The authors of The Flag & the Cross don’t pull any punches with their main thesis: White Christian Nationalism (WCN) is the greatest threat to American democracy in the entire history of the nation. Wow.
A claim like that obviously will require some unpacking, which Phillip Gorski and Samuel Perry do in their fairly compact book, published earlier this year. They support their claims regarding this extensive social movement with numerous surveys, polls, and academic studies. For starters, to be “White” means far more and something other than skin color; “Christian” here has not so much to do with a set of beliefs associated with Jesus as it does with a religious/secular narrative; and “Nationalism” is by no means an equivalent term describing patriotism.
WCN is a theory of order and hierarchy, insiders and outsiders. There are “People like us”– White Christian citizens of the USA who are the “true Americans”; everyone else is only here because White people allow it..
WCN is a broad narrative rather than a set of beliefs, a deep story that is told and retold and embellished to suit the desires of those who buy into it. This narrative draws on, and in many ways completes, themes that harken back to the ancient Hebrews occupying a chosen land given to them exclusively by God. It encompasses the creation of a New Jerusalem, spreading the Christian gospel from East to West (in the Old World, from the Middle East to Europe, and in North America that meant Manifest Destiny), and a constant battle against heretics and heathens. It’s not coincidental that the “savage” native tribes often sided with the Catholic French against the white, Protestant British colonists in the northern part of the continent. In the Southwest, it meant invading Catholic, Spanish-speaking Mexico and incorporating a huge swath of territory from present-day Texas to California and much of the intermountain West. Ultimately, this narrative is headed toward an apocalyptic culmination that merges Evangelical End Times theology and QAnon conspiracies.
WCN is also a theory of freedom, with inalienable rights granted directly by Divinity not human government. Founding documents such as the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights are all directly connected to a benevolent God active in the affairs of (White) men.
WCN includes deeply held grievance and resentment. White Christian Nationalists sincerely believe that White males are the most persecuted and greatest victims in America today. There is, apparently, a zero sum when it comes to rights, privileges, and opportunities; any so-called concession, reparation, or affirmative action directed to people of color means something must be (unfairly) taken away from White folks.
What connects all these theories is violence, which has taken different forms since the early settlements in the 1600s in New England and Virginia to lynchings of Blacks through the 19th and into the mid-20th centuries. Today that is often expressed as (implicitly White) police or “good guys with guns” wielded against (implicitly non-White) “bad guys.”
During the first few centuries of European colonization of North America, “White” simply meant English. Eventually it came to mean native-born Caucasians of British and northern European descent. Everybody else was an “other.” The whole concept of “White & Black” (or perhaps more appropriately, White vs. Black) is basically an American creation. Whiteness came to be defined mainly in opposition to Blackness. And so there were “free, white English” people and “enslaved, black Africans” who ended up on American shores because Europeans had arranged their kidnapping and transport to the New World. Some Christians in the South came to justify this as a way for these (non-Christisn, heathen, and possibly subhuman) Africans to be exposed to the Christian gospel.
Curiously, there were lighter-skinned people (the Irish, in particular) who were brought across the Atlantic. Although technically they were often called indentured servants, their true status was little different from their African counterparts, at least in the early years. The Irish, of course, were Roman Catholic, which in English eyes put them in the category of “other” rather than true Christians (i.e., Protestants). Already you can see the intermingling of race and religion. In time the Irish, along with other Europeans, Catholics, Mormons, and even some Jews would be included in that favored “White” status.
Adding to anti-Black hatred by Whites is, especially from the mid-18th Century on, anti-immigrant nativism. Most of these people were Catholics and Jews from eastern and southern Europe, to be joined on the Pacific side of America by Chinese and later Japanese immigrants. Still much later came immigrants from South and Southeast Asia, almost all of whom were not Christian as well as not White. Within WCN the so-called “Great Replacement Theory” found a welcome home. As long as the USA was overwhelmingly White and Protestant/Christian, this was a fringe idea. But as this country inevitably moves toward that group as an actual minority, the fear of all these “others” taking over has grown.
