To penetrate and dissipate these clouds of darkness, the general mind must be strengthened by education.
Thomas Jefferson1
As we conclude this book, let me summarize briefly what we have discovered, offer a warning, and provide a bit of hope. I have argued that Christian nationalism is an anti-secular movement or ideology inspired by a kind of post-secular backlash. We have seen that a number of authors and public figures have defended the idea that the U.S. is a Christian nation. This claim is usually connected to a critique of a diabolical kind of anti-religious secularism. But this critique often equivocates on the meaning of the term “secularism.” I have argued, in response, in defense of political secularism: the political idea that religious liberty is fundamental, that the state should not establish an official national religion, and that social and political life should be inclusive of diverse religious and nonreligious points of view. I have made this argument by considering sources in the history of Christianity, resources in modern political philosophy and theology, and by examining how American Founders such as Jefferson, Madison, and Adams thought about religion and religious liberty. I have offered arguments against “nationalism” and in favor of a more cosmopolitan approach to thinking about political life. I have also argued that, on a progressive interpretation of Christianity, God is not best understood as a tyrant who ordains political systems that are supposed to follow the divine law. Throughout, I have argued that political secularism is wise and that this was in fact was the American founders had in mind when they created the Constitution as a social contract that prohibited religious tests for office, and
I have also suggested that there is a limit that is reached when secularism confronts its anti-secular other. At some point, the secular system cannot include or tolerate those who reject the idea of inclusive religious liberty and who call for the establishment of a national church. This leaves us with a kind of unstable and tragic circumstance that I’ve called the paradox of secularism. Despite this tragic possibility, I have also suggested that some of the proponents of Christian nationalism are either insincere or are not offering a revolutionary agenda. Moreover, I hope that a book like the present one might help to educate critics of secularism about its wisdom and that we might establish a consensus (such as I’ve described as a “minimal” consensus), despite our differences. Of course, as we’ve seen there are more sincere and committed critics of secularism among the Christian nationalists. The stronger and more vehement the criticism of secularism, the more the danger of reaching the limit at which the paradox of secularism appears.
1 The Threat of Violence
As for this, not being a Christian nation. Yes, it is. If you don't like it, I'll buy your plane, train or automobile ticket right up out of here. You can go to some place that is not a Christian nation. As long as there's a remnant of His people in this place that continue to pray to Him and for his wisdom, this will always be a Christian nation. It was established by Him.3
Trump may not be sincere in proposing to ban, deport, and harass atheists and non-Christians. And Robinson is not saying here that force will be used. Robinson and Trump may simply be bloviating. But imagine what might happen if governors in some states or the federal government took this seriously, and began expelling nonreligious people, banning non-Christians, and those who simply do not believe that the United State is a Christian nation.
Now not every advocate of Christian nationalism is willing to countenance the use of force or violence in pursuit of their aims. And so, we might distinguish between those who maintain that the Christian nationalist movement is more akin to a religious revival and those who see it more along the lines of a political revolution. The “revivalists” will tend to be focused on cultural change that could be affected nonviolently, while the “revolutionaries” will understand their movement in political terms that may necessitate force and violence. It is primarily the second group, the revolutionaries, that represents a fundamental threat to a secular political order that they themselves view as diabolical. The first group, the revivalists, may still view secularism as an “enemy” but may hold that political revolution is not the best way to achieve their goal of spiritual revival.
