Why 'Christian Nationalism' Critics Get History Wrong

The term “Christian Nationalism” is increasingly being weaponized in an attempt to put Christians in a corner. The problem? How that term gets defined is so broad it encompasses virtually every American Christian who believes their faith should influence their public life.

But guess what? Christians in politics is exactly what the founders expected and intended.

Interestingly, those on the Left – as well as some conservatives who’ve been fooled – have essentially made "Christian Nationalism" synonymous with the founders' own vision for America. And yet they’ve labeled it as dangerous extremism.

A video denouncing “Christan Nationalism” recently crossed my path. Here it is so you can hear this for yourself:

I could not let so much false teaching go without comment. Here’s what I wrote in the comments section for the posted video:

"Christian nationalists" is a fluid, "moving target" term that some people use to spread their own version of hate. Regardless of where one points to the moving target, I found this man's opening sentence to be extremely judgmental, painting with a broad brush. It was offensive and actually prejudiced.”

I was subsequently challenged by the person who posted the video to show him in the Constitution where it says we are a Christian nation.

Knowledge of history is essential. Although the Constitution doesn't explicitly declare America a 'Christian nation,' the historical context and founding documents of the individual states reveals the framers' clear intent: Christians should hold public office.

Understanding "Religion" in the Founding Era

First let's examine the word "religion." Today we use the word to define a general belief system, such as Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, Christianity, Judaism, or Zoroastrianism, etc.

However, in the period that the USA was founded, the word "religion" also served as a synonym for "Christian denomination."

This is confirmed in the 1828 Webster's dictionary (Webster was a friend and political ally of John Quincy Adams, son of Founder and 2nd President John Adams):

RELIGION, noun relij'on. [Latin religio, from religo, to bind anew... originally meant an oath or vow to the gods.]

1. "religion in its most comprehensive sense, includes a belief in the being and perfections of God, in the revelation of his will to man, in man's obligation to obey his commands, in a state of reward and punishment, and in man's accountableness to God; and also true godliness or piety of life, with the practice of all moral duties. It therefore comprehends theology, as a system of doctrines or principles, as well as practical piety; for the practice of moral duties without a belief in a divine lawgiver, and without reference to his will or commands, is not religion."

When we ask someone today, "What religion are you?" we usually mean, "Are you Buddhist? A Muslim? A Christian?" But when America was founded, if someone was asked, "What religion are you?" the question was meant to identify someone's Christian denomination ... such as, "Are you Presbyterian, Anglican, Congregationalist, or Baptist, or ???"

The States Led the Way: Constitutional Requirements for Office

History also shows that the STATES created their own Constitutions long before the US Constitution was created. (Before the U.S. Constitution we had the Articles of Confederation, which were too loosely written and therefore ineffective.)

In each state, their Constitutions had rules about who could or could not serve in state offices. As you read these, you will note that in some states, one clause may require a belief if God -- with some even requiring belief in Jesus -- and in another clause it will say "no religious test" shall be required.

Seems contratictory, but remember the definition of “religion” as used in that period.

To explain it more simply, multiple state Constitutions required someone to be a Christian to hold political office, but "no religious test" meant that state's Constitution forbade requiring someone adhere to a specific denomination (no "religious test" = no denominational test to verify denominational alignment).

Here is a sampling of clauses found in state Constitutions, explicitly disqualifying atheists or required theistic beliefs for holding public office:

• Delaware (1776 Constitution), Article 22

"Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust, before taking his seat, or entering upon the execution of his office, shall... make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit:

'I, A. B., do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be given by divine inspiration.'"

• Maryland (1776 Declaration of Rights, amended 1851/1826), Article 36--37

Article 36: "...nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness, ... provided, he believes in the existence of God, and that under His dispensation such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished ... in the world to come."

Article 37: "That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office ... "

• Massachusetts (1780 Constitution) Chapter VI, Article I:

"Any person chosen governor, lieutenant-governor, councillor, senator, or representative, and accepting the trust, shall... make and subscribe the following declaration, viz.:

'I, A. B., do declare that I believe the Christian religion, and have a firm persuasion of its truth.'

