Two lenses on Christian nationalism
What do new data and a censored interview tell us about Christian nationalism?
Big Idea of the Week
Today, PRRI dropped a major new report that measures Christian nationalist attitudes across all 50 states. As in past years, it shows that white evangelical Protestants are the religious group most likely to hold Christian nationalist views, and that holding these views makes them more likely to support authoritarianism and political violence.
On these measures and others, white evangelicals are not only outliers compared to most other religious groups; they are also highly internally aligned.
What this means is that if you meet a white evangelical Christian, especially one who most trusts far-right news sources or lives in the South or Midwest, it is highly probable that they would hold this set of views. Or at least more probable than, say, an average religious none.
This is why surveys are so valuable. They are a highly efficient and effective means of telling us what outcomes are most probable for different groups of people. And as survey research has become more common and more authoritative over the past several decades, so too has the probabilistic mode of thinking that surveys enable.
But there are also limits to probabilistic thinking. As the sociologist Lee Clarke has argued, thinking probabilistically makes it harder for us to see the unexpected. In Clarke’s case, he is worried about catastrophic events – like acts of terrorism or natural disasters – that are highly rare but also, well, catastrophic.
He argues that we need to supplement probabilistic thinking with possibilistic thinking—meaning we need to plan not only for the most likely scenarios, but also the worst case scenarios.
This is not the only way to use possibilistic thinking, however. Clarke is what we might call a possibilistic pessimist. I like to think of myself as a possibilistic optimist. Meaning I am also drawn to unexpected cases, but not because they reveal the worst possible outcomes. I am drawn to cases that reveal promising new possibilities.
This is one of the reasons I started studying resistance to Christian nationalism among white evangelicals.
In When the Wolves Came, we featured the story of Pastor Caleb E. Campbell, a white evangelical leader who is speaking out against the Christian nationalist views that are so prevalent within his community. He is part of a growing network of evangelical leaders who are rowing against the powerful tide of Christian nationalist influence in their church and in the country.
Many of these resisters’ political views are countercultural within the evangelical world today—meaning they would not be predictable using probabilistic thinking. But their very existence reveals that it is possible to hold both strong evangelical convictions and also to reject Christian nationalist ideas.
This is extremely disruptive to a narrative promoted on the Right that says all good/faithful/authentic Christians would naturally agree with the ideas associated with Christian nationalism. This is how the Right weaponizes probabilistic thinking. They want to turn that probability into an inevitability.
Possibilistic thinking becomes a shield against this narrative. Evangelical leaders like Caleb Campbell want to show that another path is possible. By publicly modeling a vision of evangelical Christianity that rejects Christian nationalism, they hope to embolden others to join them.
In this project they are joined by a much wider community of Christian leaders from across denominations and traditions, who share an interest in breaking the symbolic link between Christian faithfulness and right-wing political ideology.
Last night, CBS refused to air Stephen Colbert’s interview with Texas state Rep. James Talarico, who is running for Senate. Talarico is a white Southern man and a devout Christian—all qualities that would lead us to predict that he would hold Christian nationalist views. And yet he has become an outspoken opponent of such views.
In his banned interview with Colbert, he takes on Christian nationalism by name. He shows it is possible to be a white Southern man and a devout Christian who rejects Christian nationalism. This was apparently threatening enough that it was not allowed to air.
For those who are deeply concerned about the antidemocratic implications of Christian nationalism, it is essential we keep both the probable and the possible in view.
We have to understand the scope and strength of Christian nationalist ideas in American society, where they are most and least prevalent, and what factors predict adherence to them. For this, there is no better source than the latest PRRI report.
We also have to recognize that even within groups where these views are most probable, a perspective more compatible with American democracy is possible. If you have not yet listened to When the Wolves Came, it offers one glimpse into this possibility.
The history of social change tells us that what is only a glimmer of possibility today can one day turn into a probability. In today’s fight against Christian nationalism, it is only by seeing both the probable and the possible that we might nudge Americans across their political and religious divides to embrace a democratic future.
Something Light
In much less pressing news, I am officially a knitter.
Since my first lesson, I have knit (knitted?) a very long skinny wool thingie that would make a perfect scarf for a large snake, and a squishy wool rectangle that may one day become a squishy wool square.
So I am not yet a pro. But the main thing is that the clickety-clack of knitting needles is highly satisfying and for the past week I have repeatedly reached for those instead of my phone. 10 out of 10 recommend.