural Christian Traditionalist viewpoint is an aberration that needs to be explained. This, despite the fact that in 2017, 52% of Americans held to either the strong or weak version of this view. Their data only goes back to 2007 (when 59% held this view), but I would hazard to guess that 50 and 100 years ago, the view that is now labeled as “Christian Nationalism” would have been the dominant, and even typical view of the American populace.
It therefore seems to me that it’s the rise of Secular/Separationist view that needs to be explained. Perhaps that should be the subject of their next book?
Addendum 3/10/21:
I’m just going to staple Tim Keller’s review of this book here so I can find it again. It’s very good:
https://quarterly.gospelinlife.com/bo...
Addendum 3/13/21:
I’m also going to tack on this Kevin DeYoung article:
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/bl...
Addendum 4/21/23:
I think that The Religion of American Greatness by Paul D. Miller does a better job of explaining what’s actually wrong with Christian Nationalism. It’s more nuanced and detailed, but that’s an important plus. Highly Recommended.
Here’s my review:
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
This was interesting, but I had mixed feelings about this book. The authors, who are sociologists, are clearly perplexed over why people who identify as Christians would support Trump, who is so, well, un-Christlike.
According to the authors, what they call Christian Nationalism isn’t really a religious outlook, but rather a particular political and cultural view. This view holds that our country was founded on Christian principles, and that our culture would be better served by continuing to follow those principles. The authors came up with a set of questions that allows them to score their subjects based on their level of agreement with this outlook, and then divide them into 4 categories. They use the rather inflammatory term Christian Nationalists for one extreme of the spectrum, while the other extreme is simply labeled Rejectors. This opposite extreme maintains that religion should be a personal matter only, and should not be a factor in governance or have a significant role in civic life.
Despite the perfunctory disclaimer that they really don’t mean “nationalism” in the same sense as in “White Nationalism,” or as in the “National Socialist German Workers (Nazi) Party,” they are still content to use this inflammatory terminology throughout the rest of the book. It would seem to be more evenhanded to label each end of the spectrum. I would suggest Cultural Christian Traditionalists and Secular/Separationists.
Some of their analysis of each of the 4 categories is pretty interesting, but they consistently portray the views of the Secular/Separationists as normal and expected, while the very existence of the Cultural Christian Traditionalist viewpoint is an aberration that needs to be explained. This, despite the fact that in 2017, 52% of Americans held to either the strong or weak version of this view. Their data only goes back to 2007 (when 59% held this view), but I would hazard to guess that 50 and 100 years ago, the view that is now labeled as “Christian Nationalism” would have been the dominant, and even typical view of the American populace.
It therefore seems to me that it’s the rise of Secular/Separationist view that needs to be explained. Perhaps that should be the subject of their next book?
Addendum 3/10/21:
I’m just going to staple Tim Keller’s review of this book here so I can find it again. It’s very good:
https://quarterly.gospelinlife.com/bo...
Addendum 3/13/21:
I’m also going to tack on this Kevin DeYoung article:
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/bl...
Addendum 4/21/23:
I think that The Religion of American Greatness by Paul D. Miller does a better job of explaining what’s actually wrong with Christian Nationalism. It’s more nuanced and detailed, but that’s an important plus. Highly Recommended.
Here’s my review:
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
July 13, 2020
Summary: Christian nationalism is a better predictor for voting for Trump than identifying as an Evangelical.
Yesterday I pulled up Miroslav Volf's For the Life of the World podcast because it was interviewing Jemar Tisby. I am very familiar with Jemar (and his book Color of Compromise: The Truth about the American Church's Complicity in Racism). But I thought this was still a good interview and especially if you are not familiar with his book and work.
Because I was driving, I let it keep playing to last week's podcast because I had not heard it. Volf was interviewing Andrew Whitehead and Samuel Perry, sociologists of religion, talking about their recent book "Taking America Back for God". The book is about Christian Nationalism. And the podcast gives a very good overview but doesn't delve deeply into the argument. I immediately bought the audiobook and just finished listening to the book.
Short version: these two have developed a measure of Christian Nationalism and have used it in large scale surveys in 2007 and 2017 as well as compared it to other measures of Christian Nationalism. They believe that Christian Nationalism is the best predictor of voting for Trump in 2016 and will also be a good predictor for 2020. They also believe that White Evangelicals is not a good predictor of voting for Trump because many while many Christian Nationalists are evangelicals, not all evangelicals are Christian nationalists.
Christian nationalists and those that lean in that direction make up a majority of Evangelicals, and there are many factors in why that is true, but Christian Nationalists are present in many parts of the Christian church and even some that do not identify as Christian, but who view Christian nationalism as a type of American identify. Where I find the argument interesting is in the other associations with Christian nationalism, that overlap with (but are not necessarily the same as voting for Trump).
According to the authors, there are three aspects of Christian nationalism, power, boundaries, and order. (These are tendencies, so not every person that is a Christian Nationalist is deterministically someone that agrees to all of the following and those that follow any or all of the following are not necessarily Christian Nationalists, but they do hold explanatory power). Christian Nationalists tend to see political power as important and are primarily interested in the results of nationalism's expression, not as much in the means to get there. So using Trump as an example, they don't care that much about the 'pussy-grabbing' and racist language, although they may find it distasteful, as long as the judges are appointed and the power is wielded.
Secondly, (White) Christian Nationalists draw boundaries. They are not in favor of immigrants, especially refugees, who they see as likely to be Muslim or in other ways counter to their view of what it means to be an American. They distrust Muslims in particular because they are afraid of terrorism and violence, but also other immigrants from places like Central or South America (who tend to be Protestant Christian at fairly high rates) because they are still "other". And within the US, Christian Nationalists tend to have a White normative view of what it means to be American, so Black and other racial minorities in the US are still 'other' and not 'real Americans'.
