Be Bold in Embracing Our Faith

Commentary

by

Perspectives

Editor’s note: This is the third in a series of occasional articles on our nation’s 250th anniversary. Several voices from across the Michigan Conference will address different topics and speak to this question: “What is the Wesleyan way to be patriotic in this moment?” Read the whole series.

People are still processing how our nation celebrated its 250th anniversary. Few would deny the significance of July 4, 2026. Yet many struggle with the commemoration, especially the parts that distorted our shared history and demanded partisan political loyalty. Many have been discussing what is termed “Christian” Nationalism.

Let me be clear: “Christian” Nationalism is Christian in name only. It is not a faithful movement of the gospel. That is why I will always put the word “Christian” in quotes when speaking about this dangerous ideology.

There are many definitions of “Christian” Nationalism, but in short, it is the view that our nation has a divine prerogative that privileges self-described “Christians” and “Christian” institutions in public life. Accordingly, the “church” (defined by those with power) should drive religious beliefs in American culture and determine all laws and penalties governing public and personal behavior. Of course, there are many other dynamics at play in “Christian” Nationalism.

This ideology fuels the so-called “culture wars” throughout our nation and has been granted insider status among current political figures. It is responsible for much damage to our common welfare and has made us a less generous, less wise, and shamefully cruel nation. Many who embrace this philosophy also celebrate egregious abuses of power, hatred of immigrants, the demonization of non-white people, and the subjugation of women. It is no surprise that several who endorse this mindset attempt to excuse toxic masculinity — which often displays itself in the sexual abuse of powerless people and children.

Some will react to “Christian” Nationalism from an entirely secular point of view — citing the tradition of “separation of church and state.” This is understandable, but relying only on that language fails to address both the historical and theological reasons for opposing “Christian” Nationalism. If we concede that the gospel is inherently bigoted and vengeful and then try to build a wall between it and the public square, we give the game away. I will not concede to these assumptions.

So, let’s consider so-called “Christian” Nationalism and its relationship to our Wesleyan tradition, first in historical terms and then from the vantage point of our theological conviction.

Methodism’s unique relationship with the American experiment has often baffled historians. Our renewal movement, with English lineage, was not well represented among the patriots of 1776. In fact, John Wesley’s “Calm Address to our American Colonies” (1775) argued that those living in America under British rule exaggerated their inconveniences. He was especially irked that Americans called themselves “slaves” when it came to taxation, even as they held people of African descent in literal slavery. During the Revolution, most Methodist missionaries in America either returned to England or went to Canada.

At the same time, Francis Asbury and several American-born Methodist preachers kept Methodism’s flame lit, and by the end of the Revolution, the movement was headed toward an independence not unlike the republic. The watershed event in America came in 1784 (after the Revolution) as the celebrated Christmas Conference established the Methodist Episcopal Church.

Again, the issue of slavery played a prominent role in discussions about what it meant to be a Methodist in America. John Wesley’s opposition to slavery shaped official church statements. Over the following decades, the denomination slipped into ever-greater compromise, but in 1784, slavery was declared “contrary to the Golden Law of God on which hang all the Law and the Prophets, and the unalienable Rights of Mankind, as well as every Principle of the Revolution.” For one brief shining moment, Methodism and the better principles of the nation’s founding were welded together.

But the Wesleyan movement could never claim the kind of intimate relationship with our revolutionary heritage that was common among Congregationalists, Presbyterians, and other Reformed groups. We have always been different. In the nineteenth century, some Methodist abolitionists invoked the principles of the Revolution to oppose slavery, but doing so was tricky, especially given our nation’s hypocrisy between ideals and practice.

Ultimately, our response to “Christian” Nationalism must be theological. There are many good civil reasons to call attention to its dangers, but our best analysis and refutation should come from the gospel itself.

I am one of three scholars crafting a Christian response to “Christian” Nationalism. We are in the draft phase and plan to submit this four-page document to a nationally recognized ecumenical body. Our document is organized around eight themes: (1) The Norm of Truth, (2) The Authority of Christ, (3) The Centrality of Love, (4) Creation in the Image of God, (5) The Unity of the Church, (6) The Calling of the Church, (7) The Calling of the State, and (8) The Limits of Human Authority. This theologically detailed statement can provide clarity and help challenge the assumptions of “Christian” Nationalism.

For Wesleyans, specific convictions call us to oppose this destructive ideology. First, we believe that all people are created in the image of God. Human value is not determined by membership in exclusive communities but by the creative act of God for all people, which is love itself. Second, the Wesleyan teaching on grace and redemption is explicit. Whatever questions we may have about the atonement of Jesus, our tradition affirms that this sacrificial love was (and is) for each and every human being. “Christian” Nationalism is notorious for feeding racist and sexist exclusion. We know a God in Christ who chose to “taste death for everyone” (Hebrews 2:9).

We can be bold in embracing our faith, our doctrinal tradition, and the ethical implications of those tenets. “Christian” Nationalism is not dangerous because it takes Christianity too far; it is dangerous because it substitutes idolatrous worship of power for the freeing and affirming power of the Cross. The best defense against “Christian” Nationalism is the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The Rev. Dr. Christopher P. Momany serves as pastor of First United Methodist Church in Dowagiac, Mich. It is reprinted with the author's permission from the Michigan Conference website.