Christian Statism is strongly linked to exclusive and intolerant attitudes toward most marginalized groups while Religious Traditionalism is related to more socially inclusive attitudes with few exceptions. Our findings reveal that only a particular subset of Christian Nationalists—the Christian Statists—hold strong nativist and intolerant sentiments. In contrast, while contemporary Religious Traditionalists continue to advocate for a religious-based cultural conservatism, they tend to be more trusting of others overall, less Islamophobic, less anti-Semitic, and less nativist than Christian Statists.4
The new ideals of Christian Statism (or state-centric Christian Nationalism) are qualitatively different from traditional civil religion because they enlist state power to enforce Christian cultural dominance and ethno-national boundaries, even if the means are anti-democratic, racist, and violent.6
It valorizes conquests in America’s name and bloodshed in its defense. It idealizes relations marked by clear (metaphorical or physical) boundaries and hierarchies both in the private and public realms. It baptizes authoritarian rule. It justifies the preservation of order with righteous violence,
whether that be carried out by police against deserving (minority) criminals, by border agents against presumptively dangerous (minority) immigrants, or by citizen ‘good guys’ with guns rampaging against ‘bad guys’ with guns.7
This account, by Whitehead and Perry, is more focused on the use of “righteous violence” by individuals. This may account for some individual acts of terror committed by Christian nationalists. That is worrying and should rightly be condemned. But the lone wolf terrorism of the occasional terrorist is less worrying than a larger ideological movement that aims at outright revolution. Obviously, this leads to the problem we have been discussing throughout under the rubric of the paradox of secularism: an inclusive secular system may have to take active steps to exclude those who oppose it, especially who are willing to take up arms to oppose it. We are also not primarily concerned here with the insincere ranting of some of the political firebrands who use Christian nationalist rhetoric to fire folks up at a political rally. This is problematic and dangerous. But it is episodic and often obviously insincere and moronic. So, what I am primarily concerned with here is the way that the revolutionaries (what Li and Froese call Christian statists) conceive their larger political agenda. Individual acts of terrorism are appalling and concerning, they may be seen as harbingers and symptoms. But the larger problem is what the use of violence and force in the name of Christian nationalism tells us about the anti-secular ideology and its political agenda. The revolutionaries imagine that the government would become explicitly Christian, that secular laws would be overturned, and in some cases even that religious minorities and nonreligious people would be persecuted.
The abstract discussions of the sociologists mentioned above may seem overly general and distant from what Christian nationalists actually think, say, and do. So, let’s make the threat concrete by considering a few examples of the way that revolutionary Christian nationalism appears to be linked to the idea that force and violence may be employed in the struggle against secularism. One way that we see this in the Pew Center’s survey questions about Christian nationalism in a poll published in October 2022.8 That poll found that 45% of Americans believed that the U.S. should be a Christian nation. Of course, that
- –That the federal government should declare the U.S. a Christian nation (15%)
- –That the federal government should advocate Christian values (13%)
- –That the federal government should stop enforcing the separation of church and state (19%)
These opinions focus on what the federal government should do, advocate, declare, and enforce. If we consider what that might involve, we see how force and violence can be connected to the idea insofar as the state would be empowered to enforce Christian laws, and to punish violators of those laws.
It is to our shame that we sheepishly tolerate assaults against our Christian heritage, merely sighing or tweeting performative outrage over public blasphemy, impiety, irreverence, and perversity. We are dead inside, lacking the spirit to drive away the open mockery of God and to claim what is ours in Christ. We are gripped by a slavish devotion to our secularist captors. But we do not have to be like this. We have the power and right to act. Let us train the will and cultivate the resolve.11
(1) political atheism, (2) subversion of public Christianity, (3) opposition to Christian morality, (4) heretical teaching, and (5) the political and social influence of non-Christian religion and its adherence.13
The punishments that Wolfe discusses include banishment, long-term, imprisonment, and capital punishment for “arch-heretics.”14 Whether Wolfe sincerely believes this is an interesting question. This may be a thought-experiment; and Wolfe may not intend for this part of his book to be taken seriously. Further, the question of whether others would take such ideas seriously and join a movement that would bring this about is another significant question. But if this came to fruition and coalesced in a movement to stage a violent anti-secular revolution, the secular system would reach a limit and would find it necessary to take measures to exclude and punish those who pose a threat to its basic principles.