(They don't spend as much time as I wish they would like on this, but they differentiate Black Christian nationalists, who lean toward Christian Nationalism at very high rates, but who use the ideas and language of Christian nationalism as a means of inclusion, not exclusion. So Black Christian nationalists use the ideas of Christian nationalism as a means of saying that Black Americans are, in fact, fully American and not as a way to exclude others from the designation.)
The third feature is an understanding of Order. This includes not only prioritizing policing and authority (Blue Lives Matter types of sentiment) but also family order and community uniformity. They tend to be patriarchal in family order and point to a normative nuclear family as essential to being American in their understanding. They would see breakdowns of the family not as a result of poverty but as a cause of poverty.
The order part also applies to resistance toward gay marriage, neighborhood or school integration, and interracial families, not only interracial marriage but also interracial adoption as contrary to the social order.
Like many sociology books, it is more about description than a solution or prescription. And they call for more research. But there is some discussion about how people that are attracted to nationalistic ideas can be drawn toward more empathy and understanding. But this feels like a significant factor when thinking about the resistance of White Christians in particular to understanding issues of racism. It feels like those that are lower on the Christian nationalism scale are likely those that are more likely to already be in discussions about race and are already crossing boundaries.
At the same time, this points out some of the broader tendencies within the church that seem to be failing in regard to race. Groups like the National Day of Prayer, family advocacy groups like Focus on the Family, and those that highly value institutions will be more likely to have staff and supporters that are high on the Christian nationalism scale.
I was pretty involved in Mission America as a young adult. Through that, I knew several that were on planning committees for National Day of Prayer and many local prayer breakfast groups. As I became disillusioned from these groups for a number of reasons (but mostly from their dominionist theology and utilitarian thinking), I was still Facebook friends or in-person acquaintances with these people.
I started to see how they responded to Obama as an "other" and dangerous (I lived in Hyde Part where Obama was from, I met him first in 1997, long before he became famous and I knew many people from Trinity Church where Obama went and knew that it was not a dangerously radical church.) Most of those relationships faded over time naturally as I moved from Chicago and was no longer involved with Mission America or pastors prayer groups as part of my job. But a few still exist, and this book really felt like it explains many people to me.
One feature discussed in the podcast is that Nationalists groups in Europe tend to be only culturally Christian. Still, many Christian Nationalists in the US are devote, regularly attend church, see their faith as important, but also have an orthopraxy problem with their faith. Some are solely culturally Christian, but at least among those that identify as Evangelical or Catholic or Mainline Protestant, many are still very active in participating with their faith.
Taking America Back For God is clear that most would not self identify as Christian Nationalists, although some would. The groups are based on the answers to six questions and then coded into groups based on the cumulative scores of these questions:
1) The federal government should declare the United States a Christian nation.
2) The federal government should advocate Christian values
3) The Federal Government should enforce strict separation of church and state (reverse coded)
4) The federal government should allow the display of religious symbols in public spaces
5) The success of the United States is part of God's plan
6) The federal government should allow prayer in public schools
October 19, 2020
Another book on the phenomenon of Christian nationalism. This one reads a lot like an extra-long abstract of a research paper, and wasn't as absorbing to me at least as titles such as THE POWER WORSHIPPERS. However, TAKING AMERICA does contain a lot of interviews with people across the religious spectrum, so it's useful for understanding why someone might be attracted to the religious nationalism side. It could help readers who don't share this view better interact with family members, coworkers, etc., who do. A lot of the appeal of religious nationalism for people boils down to fear.
December 28, 2021
Relentlessly tedious repetition of essentially a single, unsurprising finding in a thousand different ways. Essentially "Christian nationalism" (determined by measuring how much you favor things like prayer in schools, the federal government formally declaring America a Christian nation etc.) will highly predict your religio-political views (in the obvious direction: more CN, more right-wing; less CN, more left-wing), even moreso than political identification, ideology, or religious affiliation. Well.. no kidding? How could it be otherwise?
There are 6 questions used to determine adherence to Christian nationalism, each freighted with religio-political significance, and respondents can agree strongly or weakly with each. Of course a 6-variable religio-political (each with degrees of precision) factor is inherently packed with much more information and predictive power than any single variable (GOP/Dem, con/lib, Christian/non-Christian). This is virtually definitionally true, and it's hard to imagine how it could possibly be otherwise, yet they report their findings in breathless tones as if they've stumbled on a hidden truth. When in reality they needn't have even conducted any surveys to know this was true.
In a desperate bid to separate "white evangelicals" (the subject of much scorn and approbation from their scholarly circles for their Trumpist ways) from "Christian nationalists", Perry & Whitehead deploy farcical scientistic means. After reporting that "Christian nationalists" views correlate highly with religious devotion and practice (i.e. the more you read scripture, attend church etc. the more "Christian nationalist" you will tend to be), they then deploy a comical device to negate this fact. If you *control for Christian nationalism*, then religious devotion no longer predicts more Christian nationalist views! But.. this is a tautology. Of course if you "control for Christian nationalism", i.e. remove one strong conservative-religious impulse, the remainder will be much more liberal along various dimensions.
As an analogy, imagine I conducted a survey trying to measure levels of "secular globalism", by asking questions like how much one supports international, intergovernmental organizations authorized to enforce human rights, how much one supports open borders, how much one bases their humanitarianism on religion etc. And called this the "secular globalist" (SG) scale. Now imagine (as it's not difficult to predict) that Secular Globalism correlates highly with liberal political views. Now further imagine, because I'm a conservative, right-wing atheist, who doesn't like the bad rap that atheists get as being so liberal, I decide to "control for Secular Globalist ideology" in the sample and--WHAT DO YOU KNOW!--once you control for SG, it turns out atheists are surprisingly moderate or conservative. Well.. yes, but this is a triviality. Because you removed the interconnected matrix of motivations that tends to make atheists more liberal in the first place by "controlling for" secular globalism.