• Arkansas (1874 Constitution), Article XIX, Section 1
  (NOTE: Arkansas was not a founding state - it’s clause is included here to show how states admitted AFTER the Constitution was written still wanted office holders to be Christians)

"No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court."

• Mississippi (1817 Constitution), Article XIV, Section 265
  (again, Mississippe was not a founding state, but the requirement to hold ANY office in the state was clear)

"No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this State."

• North Carolina (1776 Constitution), Article VI, Section 8

"The following persons shall be disqualified for office. First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God."

• Pennsylvania (1776/1790), Article I, Section 4 (Declaration of Rights)

"No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth."

• South Carolina (1778 Constitution), Article XVII, Section 4

"No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution."

• Tennessee (1796 Constitution), Article IX, Section 2
  (Again - Tennessee was not a founding state)

"No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this State."

• Texas (1845 Constitution), Article I, Section 4 (Bill of Rights)
  (Note: Texas was not a founding state, but notice the same requirement to hold office in the state)

"No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."

Even among the three states that did not mandate public office holders be Christians, they still had laws and practical restrictions that effectively limited non-Christian participation in government.

Also, these requirements weren't just symbolic—they were actively enforced. As late as 1961, Maryland revoked Roy Torcaso's appointment as notary public for refusing to declare belief in God. This proves these weren't merely ceremonial requirements but deeply held convictions about the necessity of having faith in God while serving in public service.

The Founders' Intent: Faith as a Check on Power

The founders did not want a theocracy. They just wanted people in office who knew they would stand one day before a Holy God and give account of every thought, motive, and action. The purpose of those Constitutional laws was to elect people who were more likely to be ethical because they knew (as Christians know now) that accountability before God acts as a check on human ambition and moral failure.

Sadly, the man speaking in the video employs a “cherry picking” approach to Scripture. He touts “love thy neighbor,” but ignores Christ’s admonition to follow God’s moral standards. This loose-leaf Bible approach is exactly why the founders wanted people with serious, accountable faith instead of those who reshape Christianity to fit wayward political agendas.

Most folks know of George Washington, our nation's first President, but most do not that John Jay was the nation's first U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice. Jay was a key founding figure, and emphasized the importance of having Christians serve in office to ground the nation's moral fabric.

In a letter to John Murray in October of 1816, Jay wrote:

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."

Thirty-seven years earlier, in a letter to George Washington in August of 1789 as Washington was presiding over the Constitutional convention, Jay wrote about religion's importance to the republic's survival. He said:

"Providence has been pleased to give us the opportunity of establishing a government upon such principles as are most likely to effect [the] happiness and safety of man. But this cannot be accomplished without a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, and a just observance of the laws of morality and religion.” (emphasis added)

In essence, many framers believed that when leaders knew they would "answer to God" for their actions, they would govern more morally. Founder and future President James Madison was among those believed this.

In his November 1772 letter to future Attorney General William Bradford, Madison wrote:

"A watchful eye must be kept on ourselves lest, while we are building ideal monuments of renown and bliss here, we neglect to have our names enrolled in the Annals of Heaven."

Divine Providence and the Constitutional Convention

And after Americans won their freedom, delegates gathered to rewrite the Articles of Confederation -- what would become The Constitution. They were making very little progress. So Benjamin Franklin stood up to address George Washington, President of the convention. He said:

"In the beginning of the contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayer in this room for divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard---and were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in that struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending Providence in our favor. To that kind Providence, we owe this happy opportunity to consult in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity.

"And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? Or do we imagine that we no longer need His assistance? I have lived, Sir, a long time---and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth---that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?

"We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings that "Except the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel.

Thus, PRAYER was made a daily event in Congress. Franklin and the other Founders did not want prayers to any wiccan goddess or to Allah, but prayers to the God found in the "sacred writings" (Franklin's words) -- i.e., the Bible.

Addressing the "Theocracy" Misunderstanding

A theocracy is when religious leaders rule as religious leaders, making religious law civil law. The founders wanted the opposite - religious people ruling as civil magistrates under civil law, with their faith serving as a moral check on their behavior, not as the source of legal authority.

No conservative Christian voter nor conservative Christian politician I know advocates for a "theocracy." None. Nor are they filled with hate. Those who say so are either blatant liars or ignorant of history. Christians who hold elected office and openly speak of their Christian morals and values are in the exact same league as those who wrote those the original state Constitutions. They know, as the founders did, that belief in divine judgment fosters integrity and caution when wielding power.