2 The Secular Argument against Coercion and Violence
The secular political system is set up as a safeguard against this revolutionary Christian nationalist agenda. The secular system rejects the use of force or violence in defense of religious orthodoxy. This idea can be found in the writings of John Locke, who argued in his “Letter Concerning Toleration” that inward persuasion was essential for genuine religious faith and that external coercion was ineffective to convert people religiously. This kind of political and theological idea had a direct impact on the American Founders. Thomas Jefferson, for example, wrote notes about Locke and paraphrased him in a number of places. Locke said, for example, “the truth certainly would do well enough if she were once left to shift for herself.”15 Jefferson adopted that idea himself along with other ideas from Locke. In 1776, Jefferson quoted Locke, explaining
That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practise Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other.18
This idea builds upon Lockean insights. And in maintaining that the state has no right over conscience and that religion ought to be free of coercion, we reach a condition of mutual toleration. The Virginia Declaration quoted above emphasizes a “mutual duty” of forbearance, love, and charity. In a note on Locke, Jefferson explained further, “Perhaps the single thing which may be required to others before toleration to them would be an oath that they would allow toleration to others.”19 This kind of mutuality would seem to fend off the problem that is often called the paradox of toleration, which is whether those who are tolerant ought to tolerate the intolerant. The answer here is no: toleration appears to require a kind of mutual toleration and a pledge for mutual toleration. This way of formulating it seems to understand toleration as a relation among persons: I tolerate you if you tolerate me.
Political secularism is somewhat different. It is about including a variety of people who may not really feel tolerant toward each other. And in fact, individuals and individual religious congregations may be allowed, within a secular system, to be somewhat intolerant toward one another. A church may be allowed to teach that another church is wrong, or it may not be required to include and welcome those from another faith. Within a secular system, intolerant parties can be included, so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others to freedom of religion. But within such a system, the state has an obligation to be neutral: it ought not use its coercive power to exclude a believer or congregation; nor should it use its power to privilege one religion or set of beliefs in comparison with some other faith. In short, this is the idea found in the First Amendments two principles of religious liberty and the non-establishment of religion. Unlike the paradox of toleration, the paradox of secularism is reached when this political system confronts is anti-secular other: those who do not want to allow for the religious liberty of everyone and those who seek to set up an establishment of religion.
Our rulers can have no authority over such natural rights, only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God.23
Constraint may make him worse by making him a hypocrite, but it will never make him a truer man. It may fix him obstinately in his errors, but will not cure them. Reason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error. Give a loose to them, they will support the true religion, by bringing every false one to their tribunal, to the test of their investigation. They are the natural enemies of error, and of error only.24
3
Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and the other philosophers and political figures discussed here are basically hopeful about the project of enlightenment, and about the power and wisdom of political secularism. As I have argued, secularism is a wise system: it allows us to coexist in freedom and peace, despite our differences. Of course, as we’ve seen, not everyone agrees that this is a wise system. Christian nationalists, and other advocates of political religion in other traditions, want to limit religious liberty and impose (or establish) a particular religion on the whole of society. These folks tend to imagine that states are ordained or created by an act of divine will. They also tend to understanding national identity in ethnic and religious terms. The vision of political secularism is different from that.
As we’ve also noted throughout, there is a paradox lurking in the heart of the secular idea that is exposed by the challenge posed by the post-secular backlash that has given rise to anti-secular movements and ideologies. Can secular systems include or even tolerate anti-secular movements? At some point a limit may be reached and anti-secular forces will have to be excluded. What that might mean in practice has not been discussed here. And if one considers the kind of legal sanctions that might be applied—bans, prohibitions, exclusions, jails—it is easy to see a kind of analogy to the proposals of those like Trump, Robinson, Wolfe, and other Christian nationalists, who also propose bans, prohibitions, and harassment. In thinking about this analogy or parallel, we touch upon the paradox again. Christian nationalists would be wrong to exclude atheists and non-Christians. But would a secular political system also be wrong to exclude anti-secular movements and people?
In naming this a paradox, I do not think that there is any easy way to resolve the problem. At some point, we must decide that certain values are worth defending. But we might have to admit that at the end of the day, there is a simple conflict of values—a tragic conflict. And in the case of genuinely tragic conflicts of value, we must pick sides—even while realizing the risks of making such choices.