Desperate to obfuscate that their own data shows that staunch anti-Christian-nationalism correlates highly with atheism, Judaism, and low levels of religious practice and devotion among Christians (revealing anti-CN to be the pagan, secular force Christians rightly claim that it is), the means they deploy reach the level of utter absurdity.
There are 6 questions used to determine adherence to Christian nationalism, each freighted with religio-political significance, and respondents can agree strongly or weakly with each. Of course a 6-variable religio-political (each with degrees of precision) factor is inherently packed with much more information and predictive power than any single variable (GOP/Dem, con/lib, Christian/non-Christian). This is virtually definitionally true, and it's hard to imagine how it could possibly be otherwise, yet they report their findings in breathless tones as if they've stumbled on a hidden truth. When in reality they needn't have even conducted any surveys to know this was true.
In a desperate bid to separate "white evangelicals" (the subject of much scorn and approbation from their scholarly circles for their Trumpist ways) from "Christian nationalists", Perry & Whitehead deploy farcical scientistic means. After reporting that "Christian nationalists" views correlate highly with religious devotion and practice (i.e. the more you read scripture, attend church etc. the more "Christian nationalist" you will tend to be), they then deploy a comical device to negate this fact. If you *control for Christian nationalism*, then religious devotion no longer predicts more Christian nationalist views! But.. this is a tautology. Of course if you "control for Christian nationalism", i.e. remove one strong conservative-religious impulse, the remainder will be much more liberal along various dimensions.
As an analogy, imagine I conducted a survey trying to measure levels of "secular globalism", by asking questions like how much one supports international, intergovernmental organizations authorized to enforce human rights, how much one supports open borders, how much one bases their humanitarianism on religion etc. And called this the "secular globalist" (SG) scale. Now imagine (as it's not difficult to predict) that Secular Globalism correlates highly with liberal political views. Now further imagine, because I'm a conservative, right-wing atheist, who doesn't like the bad rap that atheists get as being so liberal, I decide to "control for Secular Globalist ideology" in the sample and--WHAT DO YOU KNOW!--once you control for SG, it turns out atheists are surprisingly moderate or conservative. Well.. yes, but this is a triviality. Because you removed the interconnected matrix of motivations that tends to make atheists more liberal in the first place by "controlling for" secular globalism.
Desperate to obfuscate that their own data shows that staunch anti-Christian-nationalism correlates highly with atheism, Judaism, and low levels of religious practice and devotion among Christians (revealing anti-CN to be the pagan, secular force Christians rightly claim that it is), the means they deploy reach the level of utter absurdity.
February 8, 2021
On too rare of occasions to suit me, a book crosses my path bearing an answer to one of my life’s “big questions”. This was one such book for me. May it be so for you...
February 6, 2022
There is a widening gap between Americans. There is a difficulty in understanding one another that is more and more prevalent. There is a polarization in politics and culture that leads to us viewing each other as enemies? Why is that? The authors of this book contend that one factor is Christian nationalism which they define as "an ideology that idealizes and advocates a fusion of American civic life with a particular type of Christian identity and culture." They are not talking about personal piety or doctrinal orthodoxy at all. In fact, one of the most fascinating things about their research is that they found that Christian nationalists (or those who espouse said ideas) are not necessarily regular church goers, regular prayers or Bible readers, and some don't even call themselves religious. Whitehead and Perry set out to find out who these people are through surveys and personal interviews, and to analyze how, historically and currently, they influence life in the U.S.
There is a lot to commend in this book. It is thoroughly researched, is clear and concise in written presentation, and intends to be fair and objective. I learned a lot, and was challenged to look closely at my own beliefs about America's Christian heritage, and the implications for my views about that for how I view where American is and where it should go.
Though they try to stay objective the authors' bias shows in one particular data point they can't account for. They seem baffled by how Christian nationalists and Christians who are not Christian nationalists but who are active and devoted to the Church and Jesus can hold traditional, I'd say biblical, views of gender and sexuality. In all other hot button cultural/political splits in the U.S. those more active in their faith communities, prayer, and Bible reading tend to skew slightly left rather than right while those who espouse Christian nationalism skew right. (This was fascinating finding that I found enlightening.) It appears the authors' default position is egalitarian and progressive, and that colors certain sections of their analysis. I could be wrong, but based on the tone of those sections of the book this seems plain to me. Having said that my default position is hierarchical and conservative so this chafed a bit. I think if they had plainly stated their bias at the outset it might have made their analyses in a few key sections of the book better, and not so jarring.
So, should you read this book? I give a qualified yes. If you are interested in major factors in how we got to our particular political and religious moment in U.S. history you will find this book helpful, if sometimes frustrating, in helping you sort out why we are the way we are. If that sounds boring then this is not the book for you.
There is a lot to commend in this book. It is thoroughly researched, is clear and concise in written presentation, and intends to be fair and objective. I learned a lot, and was challenged to look closely at my own beliefs about America's Christian heritage, and the implications for my views about that for how I view where American is and where it should go.
Though they try to stay objective the authors' bias shows in one particular data point they can't account for. They seem baffled by how Christian nationalists and Christians who are not Christian nationalists but who are active and devoted to the Church and Jesus can hold traditional, I'd say biblical, views of gender and sexuality. In all other hot button cultural/political splits in the U.S. those more active in their faith communities, prayer, and Bible reading tend to skew slightly left rather than right while those who espouse Christian nationalism skew right. (This was fascinating finding that I found enlightening.) It appears the authors' default position is egalitarian and progressive, and that colors certain sections of their analysis. I could be wrong, but based on the tone of those sections of the book this seems plain to me. Having said that my default position is hierarchical and conservative so this chafed a bit. I think if they had plainly stated their bias at the outset it might have made their analyses in a few key sections of the book better, and not so jarring.