There’s nothing quite like fear to stoke the fires of nativism, isolationism, grievance, resentment, bigotry, and civil violence. All of that and more was mixed together with the January 6th insurrection. It continues to empower the MAGA crowd who long for the return of Donald Trump to power, to in essence bring an end to the American experiment of Democracy and replace it with a minority-controlled republic. More and more often Republicans are pointing out that the USA is not a democracy but a republic. They’re not presenting philosophical arguments so much as paving the way for a republic tightly controlled by a WCN minority.
This book makes for an excellent companion to another I reviewed here at W&T: Jesus and John Wayne. That book traced the evolution of conservative evangelicals into the WCN force that it’s become today. The Flag and the Cross, as I’ve tried to show here, covers a much broader topic, uniting secular, religious, political, and military aspects of WCN in American history. Together the two books present a frightening conspiratorial scenario.
- To what extent do you agree with the evidence presented in The Flag and the Cross?
- Many people believe this year’s midterm election in November will set the stage for something far worse than the January 6th insurrection or it may blunt the momentum of White Christian Nationalism. How do you view this moment in American history?
- How extensive is WCN thought and activity within the broad Latter-day Saint communities?
Wheat & Tares 
This is not why I visit Wheat and Tares. Hard pass.
Thanks for the review, Rich. It’s a timely topic.
It sure seems like American religion and politics have come to influence each other in negative, even toxic, ways in the last few years. It’s easy to blame Trump, but books like this show it goes much deeper than that. Americans tend to think of American religion (that is, American Christianity) in wholly positive terms. Americans think of other religions, particularly Islam, in much different ways, and have come to associate Islam with terrorism and violence, while giving Christianity a free pass. Taking a harder look at the facts shows there’s an ugly side to American Christianity as well, and it’s getting uglier.
As for the Mormon angle, I’m inclined to think that the longstanding love affair between Mormon conservatives and Ezra Taft Benson’s politics has set up those Mormons to fall in line with Christian conservatives who (wittingly or unwittingly) embrace White Christian Nationalism. LDS leadership never repudiated Benson and won’t criticize conservative religion or politics, so members never get a clear warning signal from LDS leadership, who are always more worried about feminism and civil rights (which they see as dangers) than the actual dangers that threaten the country and the Church. So when Mormons hear White Christian Nationalism preached, it sounds like patriotism to them. A couple of blunt Conference talks could do a lot of good, but that won’t happen — I think most LDS leaders hear White Christian Nationalism and to them, too, it sounds a lot like Benson and a lot like patriotism.
This is an important and timely post. Thank you for being brave enough to post it.
I haven’t read the book, but your summary really strikes a chord. The illogical fear-based rhetoric that is consuming the MAGA Republicans threatens democracy. It’s actually rather refreshing to see a book that acknowledges that WCN wants to move away from democracy, rather than saying that’s not what’s happening.
If WCN is ‘successful’ (meaning they destroy democracy and we end up with a theocracy), I predict that Mormonism will not flourish long. There are definitely Mormons who dovetail with WCNs in the conservative religious values of gender roles and even racism. However, once WCNs have established their racism and sexism even more firmly, they’re likely to keep looking for groups to persecute. The nature of authoritarianism is to use allies and then dispose of them. To the extent Mormons are allies of WCNs, they’re likely to find themselves disrespected and marginalized the same way Catholics will be, or even more than Catholics, due to the differing theologies.
These sorts of posts, in which religious moderates and actual Christians call out WCNs as the danger they are, are very important. I’ve been bemused at the parallels between the WCNs and the Islamic terrorists who orchestrated 9/11. Muslims insist they’re a peaceful religion, but couldn’t do much to stop Islamic fundamentalist terrorism, or tyrants like the Taliban. Now Christians are in much the same position. Christianity should be a peaceful religion, focused on following Christ’s example. Instead, it’s become a grievance narrative about how a dangerous and powerful group claims victimhood and then destroys anyone who tries to stand up to their twisted realities and hatred.
White Christian Nationalism must be excommunicated from Christ-focused Christianity or the future of Christianity itself is in danger. The world will eventually reject this wave of authoritarianism, and Christianity risks going down it if it doesn’t loudly and repeatedly remind people that WCNs are not actually Christians.
