If devotion to the nation-state is indeed idolatrous then in reality there is no such thing as Christian nationalism. The term itself would be rendered oxymoronic. You can be a faithful Christian, or you can be a faithful nationalist, but it’s difficult to see how one can claim to be both. Christians should abandon both the terminology and the philosophy associated with what now appears to be the new American idol – Christian nationalism.

As the moniker implies, Christian nationalism is a nationalistic project. As a result, it does little or nothing to question the genesis, essence, and legitimacy of a nation-state as such. The state is simply assumed as if it were always there, and as if there is no other social-political arrangement worth considering which might be more conducive to Christian faith and practice.

For this reason, when defending their political philosophy Christian nationalists focus almost entirely on conflating the biblical use of the word “nation” with that of the modern nation-state. In this way they are able to assert that the concept of the modern nation-state is both biblical, and natural. As it turns out, it is neither.

The words “nation” and “nations” appear 645 times in the Bible, and they almost never refer to anything remotely close to the modern nation-state. Yet, the modern state is undoubtedly what many Christians think of when they see these words in their English Bibles.

However, the New Testament Greek word for nation (ἔθνος, ethnos) is used without precise specificity, and it nearly always refers to a body of persons who share common religious, cultural, and geographic relations. In modern missiological terminology, the word “nations” refers to “peoples” rather than states as seen in the cognate ethnic.

The semantic leap from the biblical concept of a nation to that of the modern nation-state has had serious consequences theologically and politically. Moreover, it is precisely this semantic confusion that, in part, has given birth to both Christian nationalism and Christian Zionism. Both are fruit from the same poisonous tree. Far from being a harmless linguistic error, these twin ideologies have turned out to be a danger to both the church and the state – indeed, to the world at large.

The danger, though, is not merely a matter of faulty biblical interpretation. It is a historical, philosophical, and theological misunderstanding of the genesis of the modern nation-state, and what the modern nation-state is in its essence – a rival to the church.

This actually means that Christian nationalism and Christian Zionism are not simply another species of heresy. They are fundamentally a genus of idolatry.

Christian nationalists and Christian Zionists both hold to the view that the nation-state belongs to the natural order of the world. In other words, the state is not simply a social construction or social imaginary. It is part of nature itself.

This is what Yaacov Yadgar, calls the “nation-state imperative.” It’s the idea that the nation-state is the natural form of political organization that transcends all local traditions, customs, and religious practices. Thus, the state becomes the main source of one’s identity, usurping the place of God, demanding complete loyalty, and insisting its citizens not only make the ultimate sacrifice, but even kill when required.

All of this, of course, is tantamount to what the Bible calls idolatry. Nationalism, whether Christian or otherwise, is a form of idolatry to one degree or another. As William Cavanaugh observes, “In its most acute form, idolatry is the explicit worship of gods other than YHWH, but it can be used in a broader sense to describe excessive devotion to created things that are not God.”

What actually counts as excessive devotion is a matter for debate. Certainly, it seems that most Christian nationalists and Christian Zionists would argue that their love for country is secondary, and their love for God is primary. Their familiar mantra is “God, family, country: in that order.” So, in the minds of Christian nationalists, as long as God is first the charge of idolatry is unwarranted.

Critics, however, maintain that too often devotion to country seems to eclipse devotion to God, and the patriotism label amounts to little more than a rebranding of the ancient sin of idolatry.

However, both Christian nationalists and Christian Zionists seem to miss the point as to why nationalism is inherently idolatrous. It is not because religious devotion had disappeared as a result of secular modernity, but that said devotion has shifted from the church to the nation-state.

This is what historian John Bossy calls the “migration of the holy.” Bossy observed that during the 15^th through the 18^th centuries the public’s ultimate loyalty and sense of the sacred was transferred from the church to the state. The state appropriated religious symbolism, rituals, rites, and liturgies that rival the liturgy of the church.

In fact, there is an ironic juxtaposition that has taken place regarding the place of liturgy in America. As Cavanaugh observes, at the same time church members have abandoned liturgical life and traditional practices, the citizen has become increasingly more liturgical. The rites and customs that once structured the hours, days, and seasons of traditional society have now been replaced by patriotic symbols, parades, the pledge of allegiance, national hymns, and paying homage to the saints of the state.

Cavanaugh makes a strong case here demonstrating that the church and the state are not merely two parallel communities, but rivals competing for the same “religious grounds.”

All of this suggests that nationalism, whether Christian or otherwise, is inherently idolatrous.

It’s hard to disagree with what Stanley Hauerwas said over a decade ago, “My greatest concern for the church today in terms of its relation to the state is quite simply idolatry.”

For Hauerwas, the problem is that Christianity’s identification with America is so entangled that many Christians are unable to distinguish the church from the nation-state. Since the state consistently promotes itself in soteriological language as the sole hope for salvation, and claims for itself the theological attribute of sovereignty, Hauerwas’ concern should not be taken lightly.

Again, to channel Hauerwas, we need to recover the idea of the Christian as a resident alien in this world (1 Peter 2:11, Hebrews 11:13), and the church as a colony of the kingdom of heaven. This is not a weak position as some would suggest, nor is it without its influence within the larger nation-state.

As Jean-Jacques von Allmen reminded the church of his generation:

Every time the Church assembles to celebrate the cult, to “proclaim the death of Christ” (1 Cor 11:26), it proclaims also the end of the world and the failure of the world… Christian worship is the strongest denial that can be hurled in face of the world’s claim to provide men with an effective and sufficient justification of their life. There is no more emphatic protest against the pride and the despair of the world than that implied in Church worship.

So, it is by Christian worship, not by the idolatrous apparatus of the state, that the church does battle and ultimately defeats the world.

If devotion to the nation-state is indeed idolatrous then in reality there is no such thing as Christian nationalism. The term itself would be rendered oxymoronic. You can be a faithful Christian, or you can be a faithful nationalist, but it’s difficult to see how one can claim to be both. Christians should abandon both the terminology and the philosophy associated with what now appears to be the new American idol – Christian nationalism.

Jim Fitzgerald is a minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and a missionary in the Middle East and North Africa. His articles have appeared in American Greatness, American Thinker, Antiwar.com, and The Aquila Report.