So, should you read this book? I give a qualified yes. If you are interested in major factors in how we got to our particular political and religious moment in U.S. history you will find this book helpful, if sometimes frustrating, in helping you sort out why we are the way we are. If that sounds boring then this is not the book for you.
August 20, 2024
This is an excellent resource to understand what the differences are between being a Christian and being a Christian nationalist in America. It is completely based on data and analyzed by people in the field of sociology. It’s explained and demonstrated throughout the entire book with easy to understand bar graphs. I highly recommend it for anyone wanting to understand what Christian nationalism is in the United States.
September 1, 2022
Dishonest, misleading, and disingenuously arranged to try and malign whoever these 'Christian Nationalists' are, this book wasn't the slam-dunk the authors probably thought it was going to be.
First off, I'm not an American 'Christian Nationalist'. I mean I'm not even a Christian; I'm atheist. I have no belief in any gods of any stripe. But I'd heard this term cropping up a bit recently, so I went and got a book to find out more. This is that book and all I really learned was that religious beliefs aside, I actually seem to agree with pretty much all the points that the authors were trying to make about CNs.
The data-set was very small and when you get to the back of the book for a statistical breakdown of how everyone fits into all the different demographics, it looks like the majority of people who took part in this survey (all 1500 of them, lol) were white, male, older and lived in or towards the south. Then the authors tried to make out that this was somehow problematic, because it meant that there was a ethnic-racial-gendered bias. Yeah, white-supremacy was mentioned at least 2 or 3 times. Because...reasons.
These surveys were sent out to people about the topic of 'Christian Nationalism'. The respondents were self-selectors who obviously had an opinion about this topic, but there were some statistical coefficient mechanisms applied to try and aggregate responses to accurately reflect the cultural demographics within the US. What this actually ended up "showing" was that of the four groups that respondents fell into (Ambassadors, Accommodators, Resisters and Rejecters - which correlated to one's agreement with/disagreement with 'Christian Nationalism') most people fell into the middle two categories 'Accommodators & Resisters'...or rather, as with almost everything demographic, the Bell Curve reigns supreme. Yeah, mind-blowing, I know.
Then there were these obvious corollaries that were made out to be big-brain discoveries. Like, conservatives are more likely to be against gun-control, against illegal immigration and against the breakdown of the family through divorce. Who knew, amirite?
I don't even know who this book is supposed to be for. Because if you already think that CNs are bad, you'll probably just think that this book happily supports your opinion. If you ARE a CN then you'll either not want to read it because it's designed to make you look bad OR if you do read it then you'll be proven correct in your assumption that you were bound to get a rough deal. If like me you didn't know what this was all about, then I guess your opinion of CNs will fall into whether or not the other things they like/dislike, align with your own perspectives.
I only realised at the end of the book that it had been released about 10 months before the 2020 election...something that I'm sure was a total coincidence, timing-wise, lol.
When it wasn't trying to make out that not wanting illegal immigrants in your country makes you a racist, or completely lying about the actual crime statistics for crimes committed by black people (not to mention black on black crime) it was also trying to somehow speak theocratically about what it means to be a Christian...choosing to side with the more 'worldly' types who break from scripture in order to be more progressive. Colour me sur-fricking-prised on that one.
The whole thing is a mess of contradictory statements, tenuous connections based on statistically insignificant data points, outright lies, lies by omission and a feeling of supercilious smugness by those who really thought they'd hit the big time with these INCREDIBLE revelations. Content wise it was easy enough to read, but that just meant it was easy to pick holes at...which I did throughout, with notes scrawled on every page, getting longer and longer as I grew more apoplectic with every subsequent instance of blatantly biased chicanery.
I'm not even voting this book down because I disagree with their political opinions. I've given it the vote it deserves because it's badly written, disingenuous and biased to intentionally sway folks into disliking 'Christian Nationalists'. Me personally? I'd have the people interviewed around for a barbecue in a heartbeat.
Bigly.
First off, I'm not an American 'Christian Nationalist'. I mean I'm not even a Christian; I'm atheist. I have no belief in any gods of any stripe. But I'd heard this term cropping up a bit recently, so I went and got a book to find out more. This is that book and all I really learned was that religious beliefs aside, I actually seem to agree with pretty much all the points that the authors were trying to make about CNs.
The data-set was very small and when you get to the back of the book for a statistical breakdown of how everyone fits into all the different demographics, it looks like the majority of people who took part in this survey (all 1500 of them, lol) were white, male, older and lived in or towards the south. Then the authors tried to make out that this was somehow problematic, because it meant that there was a ethnic-racial-gendered bias. Yeah, white-supremacy was mentioned at least 2 or 3 times. Because...reasons.
These surveys were sent out to people about the topic of 'Christian Nationalism'. The respondents were self-selectors who obviously had an opinion about this topic, but there were some statistical coefficient mechanisms applied to try and aggregate responses to accurately reflect the cultural demographics within the US. What this actually ended up "showing" was that of the four groups that respondents fell into (Ambassadors, Accommodators, Resisters and Rejecters - which correlated to one's agreement with/disagreement with 'Christian Nationalism') most people fell into the middle two categories 'Accommodators & Resisters'...or rather, as with almost everything demographic, the Bell Curve reigns supreme. Yeah, mind-blowing, I know.
Then there were these obvious corollaries that were made out to be big-brain discoveries. Like, conservatives are more likely to be against gun-control, against illegal immigration and against the breakdown of the family through divorce. Who knew, amirite?