I am not advocating for such bans or exclusions. Nor do I expect or want Christian nationalism to engage in outright anti-secular behavior. But it is possible to imagine this happening, given the rhetoric and arguments we’ve explored here. The response of political secularism in such an eventuality ought to be restrained by a sense of the paradox and the nature of the tragic conflict. Nonetheless, exclusions and bans might be justified on radical and extreme anti-secular movements when they violate the law, cause harm, and pose a serious challenge to the secular status quo. If concrete actions were
Now one hopes that things would not end up this way. That hope is linked to a kind of enlightenment faith in rationality and education. This hope is humanistic insofar as it is linked to the belief that human beings can solve problems without the need for divine intervention. Moreover, from this perspective the hope is that human beings can be persuaded by rational argument, that people can agree about values, and that sincerity and moderation are good and wise. This does not mean that every human being is perfect or perfectible. But we can improve. There are some insincere and even malicious players in the contemporary scene—people who use the rhetoric of Christian nationalism to inspire hatred and division as they pursue political power. Perhaps some of those people are beyond reform and cannot be reached by rational arguments. But the hope of the enlightenment values that inspire political secularism is that there are more rational people than irrational people, that most people understand the importance of sincerity, moderation, and wisdom, and that we can find a minimal secular consensus despite our differences.
I trust that the genuine and simple religion of Jesus will one day be restored: such as it was preached and practiced by himself. Very soon after his death, it became muffled up in mysteries, and has been ever since kept in concealment from the vulgar eye. To penetrate and dissipate these clouds of darkness, the general mind must be strengthened
by education. Enlightened by its torch the disciples of religion will see that, instead of abandoning their reason, as the superstitions of every country requires, and taking for the will of their god whatever their own hierophants declare it to be (and no two of them declaring it alike) that god has confided to them the talent of reason, not to hide under a bushel, but to render him account of its employment. I hope that that day of restoration is to come, although I shall not live to see it.25
Jefferson to Van Der Kamp, July 9, 1820
The following quotes are from the transcript of Trump’s speech at the Faith and Freedom Conference on June 24, 2023, posted at The Rev:
“nc Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson Offers to Deport People Who Dislike U.S. as a ‘Christian Nation’” Newsweek, Sept. 29, 2021,
Ruiqian Li and Paul Froese, “The Duality of American Christian Nationalism: Religious Traditionalism versus Christian Statism” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 62:4 (2023), 770–801,
Miles T. Armaly, David T. Buckley & Adam M. Enders, “Christian Nationalism and Political Violence: Victimhood, Racial Identity, Conspiracy, and Support for the Capitol Attacks” Political Behavior 44 (2022), 937–960,
Li, R. and Froese, P. (2023), “The Duality of American Christian Nationalism: Religious Traditionalism versus Christian Statism” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion.
Andrew Whitehead and Samuel Perry, Taking America Back for God: Christian Nationalism in the United States (Oxford, 2020), 152.
“45% of Americans Say U.S. Should Be a ‘Christian Nation’” Pew Center, Oct. 27, 2022,
Blake Callens, The Case Against Christian Nationalism: An Expository Commentary on Stephen Wolfe’s Book (ebook,
Wolfe, Christian Nationalism, 326.
Wolfe, Christian Nationalism, 351.
Wolfe, Christian Nationalism, 361.
Wolfe, Christian Nationalism, 384–5.
Wolfe, Christian Nationalism, 390–91.
John Locke, Letter Concerning Toleration, (Liberty Fund, 2000), no page numbers, at
Thomas Jefferson, “Notes on Religion” in The Writings of Thomas Jefferson: 1776–1781 (New York: g.p. Putnam’s Sons, 1893), p. 102.
This paragraph is based on Andrew Fiala, “What Christian Conservatives Won’t Tell You About the Ten Commandments” Sacramento Bee, July 7, 2024,
Virginia Declaration of Rights, Section 16,
Thomas Jefferson, “Notes on Locke and Shaftesbury, 11 October–9 December 1776,” Founders Online, National Archives,
Thomas Jefferson, “To the Danbury Baptist Association, 1 January 1802,” Founders Online, National Archives,
Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (Boston: Lily and Wait, 1832), p. 166.
Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (Boston: Lily and Wait, 1832), p. 166.
Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (Boston: Lily and Wait, 1832), p. 166.
Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (Boston: Lily and Wait, 1832), p. 166.
Jefferson to Van Der Kamp, July 9, 1820