Resisting Christian Nationalism Requires Rethinking 'Nation' and 'Race'
The Evolving Concepts of 'Nation' and 'Race' Explained
I never considered the meaning of "nation" or "race" until I began my research on Christian nationalism. Now, I think about both concepts differently.
My destination is a serious conversation about our use of 'race' in everyday and official discourse. In this post, I focus on how I've evolved in my conception of 'nation.' That journey led me to think deeply about race. I'll save 'race' for later since that's much more complicated.
My starting point was to understand nationalism so I could clarify why its Christian form is so pernicious. But it turns out nationalism is itself a contested term. We know what it is, but as conversations progress, we discover various definitions, some inspired by political agendas. We must clarify such terms because their confusion enflames conflicts between groups competing for dominance.
Recognizing 'nationalism' as a contested term prepared me to discover that I naively use words in its constellation—like nation, race, people, ethnic group, society, and community—without recognizing that they shape how I perceive the world. Their definitions matter more than I realized.
I am usually casual in my usage of' nation.' Its meaning is evident and the same for all of us. When we pledge allegiance to a "one nation under God" republic, we commit to a vision of acting as indivisible people who embody "liberty and justice" for all. I always thought "one nation" described what we are rather than what we are becoming.
But now I understand the nuance I missed. Our republic is not an aspiration. It's an inheritance - a concrete constitution and sets of laws and relationships our forebearers charged us with stewarding.
"One nation" names our aspirational project, the grand experiment we now lead, of becoming a more perfect union of many peoples with a single sovereignty authorizing our shared strivings for the common good.
We pledge to be "indivisible" because we were once divided. The Civil War led to our pledge of allegiance because our republic of many peoples fractured into two republics. Indeed, just before Fort Sumter, we almost split into four republics. Schism is always a temptation precisely because we were "conceived in liberty." with the hope that we would nonetheless bind our many peoples into one.
I always used "nation" as a shorthand for "nation-state." That usually works because distinguishing between the citizenry and the agent we authorize to act on our behalf is only sometimes necessary. Once we begin to contemplate things like Christian nationalism, such distinctions will matter.
"Nation" denotes our body politic, the people who strive to create a more perfect union. The United States is our agent, the State we, acting as one nation, create to pursue the common good.
"Nation" works as shorthand for the United States insofar as we understand it to be an agent whose mission is to act for the good of all citizens. In other words, it works when the set of people who are members of a people are identical to those who are citizens of the State that governs them. When that's not true - as in the case of disordered nationalisms, that shorthand fails. So, we must be more precise about what we mean when speaking of nations.
The best way to arrive at a precise definition of 'nation' is first to consider the distinction between two related things: a people and a society.
A people (or community) is a group identity based on shared attributes like habitat, region, origin, language, socioeconomic class, and caste. It's pre-rational and pre-voluntary in that it exists independently of individual persons. It's a cooperative social consciousness generated by heredity or geographic and historical context. To be part of a people, I don't need to think about it or volunteer to be a member. It's a social identity that I receive as a given.
Downstream, I will discuss Yankees, Borderlanders, Midlanders, el Norte, and other peoples who settled in North America. Their tensions and collaborations generated our national identity and continue to drive its dynamism today. Each of them is a distinct people.
In contrast, a society is a group identity based on shared ideas, visions, missions, or ends. It's also a cooperative social consciousness, but it's personal and generated by the group's shared commitment to an idea or cause. To be part of a society, I need to think, experience a spiritual connection to the shared cause, and volunteer.
Society membership is not something we receive as a given. We deliberatively create society itself, and our free consent precedes our cooperation. Although we don't often concern ourselves with this distinction, our affinity groups, such as businesses, labor unions, scholarly guilds, and political associations, are societies.
We correctly understand a nation as a people or community, not a society. "People" is a less contested synonym for a nation I increasingly prefer. A nation or people is a web of autonomous communities united, usually by a treasured land, history, tradition, or collective consciousness. We receive a social identity as a given by being a part of one or more communities based on our habitat, region, origin, language, socioeconomic class, and caste.
Hopefully, I've hinted at how terms like nation, people, and community are slippery. How do we know who counts as members? Is their membership voluntary, negotiable, bestowed, or an inalienable right?
Usually, we don't have to consider such questions. But when movements like MAGA Christianism and Christian Nationalism gain traction, they claim that their people are the authentic people from whom our sovereignty flows. Other people are like house guests at best, whose welcome is contingent on embracing the house rules.
Suddenly, such questions become pivotal.
I've thought deeply about the terms and shared my best answers.
Which leads me to 'race.' I'll share what I've learned so far in my next post.