I don't even know who this book is supposed to be for. Because if you already think that CNs are bad, you'll probably just think that this book happily supports your opinion. If you ARE a CN then you'll either not want to read it because it's designed to make you look bad OR if you do read it then you'll be proven correct in your assumption that you were bound to get a rough deal. If like me you didn't know what this was all about, then I guess your opinion of CNs will fall into whether or not the other things they like/dislike, align with your own perspectives.
I only realised at the end of the book that it had been released about 10 months before the 2020 election...something that I'm sure was a total coincidence, timing-wise, lol.
When it wasn't trying to make out that not wanting illegal immigrants in your country makes you a racist, or completely lying about the actual crime statistics for crimes committed by black people (not to mention black on black crime) it was also trying to somehow speak theocratically about what it means to be a Christian...choosing to side with the more 'worldly' types who break from scripture in order to be more progressive. Colour me sur-fricking-prised on that one.
The whole thing is a mess of contradictory statements, tenuous connections based on statistically insignificant data points, outright lies, lies by omission and a feeling of supercilious smugness by those who really thought they'd hit the big time with these INCREDIBLE revelations. Content wise it was easy enough to read, but that just meant it was easy to pick holes at...which I did throughout, with notes scrawled on every page, getting longer and longer as I grew more apoplectic with every subsequent instance of blatantly biased chicanery.
I'm not even voting this book down because I disagree with their political opinions. I've given it the vote it deserves because it's badly written, disingenuous and biased to intentionally sway folks into disliking 'Christian Nationalists'. Me personally? I'd have the people interviewed around for a barbecue in a heartbeat.
Bigly.
November 3, 2020
Christian Nationalism. What is it and why did I not know anything about it until I read this book? This book (and understanding Christian Nationalism) made the world I see around me make so much more sense. It answered the question I had, “Why can some Christian’s look across the aisle politically (either direction) and be so confused that there could be a Christian on the other side of the aisle?” This book was SO interesting and helped give me categories I didn’t know I needed.
I came across this book because it was recommended by Jamar Tisby on Latasha Morrison’s “Be the Bridge” podcast.
Let me say that there are many who will really have a hard time with this book. I personally had a difficult time getting through one of the chapters because I felt defensive and frustrated with the data. Plus, this book definitely points out some ethical issues of Trump’s over the years, so if you’re someone who would be offended by this or would become so defensive that you wouldn’t be able listen to the authors arguments, then perhaps it’s not the book for you.
However, if you are willing to listen to the findings of this research, consider how Christian nationalism might play a part in how those who claim Christian values in America have leaned politically, and challenge your own values on the questions proposed in this book about adhering to Christian Nationalism, I definitely recommend this book.
Finally if you read it (or listen... I did!) and you’re frustrated with me for suggesting it or the ideas explained in it, please don’t post comments or criticisms here or on social media. Instead, please message me and ask to grab a coffee and talk about it. I would love the chance to hear your thoughts.
I came across this book because it was recommended by Jamar Tisby on Latasha Morrison’s “Be the Bridge” podcast.
Let me say that there are many who will really have a hard time with this book. I personally had a difficult time getting through one of the chapters because I felt defensive and frustrated with the data. Plus, this book definitely points out some ethical issues of Trump’s over the years, so if you’re someone who would be offended by this or would become so defensive that you wouldn’t be able listen to the authors arguments, then perhaps it’s not the book for you.
However, if you are willing to listen to the findings of this research, consider how Christian nationalism might play a part in how those who claim Christian values in America have leaned politically, and challenge your own values on the questions proposed in this book about adhering to Christian Nationalism, I definitely recommend this book.
Finally if you read it (or listen... I did!) and you’re frustrated with me for suggesting it or the ideas explained in it, please don’t post comments or criticisms here or on social media. Instead, please message me and ask to grab a coffee and talk about it. I would love the chance to hear your thoughts.
January 20, 2021
The thesis of this book is that religious supporters of President Trump and the far right come not primarily from white evangelicals but from a group the authors identify as Christian Nationalists. While there is considerable overlap between the two groups, when accounting for Christian Nationalists, white evangelicals are no more likely than any other group to support the Trump agenda. The authors divided those they questioned based on how strongly they affirmed the statement “America is a Christian Nation”. Based on answers to several questions, survey participants were classified as Ambassadors, Accommodators, Resistors and Rejectors. How the participants were classified correlated closely with their views on several issues such as immigration, race relations and the role of women.
This book serves an important purpose in trying to correct the common misconception that evangelical beliefs correlate with far right politics. It is not evangelicals in general but rather those who equate their faith with patriotism. Many evangelicals consider that belief a form of idolatry.
This book serves an important purpose in trying to correct the common misconception that evangelical beliefs correlate with far right politics. It is not evangelicals in general but rather those who equate their faith with patriotism. Many evangelicals consider that belief a form of idolatry.
September 7, 2022
Brilliant, as expected. A concise exposition and explanation of the phenomenon of CN in the USA. Really looking forward to reading more about *white* CN in their (and others') later work. Four stars only because I listened to the audiobook version, which was a bit strange for a book that relies on tables and figures. That said, you can absolutely follow the argument without the tables, I just wish OUP had added them as pdf appendices like many other publishers do.
July 6, 2020
Interesting and disheartening. On another note, this is one of those books that is sometimes difficult to follow on audio because they talk about data and figures. There’s an appendix with their data and figures, which listeners miss out on. Also, the narrator would sometimes read something that would send me off on a tangential mind-rant, and I’d end up having to rewind 2 minutes.
September 28, 2021
Bad taste in my mouth...
December 18, 2023
A Review of the Audiobook
Published by Tantor Audio in 2020.
Read by Tom Parks.
Duration: 6 hours, 44 minutes.
Unabridged.
Whitehead and Perry are the first sociologists who set out to do an in-depth study of Christian Nationalism and Christian Nationalists. Whitehead (Indiana University-Purdue University in Indianapolis) and Perry (University of Oklahoma) both hail from states where Christian Nationalism plays a strong role in the political and cultural realms.