That's it.

This historical context makes modern attempts to redefine Christianity particularly troubling. The man speaking in the video at the beginning of this column perfectly illustrates this problem.

The statements made by the speaker in the video indicate that it is HE who wants a theocracy -- and even then, he is taking scriptural principles out of context. The United States is a nation of laws. If, as he seems to imply, we should waive those laws because of "Christian principles," then it is HE who is suggesting a Theocracy.

He's a slick talker, but he appears to be ignorant of history and out of line with Scriptural principles. He talks about "love our neighbors," and yes, that is part of the Greatest Commandment. But he fails to acknowledge the definition of "agape," the word Jesus used when he said “Love thy neighbor,” which was later defined by ther Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 13.

For the record, loving our neighbors does not mean we accept that people break the law or purposefully offend God with their selfish life choices.

Here's what the agape form of love means, per the Bible:

Love is patient, and kind (useful), it does not boast, it is not proud, it does not dishonor others (be rude to them), it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, and it keeps no plan of how it intends to do get even or do harm to someone in the future. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, and always perseveres.

If you like, I can take you through each Greek word and write a chapter about it (I already have). The man in the video mispresents Scripture by ascribing meaning to the word agape that is not part of the word's definition. The term for doing that is known as “false teaching.”

Legal Precedent: Courts Recognize America's Christian Heritage

I was challenged by the person who posted the video to show in the Constitution where it says we are a Christian nation.

The person wins the challenge. Those words are not in the Constitution.

Similarly, Jesus smiling or laughing is not recorded in the Bible, but I'm going to believe it happened.

Common sense must prevail.

In "Updegraph v. The Commonwealth" in 1824, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court wrote, "Christianity, general Christianity, is, and always has been, a part of the common law of Pennsylvania..." 11 Serg. & Rawle 394 (Pa. 1824)

Then, in 1892, in Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, writing for the U.S. Supreme Court's majority opinion, Justice David Brewer said, "No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people. This is a Christian nation." 143 U.S. 457 (1892)

The Historical Verdict

The Founders who signed the U.S. Constitution believed that State Constitutional mandates that only Christians hold office would carry over when states selected US Representatives and Senators, as well as when voting for their President. Why? Because it was the overwhelming established practice in the individual state Constitutions.

In other words, it is clear from history that our Founders and Framers wanted Christians in office. Therefore, people need to STOP bashing those who want Christians in office today. As we see from our history -- smearing those who prefer Christians be in public office is CLEARLY against the will of our Founders, and thus against the Founding principles of America.

PS — IMPORTANT ADDENDUM:
After posting this column, it came to my attention that the Nick Fuentes, Dave Reilly, and Stew Peters crowd are working overtime to hijack the term “Christian Nationalists.” Let me VERY clear: In absolutely no way I do I subscribe to their bigoted perspectives. I have listened to Nick Fuentes and find him to be one of the most narcissistic and wrongly informed attention-hounds I’ve ever seen in my life. I have personally interviewed Dave Reilly and find him to be a smooth talker, but decepive and disingenous. Several years ago I also interviewed Stew Peters (before he revealed his true nature) and I used to think of Stew as a bold person for truth. However, he has since revealed his antisemtic white supremacist beliefs, the same as Fuentes and Reilly.

In my opinion, these three (and their followers) who claim to be Christian Nationalists are NOT Christian Nationalists in the way I described Christian Nationalists in this column nor the way any of the Founders would have described. These three and their followers are sadly decieved, and I vehemently disagree with their stances.

It is very sad that they have such large platforms to spread their hate and misrepresent the term Christian Nationalist.

~~~
This is Daniel Bobinski, and I’m Keeping Things Real.

© 2025 Shadowtrail Media, LLC

Daniel Bobinski, Th.D., is an international bestselling author (Creating Passion-Driven Teams), a certified behavioral analyst, and for 36 years he’s been a corporate trainer and executive coach. He also serves as Executive Trainer for the Shofar Global Network, which advocates for business leaders to let God guide their businesses, thus directing people’s attention to the Author and Finisher of our faith.