Katherine Stewart on the Christian Nationalist Threat
Or should we not worry about it that much?
Writing about Christian Nationalism is a funny thing. On the one hand, most informed people know that hard-right Christians are an essential part of the Trump base and have extreme, Handmaid’s Tale ideas about the relationship of church and state.
On the other hand, precisely because conservative Christians are generally “other” to the kinds of people who read books, magazines, and newsletters like the ones I write for, there’s often a dismissal of the phenomenon too. Oh, those religious wackos and their crazy ideas. As if those crazy ideas aren’t determining our politics, and many people’s lives, right now.
As a result, writing about this stuff is like being in a little club. I’m a junior member: I’ve written about the weaponization of “religious liberty” for over a decade, helped expose the network of far-right organizations built by Leonard Leo, and have investigated the ideological, cultural and political aspects of the movement.
But Katherine Stewart, author of the landmark book The Power Worshippers: Inside the Dangerous Rise of Religious Nationalism, is on the board of directors: she has followed the Christian Nationalist right for years and knows it all too intimately. And now, her book has been turned into a feature film, a Rob-Reiner produced documentary called God and Country.
My review of the film is running in Rolling Stone this week (the online version of this post will have a link), and I spoke with Katherine at length about it. But I could only use a few excerpts of our conversation in the Rolling Stone piece, and as you’ll see, her insights were too good to leave on the cutting room floor.
I also decided to take an unusual approach to our conversation. Rather than join on the gloom-and-doom train, I decided, with Katherine’s permission, to play devil’s advocate. Is Christian Nationalism really that big a deal? After all, America has been full of religious fundamentalists before they were even called fundamentalists. Is there really something to worry about here?
Here’s what she had to say.
JM: Let me start with a strange question: Why was January 6 not more violent? Your book, and God and Country, make a compelling case that Christian Nationalists are filled with extreme righteous indignation. But why did they stop where they did? Why was there not more destruction, or more pursuit? A lot of what went on was a kind of theater. Obviously I'm not letting them off the hook a la Tucker Carlson, and not minimizing the violence and death that took place, but behind this question is a deeper question of how seriously to take this violent rhetoric. It felt to me like when push came to shove, they didn't shove as much as I would've expected.
KS: First, I take issue with the premise that it wasn’t all that violent, and that the violence was just for show. To the extent that January 6 did not become even more violent, I think this was due to circumstances beyond the control of the rioters, and it was beyond their control to a significant degree because, like much of what Trump touches, it was profoundly incompetent. They had a clear objective, which was to stop the vote certification, and they had an explicit goal to capture and, if necessary, kill Mike Pence. If they failed to do so, it’s not because they didn’t have it in mind.
To address the deeper question about how seriously to take the violent rhetoric: It is true that political discourse, even in a well-functioning democracy, is often rife with metaphors of warfare, combat, and violence. It is equally true that authoritarian systems often depend much more on the threat of violence and its associated rhetoric than they do on actual violence. So the important distinction is not between rhetoric and action, but between rhetoric that falls within a democratic process and rhetoric that is clearly intended to subvert a democratic process.
When, for example, Trump supporters threaten to assassinate his political opponents and Trump does nothing to stop them or condemn their words, we have to recognize this not as mere metaphor but as an actual act of anti-democratic or authoritarian politics. When Trump refers to his political opposition as “vermin” and surrounds himself with people who call them “demons,” and then enables or otherwise permits his followers to engage in intimidation, here again we have the kind of rhetoric that amounts to a type of violent political action and creates the permission structure for violence in the future.
JM: I've seen guesses all over the place about what percentage of January 6 insurrectionists were Christian Nationalists. Were they calling the shots, or one faction among many? I feel like a lot of folks (and readers) would say this was white nationalist grievance primarily, with the Christian bits being just one part of the mob.
It's not like Mussolini and his followers were all Catholic when they came to power. In fact, Mussolini was an atheist whose followers brutalized priests and Catholic laypeople who opposed fascist rule. And yet, as fascism took hold, a faction of the church became an integral part of the regime and Mussolini embraced a form of clerical fascism. He, like Trump, understood well the utility of bringing reactionary religious authorities onto his side.
That’s because the religion part and the implicitly or explicitly racist nationalist part tend to reinforce one another. They are frequently essential elements of an identitarian fascist project, whether in early 20th century Italy or early 21st century America.