First, you need a working definition of Christian Nationalism. Whitehead describes it as: "a cultural framework that is all about trying to advocate for a fusion between Christianity — as they define it — and American civic life." I also like this description by a completely unrelated person, Rev. Skye Jethani:
"Christians participating in politics or influencing society with their values is NOT Christian Nationalism. Christians believing they have a God-given right to dominate the government & society by excluding & diminishing the value of their non-Christian neighbors IS Christian Nationalism."
Whitehead and Perry piggybacked 6 statements into a periodic national survey on religion that Baylor University has conducted for years. Participants ranked their agreement with the statements and were given a total score. The higher the score, the higher the correlation with Christian Nationalism.
Here are the statements:
The federal government should declare the United States a Christian Nation.
The federal government should advocate Christian values.
The federal government should enforce strict separation of church and state.
The federal government should allow the display of religious symbols in public spaces.
The success of the United States is part of God’s plan.
The federal government should allow prayer in public schools.
The results tell us that ...
Click below to read more on my review blog. The original review includes several relevant links:
https://dwdsreviews.blogspot.com/2023...
Published by Tantor Audio in 2020.
Read by Tom Parks.
Duration: 6 hours, 44 minutes.
Unabridged.
Whitehead and Perry are the first sociologists who set out to do an in-depth study of Christian Nationalism and Christian Nationalists. Whitehead (Indiana University-Purdue University in Indianapolis) and Perry (University of Oklahoma) both hail from states where Christian Nationalism plays a strong role in the political and cultural realms.
First, you need a working definition of Christian Nationalism. Whitehead describes it as: "a cultural framework that is all about trying to advocate for a fusion between Christianity — as they define it — and American civic life." I also like this description by a completely unrelated person, Rev. Skye Jethani:
"Christians participating in politics or influencing society with their values is NOT Christian Nationalism. Christians believing they have a God-given right to dominate the government & society by excluding & diminishing the value of their non-Christian neighbors IS Christian Nationalism."
Whitehead and Perry piggybacked 6 statements into a periodic national survey on religion that Baylor University has conducted for years. Participants ranked their agreement with the statements and were given a total score. The higher the score, the higher the correlation with Christian Nationalism.
Here are the statements:
The federal government should declare the United States a Christian Nation.
The federal government should advocate Christian values.
The federal government should enforce strict separation of church and state.
The federal government should allow the display of religious symbols in public spaces.
The success of the United States is part of God’s plan.
The federal government should allow prayer in public schools.
The results tell us that ...
Click below to read more on my review blog. The original review includes several relevant links:
https://dwdsreviews.blogspot.com/2023...
February 4, 2023
A friend recommended this book to me about a year ago, and with his recommendation he said, "It's not what you think." He knew my concerns with American Christian Nationalism (ACN) to some degree when he suggested this book.
He was right. It was not what I thought it was.
Whitehead and Perry are actually skillfully making a case against ACN by laying out extensive statistical data about 4 groups: Rejectors, Resistors, Accommodators, and Ambassadors of ACN. They really don't directly speak against ACN until the last chapter of the book, and even then, they do not do so in an inflammatory way. They merely spend time drawing on the implications of the statistics that they had laid out throughout the book.
I'm not experienced enough to deconstruct statistics; however, the statistics in this book did match my experience and understanding of ACN. They also match the big picture of religion and nationalism that I have read about in the histories of other countries whether Christian or other. America has its own brand of it for sure; however, the bonding between forms of religion and national identity is definitely not new with America.
That statistics in this book are necessary, but fairly laborious. And Whitehead and Perry's exploration of the ramifications again are necessary, but a little too burdensome in my opinion. I suppose those who are considering these things for the first time (which I am not) might appreciate the extent of these.
He was right. It was not what I thought it was.
Whitehead and Perry are actually skillfully making a case against ACN by laying out extensive statistical data about 4 groups: Rejectors, Resistors, Accommodators, and Ambassadors of ACN. They really don't directly speak against ACN until the last chapter of the book, and even then, they do not do so in an inflammatory way. They merely spend time drawing on the implications of the statistics that they had laid out throughout the book.
I'm not experienced enough to deconstruct statistics; however, the statistics in this book did match my experience and understanding of ACN. They also match the big picture of religion and nationalism that I have read about in the histories of other countries whether Christian or other. America has its own brand of it for sure; however, the bonding between forms of religion and national identity is definitely not new with America.
That statistics in this book are necessary, but fairly laborious. And Whitehead and Perry's exploration of the ramifications again are necessary, but a little too burdensome in my opinion. I suppose those who are considering these things for the first time (which I am not) might appreciate the extent of these.
May 18, 2022
I took too long to finish this book. It’s a fairly simple read with a lot of well researched data.
Whitehead does not fully address what led to Trump's presidency. I don't think that one can argue that Christian Nationalists are entirely to blame, any more than we can blame Christian Nationalists for Biden's presidency, or Obama's, or Bush's, etc.
The fact is, some believe that Donald Trump is the chosen one. This is indisputable. I know several. It is also a fact that many endorsed Trump from the evangelical camp (Grudem, et al), causing more than a few followers of Jesus to scratch their heads.
I find it difficult to label every American Christian as a Christian Nationalist. This book works very hard to suggest this. I simply do not believe this is true. I know many Christians who would not identify with any of the camps described in this book. The 4 categories identified by Whitehead are too narrow. One can follow Jesus and have many opinions on the subject matter that this author does not address.
Whitehead does present a reasonable definition of Christian Nationalism, in painfully nauseating detail. Barton, and others like him, have profited from historical fiction more than anything else. All one has to do is read a few letters from Thomas Jefferson or Benjamin Franklin to understand that the US was not founded as a Christian Nation.
