Is Christian Nationalism ‘UnChristian’?

CNN’s recent segment featuring Pastor Doug Wilson has sparked yet another debate over Christian Nationalism, with some critics within the church condemning the idea as fundamentally “unChristian.”

But what is Christian Nationalism? At its core, it is the belief that God—not government or human institutions—should be the ultimate authority in a nation, determining what is moral, just, and right. This worldview asserts that a nation’s laws should be grounded in Biblical principles, meaning that God’s Word, rather than political power, majority rule, or secular philosophy, should define morality. Under this system, questions such as what constitutes a crime or which laws are just are determined not by human reasoning alone, but primarily by Scripture.

One major criticism from within the church is that Christian Nationalism imposes religious values on a society that is not entirely Christian. Critics argue that it would be unjust, or “unChristian,” to enforce Christian morality on non-believers. However, this objection overlooks a fundamental truth: all laws legislate morality.

Morality determines how things ought to be, not simply how they are. Every legal system is rooted in some moral framework, whether explicitly religious or secular. When a law is enacted, it enforces a set of values on the people—regardless of individual belief.

All law, therefore, is enforced morality; by extension, all law is inherently a form of enforced religion. The real question is not whether laws should reflect religious values, but which moral and religious framework should take precedence. Should the law reflect human values, shaped by shifting cultural norms and opinions? Or should it reflect God’s unchanging, revealed will, as expressed in Scripture?

Critics of Christian Nationalism often argue that it misapplies Scripture, claiming that using the Bible as the basis for law is an incorrect interpretation. They insist that legislation should rest on supposedly “neutral” moral grounds — standards deemed universally acceptable regardless of belief. But this logic suggests that if a serial killer rejects prohibitions against murder, his view deserves consideration, or that if a society embraces slavery, it becomes morally permissible. They contend this is the more Christian approach: that Christians should focus on charity, oppose right-wing politics, and exercise excessive tolerance toward the progressive left, rather than applying their faith to governance.

But the real irony is that those who reject Christian Nationalism as “unChristian” are still advocating a form of it. When they tell Christians in power how—or how not—to wield their influence, they are dictating how Christians should exercise authority according to God’s will. This, too, is an application of Christian principles to national governance, albeit with a different vision of what is righteous and moral.

In both cases—whether advocating for explicitly Christian laws or arguing that a secular vision is more in line with the New Testament—the underlying premise remains: power should be used in a way that reflects God’s will. The only difference is how that will is interpreted.

In this sense, Christian Nationalism, in one form or another, is inevitable. The moment we decide how power should be used, we are grounding that decision in some moral framework. If that framework is informed by Scripture, we are, in essence, advocating “Christian Nationalism.” Denying this is either an attempt to obscure the truth or an implicit endorsement of sinful governance, where Christians condone the violation of God’s laws.

The question, then, is not whether Christians promote Christian Nationalism, but how they believe power should reflect God’s standards. Which moral framework is just, loving, and righteous? Is God’s standard the best to uphold, or do we need another? If God’s way is truly just, loving, and righteous, then any law that falls short is inherently less just, less loving, and less righteous.

Rather than debating semantics or hypothetical definitions, we should ask practical questions: What standard brings true justice, love, and righteousness to society? If God’s standard is superior, then advocating for anything less is a disservice to humanity, inevitably producing a society that is less just and moral.

Christian Nationalism, then, is not merely about enforcing religious laws—it is about recognising that all laws are moral imperatives grounded in a transcendent standard. The question detractors must answer is this: Should that standard be God’s revealed morality or a human invention? For the Christian, the question is, which standard is more loving? Which standard is most just? If not God’s, whose?