You can see a similar phenomenon happening with the Proud Boys. The evidence suggests they came together mainly around racial and anti-feminist grievance. But they very soon began to embrace a certain kind of nationalist religion and identify with Christian nationalism…
A final point is that Christian nationalism is not just a mindset but also an organizational apparatus. The movement is really good at mobilizing people -- not just those who explicitly identify as Christian nationalist, but also many fellow travelers or those who lend their support to the movement in other ways. And this apparatus was very much in evidence in the run-up and the background to January 6… So to your point, it’s complicated – but the fact remains that Christian nationalism was an inescapable part of the attempted coup, and it remains a cornerstone of the MAGA movement and Trumpism.
In the film, the main fear that many pastors express is theocracy. Personally, I don't think the plutocrats will let that happen. I’m more worried about violence if Trump loses, given the militias, guns, and insanity of the hard right. Could you comment on that? What's the biggest threat here, if you had to choose?
We don’t need to imagine exotic threats because the world already offers plenty of examples of what we could end up with here. At one end, perhaps we can start with Putin’s Russia. It’s “theocratic” in a certain fake sense—that is, it’s a regime that endorses a particular religion and attempts to impose that religion and its homophobic and patriarchal values on society. But it’s more accurately described as a cronyist kleptocracy with strong militaristic features and absolute suppression of political opposition and free speech.
We have other models in Turkey under Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who has arrested and jailed thousands of journalists, academics, and political opponents, and in Hungary under Victor Orban, who has criminalized basic democratic activities, attacked the independence of the courts, and implemented strict media controls -- and who much of the American Right explicitly celebrates. Of course, there are nuances specific to different countries, and what we could end up with here would be distinctly American. But we can lose our freedoms in any number of ways, and in fact we have already started to. The underaged rape victims forced to endure pregnancy and childbirth, the women denied best-practices miscarriage care to save their lives and health -- they are already living under theocratic rule.
I would urge you to read Project 2025 carefully, since that is the closest thing we have to a blueprint for a new Trump administration. I think there you will see that the system they envision includes theocratic elements along with a cronyistic, kleptocratic state, one in which the “administrative state” that might otherwise buffer us from the movement funders’ ecocidal and rapacious designs is utterly dismantled and replaced with party loyalists.
My last question is what can be done. The film implies that is Christians would rediscover or recommit to real Christian values, i.e. progressive values, this noxious weed could be reduced or eradicated. I’m not so sure. What do you think can be done?
It is true that the film seems intended to appeal to, among others, moderate Christians. I don't think the film is saying that rescuing the Christian religion from abusers is the only key to defeating Christian nationalism -- because that wouldn't be true. Christian nationalism is a political movement and it has to be met in the political arena. That means we have to build a big coalition -- a tent with room for people of every religion and none. It means we have to advocate for reform in law and policy. For example, we have to protect voter rights -- because the movement cannot succeed without gerrymandering, voter suppression, and structural misrepresentation (as in the judiciary). It means we have to restore the separation of church and state -- because they can't win without converting conservative-leaning churches and religious organizations into partisan cells.
Leaders of the movement often tell us this is about theology and religion. But this is not just about the culture wars or a dispute over theology. It’s a political war. Movement leaders are abusing the tools of democracy in order to dismantle democracy. I continue to believe those same tools can be used to restore it.
I hope you enjoyed this mostly-subscriber-only post — thank you sincerely for subscribing! It’s been great connecting with some of you in the comments and notes features — I look forward to creating more opportunities for connecting with subscribers soon.
Speaking of which, if you’re anywhere near Boston next week, I’ll be chatting with Professor and Former Classmate Of Mine Noah Feldman on Wednesday, February 21 at the Vilna Shul in Beacon Hill. We each have new books out (admittedly, his is kind of a bigger deal) and we’ll be talking Jewish stuff, mystical stuff, law stuff, and I’m sure political stuff. Come say hello!
And speaking of Jewish and mystical stuff, I have a new article on what mysticism has to teach us about psychedelics in My Jewish Learning. It’s called Altering the Mind to See More Clearly, and that’s what it’s about.
Not bad, considering I’m battling a Lyme disease flareup, which is something I’ve dealt with periodically for twenty-five years. I will accept healing vibes sent to the deity or non-personal cosmic consciousness of your choice. Thanks!