This book is a must-read for anyone in pastoral ministry in the post-covid era. What a weird world we live in.
Whitehead does not fully address what led to Trump's presidency. I don't think that one can argue that Christian Nationalists are entirely to blame, any more than we can blame Christian Nationalists for Biden's presidency, or Obama's, or Bush's, etc.
The fact is, some believe that Donald Trump is the chosen one. This is indisputable. I know several. It is also a fact that many endorsed Trump from the evangelical camp (Grudem, et al), causing more than a few followers of Jesus to scratch their heads.
I find it difficult to label every American Christian as a Christian Nationalist. This book works very hard to suggest this. I simply do not believe this is true. I know many Christians who would not identify with any of the camps described in this book. The 4 categories identified by Whitehead are too narrow. One can follow Jesus and have many opinions on the subject matter that this author does not address.
Whitehead does present a reasonable definition of Christian Nationalism, in painfully nauseating detail. Barton, and others like him, have profited from historical fiction more than anything else. All one has to do is read a few letters from Thomas Jefferson or Benjamin Franklin to understand that the US was not founded as a Christian Nation.
This book is a must-read for anyone in pastoral ministry in the post-covid era. What a weird world we live in.
April 21, 2025
This book offered the first reasonable explanation for evangelical support for Trump by showing the Christian Nationalist support Trump but are not equivalent to Evangelicals. Christian Nationalists are about power especially political power. People with personal piety have opposite views to Christian Nationalists on most topics. Shockingly 45% of those most favorable to Christian Nationalism are not white evangelicals. Wow! I liked the detailed data and support for the authors’ premises. Unfortunately they did not take into account the Bible to explain some differences. Importantly, this was a book dealing with the consequences of Christian Nationalism to the US and the world where I would have been more interested in addressing the consequences to the church, the Body of Christ. Lastly this book was published prior to the 2020 election and needs a sequel or lengthy update for more recent events. They convinced me that Christian Nationalism is a dangerous threat to our country but more importantly to the church.
January 16, 2021
Data driven survey suggests that the best predictor of whether someone voted for Trump in 2016 is still whether they self-identify as Republican, Democrat, Conservative, or Liberal. For those who say, "independent" the authors have a six question survey, with questions like, "Should Congress declare America to be a Christian nation?" that is the next best predictor of that vote -- better than economics, church attendance, and the like.
The charts can take a little time to follow, but the book is short, and full of results that I think will surprise everyone. Several cases where folks who want school prayer the most skew differently that people who frequently attend a Christian church or read the Christian Bible -- the border wall and Trump's travel ban as examples. Lots of interesting brief excerpts from interviews from voters on different places on the political and nationalist spectrum.
The charts can take a little time to follow, but the book is short, and full of results that I think will surprise everyone. Several cases where folks who want school prayer the most skew differently that people who frequently attend a Christian church or read the Christian Bible -- the border wall and Trump's travel ban as examples. Lots of interesting brief excerpts from interviews from voters on different places on the political and nationalist spectrum.
January 23, 2021
This was a super interesting and obviously relevant read. It’s all about explaining the movement of “Christian Nationalism,” which they define as “political idolatry dressed up as religious orthodoxy.” The book looks into the spectrum of people who “reject, resist, accommodate and are ambassadors” for Christian Nationalism, the values each of these groups hold and what the effects of this movement are, played out in the US.
I listened to the audiobook, but I think a hard copy would have been helpful because it’s based on a research study and references lots of tables and charts.
I listened to the audiobook, but I think a hard copy would have been helpful because it’s based on a research study and references lots of tables and charts.
October 22, 2025
i’m a pretty big hater of religion in general especially as it’s pervading our government systems and really do want to understand why “pious” people would vote for trump, and this book does a good job of identifying and defining christian nationalism as the problem and exemplifying through their interviews and survey questions what this looks like in voters. as a former sociology student i ate this up and as a current american voter i am terrified
October 26, 2020
This book was much more academic than I thought it would be. I was trying to read it quickly because it’s due at the library, but wanted to slow down to take it all in. It was a fascinating read that really got me to think about what I believe about my faith and American civic life and how those intersect for friends and family as well.
March 3, 2024
I think the content was important, but it wasn't exactly presented in what I would call a "readable" fashion. Planning to see the movie "God and Country" in the hope it will give me more usable information on this important subject!
January 31, 2025
A fascinating sociological breakdown of Christian nationalism and how Christianity has been turned into a horrible political weapon of the far-right and why/how apathetic Christians fall prey to it and inadvertently support it.
March 25, 2021
I don’t know. More than 2 but less than 3 stars.
October 3, 2024
Essential reading on the topic of Christian Nationalism in the United States.
November 6, 2025
Wow what a good book. It’s dense and at times overwhelming with all of its data but that’s also what makes it so good. I feel like this should be essential reading.
November 17, 2025
This book is very empirical. It is full of data based on a couple of surveys. As in everything else I have read on Christian Nationalism, the authors have to come up with their own specific definition. I liked how the authors worked on separating Christianity from Christian Nationalism. I thought they did a good job of that which is helpful to me.
July 21, 2021
An interesting, punchy book that charts the worldview of Christian Nationalism (CN) in the US. CN is the belief that the United States is an essentially Christian nation, that it was chosen by God, uniquely among other nations, and that the founders meant it to be a Christian nation. They believe that the US will be prosperous and powerful insofar as it keeps faith with that essential Christianity. Other religious groups may live in the US, but they should keep their views private and not challenge the dominant Christianity. It is a highly conservative worldview that seeks to preserve the political power of white Christians while reinforcing traditional boundaries of race, gender, and sexuality. One interesting and innovative distinction they draw between CN and Christianity is that CN is much more a political viewpoint than a religion; it prioritizes victory and power in the political realm rather than justice, piety, charity, and religious behavior in general. I thought the authors could have done a better job showing how CN culture often didn't care much about actual religious practice and piety, but this distinction is useful for understanding their relentless political emphasis. In fact, people who practice religions of all kinds are actually more likely than the general population to dissent from the principle of CN.
