Christian Nationalism & Spicy Ketchup

25 March, 2026

The amorphous entity that is Christian Nationalism. Yet cable news talking heads and social media reposting pros throw it around like it has one definition that everyone understands. And everyone understands that it is bad, right? Right?!?

But there is quite the spectrum within what could reasonably be considered Christian Nationalism. Think of it like hot sauce. There is a real range of products that can all be placed on the same shelf. Some melt your mouth off your face. Others aren’t as peppery as toothpaste. Yet both are, indeed, hot sauce.

That said, there are some things that anyone with a shred of sanity and concern for their gastrointestinal tract should stay away from. An example of this would be White Christian Nationalism. This fringe position is co-opting the middle and operative word: Christian. It is an ethno-centric view that must pull scripture out of context to justify its sinful claims. This would be the bottle of hot sauce with the picture of the flaming toilet on the label that also requires you to sign a waiver to purchase. No bueno.

Towards the other end of the aisle is the tamer stuff. This is where people pray things like “Your kingdom come. Your will be done, On earth as it is in heaven” (Matt 6:10) and read audacious texts like the 119th Psalm. They see that scripture has outlasted every paradigm the world has thrown at it and is still going strong. They want morality in the public square that reflects the Creator’s plan for His creatures’ flourishing. This is real radical stuff by the world’s standards. But it is like Frank’s Red Hot in the grand scheme of things. Sure, there is some heat. That is because it is hot sauce: it is meant to do something. But it is just historic orthodox Christianity.

And within historic orthodox Christianity there is a whole range that includes nuance. There are varying degrees of agreement and disagreement.  Augustine, Calvin, Kuyper, and Rushdoony all had different perspectives. But the idea of a nation being transformed by the gospel is hardly a new thing. The Puritans did say something about the Massachusetts Bay Colony being “a city on a hill,” if I recall correctly.

Some people are going to say it is all too spicy. Of course, those who have been imbibing the ahistorical separation of church and state dogma* are going to balk at any Christian morality in the public square. Their palate is so sensitive that even ketchup is too spicy.

Do you know what is not too spicy for such refined connoisseurs? Progressive seminarians in the US senate. Catholic presidents. And such men and woman are not Christian Nationalism. But how does that work, you might fundamentalistly ask? Because in those cases, the nation being directed by the kind of Christianity of which they approve. Totally different.

Back to the point. Here is a simple thought experiment:

Imagine a five-member board, duly elected by citizens to manage a municipality. If three were Christians who wanted to govern according to their religious beliefs, should they recuse themselves so as to not disenfranchise the other two and their constituents? What if it were four? What if it were two, but there was a third who – although an unbeliever – liked the Christians’ policies?

If you say that in such a scenario the Christians should recuse themselves, then you’re advocating for Christians to stay out of politics. Which, in a representative democracy, means you’re advocating for voter suppression (egad!). Extrapolated out, this means people of faith – any faith - shouldn’t have a say in culture. So, no Muslim mayors. What a bigoted thing to say…

But maybe you just don’t like the law of God. If that is the case, be honest about it. And that likely means one of two things.

One: you’re not a Christian. So, your real quarrel isn’t with Christian Nationalism, it is with the sovereign Lord of the universe. Your problem is with the One who has authority over heaven and earth. Your actual sticking point is bowing the knee to King Jesus.

And if that is the case, you have a lot more to worry about than which party has more seats in the senate. Your soul is in jeopardy (Hebrews 9:27). Thankfully that same Jesus you disagree with came to this world to die for people just like you and me (Romans 5:8). His death on the cross paid a debt none of us ever could on our own (1 John 4:10). His gracious invitation is to repent of putting yourself or other frail men on the throne of reality and, by faith, acknowledge His loving rule (Ephesians 2:5-9).

Or, two: you’re a Christian who picks and chooses which parts of the Bible you like. “Judge not,” “God is love,” and “COEXIST” are your preferred quotes. (One of those isn’t from the Old or New Testament. But I’m not going to say which.) Your stumbling block is that you think about the Bible differently than Jesus did (Matthew 5:17, Luke 24:27, etc.).

But there’s hope. It is found in the revealed word of God illuminated by His Spirit. It isn’t the Bible through a Republican lens or a Democrat lens. It isn’t the Bible read so only parts that are pro-this or anti-that are all that get shared from the pulpit each Sunday. It is the Bible in all its sola scriptura and tota scriptura glory.

The fullness of the Bible corrects those forms of Christian Nationalism that put men’s interests first. It stops those men who pridefully want nations to be built in their image, and it stops those men who don’t want earthly institutions to reflect God. The Bible damns the painfully spicy stuff that frat boys chug on a dare, only to go to the emergency room. The Bible also takes the low-sodium, sugar-free ketchup off the hot sauce shelf. Neither of those extremes are Biblical, and neither reflect the individual, family, and culture transforming power of the gospel. You need the unfiltered, verse by verse exposition of the Holy scriptures.

Once again, there are nuances and implications and thoughts that take up more space than a blog post. But the clear call to share the gospel and the present authority of Christ must be reckoned with. Remembering that the world rejects Him and a segment of Christianity is embarrassed by His word, we shouldn’t be surprised when they don’t like the aroma of even the mildest hot sauce. After all, for many even the ketchup is too spicy.

*The establishment clause in the constitution simply asserts that the federal government can’t formally claim an official religion. Contextually, this was certainly intended to avoid a Church of England-style denominational imbalance at the national level. Colonies did have established denominations (Massachusetts was still Congregational until 1833). And the idea that the 18th century founders would have been fine with godless humanism or something like Islam is revisionist history in its most fictionally feral form.