THE term “Christian nationalism” should never be used when teaching the faithful or speaking on behalf of the Church, the College of Bishops has been advised by Canon Luke Bretherton, Regius Professor of Moral and Pastoral Theology at Oxford.
Addressing the Bishops in January, Professor Bretherton warned that the term had “no theological significance whatsoever” and would “misinform and mis-form the faithful”. His address is appended to the report Promoting Unity in our Nation, to be discussed by the General Synod on 11 July.
University of OxfordProfessor Luke Bretherton
Professor Bretherton warns of a lack of “analytical depth and academic adequacy” in the existing literature, which emerged in the field of sociology in about 2010.
Much of the current popular and media usage of the term is “overwhelmingly focused on the North American context”, he observes. It “reduces a complex and multi-causal set of political phenomena to a single explanatory variable — racism — while offering little or no engagement with questions of class, political economy, or material conditions”.
It “tends to assume, rather than argue, that any attempt to articulate or embed Christian moral commitments within public policy is intrinsically illegitimate. This assumption rests upon an unexamined inheritance from a progressive secularisation narrative, according to which secularisation is normatively desirable, and something labelled ‘Christian nationalism’ represents its improper obstruction. Closely related is the presupposition that a strict and absolute separation between Church and State is both universally required and normatively self-evident, such that any deviation constitutes a grave political error.”
In the United States, where he served until recently as Professor of Moral and Political Theology at Duke University, the term has become “a mode of labelling and stigmatisation”, he reports. It has been “rapidly adopted as a badge of honour by those it was intended to condemn” (News, 29 May).
He advises the Bishops: “If the aim is to tell a reassuring moralistic story in which we secure ourselves as virtuous and those we find disturbing as wholly malign — thereby reproducing the same friend-enemy logics found in outlets such as GB News or the Morning Star, and amplifying the anger and catastrophising sense of crisis on which they thrive — then the continued use of the term ‘Christian nationalism’ may serve that purpose well.
“If, however, the aim is to bear faithful witness to Jesus Christ, and, as part of that witness, to re-weave social trust, reconcile those set against one another, and love enemies as Christ commands, then the use of this term actively undermines that vocation.”
The urgent question, he concludes, is: “Who is advocating for authoritarian anti-politics — whether implicitly or explicitly — and why? And who benefits economically from the consequences of anti-democratic measures? Equally pressing is the question of which parts of the church are drawn toward authoritarian solutions to real and pressing problems, and what theological, social, and material conditions make such solutions appear attractive. And thence what can be done to address them constructively?”