The authors' methods are very political science-y, which was both interesting and frustrating to me as a historian. CN is definitely an ideal type with degrees of belief, and most of the book is drawn from survey data and more qualitative interviews that try to figure out the predictive power of CN as opposed to other markers like race, gender, age, religion, political affiliation. They do show that this is a discrete and unique worldview shared by about 20% of the overall population, although that % is declining as the country becomes more diverse. However, at times the distinction btw white evangelicalism and CN appeared hair-splitting. If 80% of white evangelicals voted for Trump in 2016 and they are the core of most CN movements, then there appears to be significant overlap btw these concepts even if they are not synonymous, as there are many white evangelicals who may have voted for Trump but don't score full CN on the authors' scale. I take their point, but they maybe insisted a little too strongly on this one.
The authors are quite concerned with CN, and for good reasons. They tend to be moral Manicheanists who are simultaneously pretty Machiavellian about the means of creating and sustaining a Christian America. Their support of Trump, who touted CN principles/rhetoric and threw them some red meat as president, says a lot about them and their willingness to shatter moral consistency in order to achieve power. They are "my way or the highway" people who don't accept that other faiths (or non-faiths) can lead to happiness, ethical behavior, and good citizenship. They consistently dismiss the suffering/oppression of the less fortunate and hold pretty reprehensible views on issues like gay or interracial marriage. They seem willing to rig the political game today in many ways in order to hold on to power. There's an old saying, wrongly attributed to Sinclair Lewis, that when fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross. This book suggests the reality of that threat and lays out this worldview clearly and concisely.
My last critique of the book is that it is lacking in historical context. The authors refer to some authors who have explored the historical roots of this belief system, and they tend to see its ebbing and flowing in US history as a response to social disruption, especially challenges to the established hierarchy. Still, there was little effort to develop the roots of this viewpoint, its historical variations, or to explore a few major thinkers in this tradition. Were any of the founders CN? What about someone like William Jennings Bryan or Billy Graham? Is this an essentially modern concept, or a sort of challenge to secular liberal modernity? I get that they wanted to keep this book short, but I think a short summary of the historical literature on this historical background would have really enriched the book.
One thing I like about this book is that it's a call for liberals and academics to take religion more seriously; not necessarily to believe religious claims, but to appreciate its centrality to American life, values, politics, and identities. Race, class, and gender have so dominated the humanities and social science in the last 40 years or so (not necessarily a bad thing) that religion has been pushed to the side or simply treated as epiphenomenal (e.g., just a product or justifying gloss on class or racial privilege/hierarchy). This book shows the pitfalls of ignoring religion and the necessity of exploring its interaction with these other categories.
This is more of an academic book, but it should be read broadly within that world, especially given its bite-size.
The authors' methods are very political science-y, which was both interesting and frustrating to me as a historian. CN is definitely an ideal type with degrees of belief, and most of the book is drawn from survey data and more qualitative interviews that try to figure out the predictive power of CN as opposed to other markers like race, gender, age, religion, political affiliation. They do show that this is a discrete and unique worldview shared by about 20% of the overall population, although that % is declining as the country becomes more diverse. However, at times the distinction btw white evangelicalism and CN appeared hair-splitting. If 80% of white evangelicals voted for Trump in 2016 and they are the core of most CN movements, then there appears to be significant overlap btw these concepts even if they are not synonymous, as there are many white evangelicals who may have voted for Trump but don't score full CN on the authors' scale. I take their point, but they maybe insisted a little too strongly on this one.
The authors are quite concerned with CN, and for good reasons. They tend to be moral Manicheanists who are simultaneously pretty Machiavellian about the means of creating and sustaining a Christian America. Their support of Trump, who touted CN principles/rhetoric and threw them some red meat as president, says a lot about them and their willingness to shatter moral consistency in order to achieve power. They are "my way or the highway" people who don't accept that other faiths (or non-faiths) can lead to happiness, ethical behavior, and good citizenship. They consistently dismiss the suffering/oppression of the less fortunate and hold pretty reprehensible views on issues like gay or interracial marriage. They seem willing to rig the political game today in many ways in order to hold on to power. There's an old saying, wrongly attributed to Sinclair Lewis, that when fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross. This book suggests the reality of that threat and lays out this worldview clearly and concisely.
My last critique of the book is that it is lacking in historical context. The authors refer to some authors who have explored the historical roots of this belief system, and they tend to see its ebbing and flowing in US history as a response to social disruption, especially challenges to the established hierarchy. Still, there was little effort to develop the roots of this viewpoint, its historical variations, or to explore a few major thinkers in this tradition. Were any of the founders CN? What about someone like William Jennings Bryan or Billy Graham? Is this an essentially modern concept, or a sort of challenge to secular liberal modernity? I get that they wanted to keep this book short, but I think a short summary of the historical literature on this historical background would have really enriched the book.
One thing I like about this book is that it's a call for liberals and academics to take religion more seriously; not necessarily to believe religious claims, but to appreciate its centrality to American life, values, politics, and identities. Race, class, and gender have so dominated the humanities and social science in the last 40 years or so (not necessarily a bad thing) that religion has been pushed to the side or simply treated as epiphenomenal (e.g., just a product or justifying gloss on class or racial privilege/hierarchy). This book shows the pitfalls of ignoring religion and the necessity of exploring its interaction with these other categories.
This is more of an academic book, but it should be read broadly within that world, especially given its bite-size.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 152 reviews