This is a scary topic, and I appreciate the article’s candor. The grievance mindset is dangerous wherever it is found, and it goes beyond WCNs and politics. I have found myself changing some of my opinions because I cannot agree with the wacko right — for example, I am now pro legal abortion (up until viability or some point and for other health reasons) and pro immigration (citizenship for DACA and dreamers) because some conservatives are so wacko. I still think of myself as conservative, but I do not think I can ever agree with wackos like FOX’s shock jocks or some of the Republican house members. I am revolted by both hate- and fear-mongering from any source. Our republic’s survival depends on our better natures.
Thanks for starting the discussion.
ji: The grievance mindset is on full display with the Republican response to the student loan issue right now: It’s just unfair to all those people who’ve paid off their loans in the past. Curiously, what Biden’s action will benefit most are poor women of color. The GOP response shows no recognition of anything resembling the “common good.” After all, where were all these complaints when Trump’s tax cut for the super-wealthy and big corporations pretty much bypassed everybody else. Of course, my favorite response to it all is to quote Jesus’ parable of the Prodigal Son. Ah yes, grace. How very Christian an idea, yet how very unlike WCN thinking.
Janey: I’m glad we now have a Department of Justice, including the FBI, that is focusing considerable attention on domestic terrorism, unlike the previous administration. I’m hopeful we’ll be seeing more indictments and prosecutions relating broadly to the January 6th insurrection, including its planning, execution, and coverups.
I wonder if folks who espouse WCN have ever travelled outside the US. Because if they did they find it curious that there’s a whole world out there that rejects this ideology. You know, kind of like the 98.8% non-lds population.
A couple of comments. 1) There certainly was an English-supremacist element to the early white migrants to and inhabitants of the American British colonies. But cultural norms of the time allowed for a degree of assimilation. England in the 1400s was a major trading hub and absorbed Europeans from all over into its general population. Colonial Jamestown included migrants from Poland. The 9,000 or so Dutch colonists of New Amsterdam were more or less absorbed into the larger English-predominant white society when England fully took over in 1674 and made it New York. When larger non-English groups of migrants came in the in early 1700s, then you start seeing more English supremacy. Benjamin Franklin famously noted that he regarded . There is also a very interesting and well-evidenced argument that “white” and “black” became rooted in law following Bacon’s Rebellion of 1676, where a group of black and white colonists gathered to protest the Virginia Colonial government’s ban on settlers moving further into Indian-occupied land. The rebels burned the capitol building in Jamestown and attempted several other acts of vandalism. But laws following the rebellion distinguished more firmly between black and white with the aim of suppressing attempts by blacks and whites to unite against the colonial government again.
2) With the WCN folks, there definitely seems to be a small segment of them that are fully exclusionary of blacks, Jews, and non-whites. But a larger segment of them seems to be willing to include non-whites so long as they walk the walk and talk the talk, including acknowledging white European society to the source of “civilization,” Reactionary Protestant Evangelical Christianity to be the supreme religion, and whites to be victims of rampant racism against them. The Proud Boys, although not entirely WCN but undoubtedly allied with it, included blacks and Hispanics. Enrique Tarrio, notably of Afro-Cuban descent, was a leader of the movement and was recently indicted by the Justice Department on charges of seditious conspiracy for his role in the January 6th Insurrection. Also notable are Candace Owens, a black female extremist reactionary pundit, who has been a massive proponent of WCN-style narratives and has fought against vaccines and routinely praised Alex Jones. Michele Malkin, a Philippine-American extremist with ties to white nationalist figures, including Nick Fuentes, has long been a prominent voice for WCN. The WCN folks actually like token minorities as spokespeople in their movement, because it becomes all the more difficult for their opponents to dismiss them as racist. But in the end, WCN is racist, Christian-supremacist, non-patriotic and espouses un-American values of exclusionism. Their wrapping themselves in the American flag shouldn’t fool anyone (although it unfortunately does). Nor should their inclusion of minorities fool anyone that they aren’t racist. For these inclusions are nothing more than a sort of tokenism without any intent to advocate for an inclusion of racial and ethnic minorities on a larger scale. Additionally many of these minorities are grifters and sell-outs. The field of journalism is competitive and hard to find a name in. So, they sold out to a hate-filled audience and write to satiate their palates and sell their products.
LHL, these sorts of topics are why I am attracted to Wheat and Tares. It is one of the few places where I feel like I can actually have good faith discussions with a politically diverse crowd of libertarians, moderates, and liberals.
This is something Mormons need to talk about more, not less like LHL wishing to take a hard pass on the subject. WCNs are not our friends and we should not ally with them as they do not consider Mormons to be Christian, no matter how much we reject the nickname Mormon and pound “the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.” We do not consider Jesus to be the one and only God, but a separate person from The Father, so in their eyes, we are the same as or worse than Moslems. Oh, sure, they will be polite as long as we donate money to support their hatred of LGBT, but we are still the enemy.
We also need to take a good hard look at some of our own doctrine, such as manifest destiny. That idea is all through the Book of Mormon. And, I hate to come right out and say that something the BOM teaches is false, but manifest destiny is crap.
John W:
Gorski and Perry point out that the development of American society didn’t have to turn out the way it did. Yes, there was the Massachusetts Bay Colony, but there was also a much more tolerant Rhode Island established by Roger Williams’ Baptist group. As a counter to how Virginia turned out, there was William Penn’s Quakers in Pennsylvania–a far more open group. And, of course, if northern Democrats had not brought Reconstruction to an end post-Civil War in the 1870s, American society might have been quite different. It just seems that whenever America has had a choice, it ended up taking the violent, intolerant path.
Rich Brown, Gorski and Perry are absolutely right. History is full of all sorts of critical points and junctures that had there been a slight detail of change things could have drastically gone another way. I wonder what might have happened had the First Continental Congress of 1774 adopted the Galloway Plan of Union between Great Britain and the American Colonies. It was rejected by the congress, but only by a vote of 6-5. Had it been adopted, might have the American Colonies remained colonies for a longer period of time? Might have a Revolutionary War never have occurred? We’ll never know. But it is interesting to ponder over. Rhode Island is a fascinating case indeed. Roger Williams learned to speak the Narragansett language and built an amazing relationship with Narragansett leader Canonicus. Certainly a hero of American history.
I think using this term WCN, while accurate and important to put a name to, has the unfortunate effect of playing into the victim narrative that these people promote. All they will hear is the words “white” and “Christian” used in a negative way and the defense goes up along with the persecution complex. Rhetoric matters. I can’t think of a good alternative but it would be worth coming up with one.
Your food allergy:
Well, “fascists” would probably fit. And it could be used with other words in all kinds of noun & adjective combinations.
Even Joe Biden finally used it today in regard to the MAGA crowd, although I don’t think he needed the “semi-” prefix.
To be clear if you vote republican in November you are voting for this ideology. If you use some sophistry to convince yourself there is justification for accepting Trump and this ideology you need to rethink. Is America better place to live, as a democracy or a dictatorship, with a vindictive, bully as dictator.
Josh points out that this ideology is not acceptable in the free world, but doesn’t go on to explain that it is in line with russia and to a lesser extent china; dictator, racist, anti gay, and other dictators in the third world. Trump alienated most of NATO and the UN. If America is no longer the leader of the free world, but has more in common with russia and china, where does that leave Ukraine, Tiwan, even Australia etc.
This is a turning point for America with consequences for the world.
If the republicans take back control of either house in November, America is in big trouble, and the consequences are global. Please get out and vote strongly democrat, even if you don’t usually.
On a brighter note, I live at the top of a cul-de-sack, there is a large jacarander tree half way down the street which is just turning yellow in preparation for turning purple in spring.
I’m hopeful that the more extreme the White Christian Nationalist rhetoric becomes, revealing its true underpinnings, the less acceptable it will be to Mormons. Right now, though, it doesn’t seem to be a problem for a whole lot of them to get in line with it. Part of the issue is past leaders like Benson who were fully on board with it, and another specifically Mormon problem is the Book of Mormon is aligned with a WCN perspective. Almost anyway you slice it, the book is based on the premise that white settlers > indigenous people and God wanted it that way. The BOM was published in 1830, and the Trail of Tears happened between 1831 and 1850. The BOM states that white settlers were chosen to populate the current United States and be “God’s people,” in part because the indigenous people had become wicked, bloodthirsty, and dark skinned, believing the “wrong traditions” of their fathers. This is not subtle once you know what WCN is preaching. It makes it hard to read the BOM without seeing it as a sort of White Christian Nationalist manifesto.
Angela C:
Your insightful comment about the BOM is worth exploring in a separate post all on its own here at W&T. This is a critical issue for all latter-day saints who accept that book as holy scripture in any form.