Unflinching in his analysis, David Gushee traces the sobering history of Christianity’s all too frequent complicity in authoritarian rule. Yet Gushee also shows how Christians have within their faith the tools to restore democracy at this critical juncture. Reminding readers that democracy must be fought for, Gushee equips the American church for this battle. Defending Democracy from Its Christian Enemies is an immensely important book for our present moment.
That’s my official endorsement of Gushee’s book, but there’s a backstory to the blurb.
I first met David at an event in New Orleans, where we had a fabulous time on a couple of panels together. Before we met, I had had the honor of endorsing his After Evangelicalism, a wonderful book for anyone who finds themselves “deconstructing” or who knows someone who is. Or really, for anyone curious about Christianity. I took some flack for that one because of his affirming stance on LGBTQ issues, as I expected I would. When I asked him what he was working on next and he told me the title, I immediately said: “Let me do that one too.” (For the record, I believe this is the first and only time I’ve volunteered to endorse a book.)
I reached out to David last week and asked if he’d be willing to do a short Q&A for my Substack readers. He was in England at the time and filed this from Schiphol on his way home.
KDM: As a Professor of Christian Ethics, why this book?
DG: I write this book because I believe some current forms of traditionalist Christian political engagement need to be critiqued precisely in Christian ethical terms. What I call “authoritarian reactionary Christianity” does not qualify as an adequate expression of Christian discipleship, besides being destructive of democracy.
KDM: You coin a term here, “authoritarian reactionary Christianity.” Can you describe how you came to it, and why you prefer it over “Christian nationalism”?
DG: In Christian ethics, we have a long history of the use of the term "Nationalism." It has meant a dangerously exaggerated version of patriotism, or love of country. Nationalism goes beyond a morally justifiable love of one's own country toward a dangerous hostility and contempt for other peoples and countries. Religious nationalism blends a version of religion with nationalism to supercharge it with the fuel of religious zeal. It is often associated with violence. The term has been used to describe dynamics in multiple religious and national contexts.
The recent use of the term Christian nationalism, as initiated by the fine book by sociologists Samuel Perry and Andrew Whitehead (Taking America Back for God), really means Christian nation-ism -- which they actually say at one point. What they mean is a political agenda on the part of a certain part of the US population to (re)create a certain kind of white-dominated, patriarchal, conservative, Christian nation, and to vote and act accordingly. This has become shorthanded as Christian nationalism, or white Christian nationalism, and I think it is describing something quite real but different from the older uses of the term nationalism, religious nationalism, etc.
I argue that it is more descriptive to say that many Christians, in a number of countries that (once) had a culturally dominant Christian population or (once) had an established, official Christian government, have fallen into a reactionary posture toward politics that is motivated by their group's loss of cultural, political, and legal dominance. In the US, we can see hostile Christian reaction to pretty much every major social change since the 1960s, and traditionalist Christians have been fighting back since that time. For a long time, traditionalist reactionary Christians in the US used evangelistic, missionary, and eventually democratic political strategies to attempt to advance their agenda. But especially since the emergence of Trump, his obvious authoritarianism and lack of commitment to playing within the democratic rules of the game have helped some of these traditionalist Christians to feel justified in moving toward anti-democratic strategies, including for example denying the legitimacy of the 2020 election, participating in militias like the Proud Boys or joining the January 6 insurrection, or supporting others who did so. This is definitely no longer anything as quaint as “values voting” - this is challenging democracy itself.
KDM: We’re both familiar with a common refrain on the Right that America is not a democracy, it’s a Republic. I’ve even heard democracy referred to as “idolatry.” How would you respond to this?
DG: I studied this question for my book and find the distinction spurious, at least as it is being currently deployed. In the Federalist Papers, a key original source to understand the intention of the drafters of our Constitution, the distinction is simply made this way: a democracy is understood in direct terms, like local town meetings in which everyone votes. But Federalist says this is not workable at any large scale. A republic, then, is a representative democracy, which can be scaled up to a very large population. The political scientists I quote in the book, as well as the democracy-monitoring NGOs like Freedom House, certainly describe the United States as a democracy. They contrast democracies with autocracies or dictatorships, not with republics. The US can easily be described as both a democracy and a republic, which it has been throughout our history. The current use of this distinction is sophistry.
KDM: Your scope is wide here, historically and geographically. What advantage is there to taking a wider lens to the question of Christianity and democracy?
DG: It helps very much to see a general pattern visible since the emergency of the modern world -- traditional Christians, both leaders and regular people, reacting with fierce negativity to pretty much every modern development -- democracy itself, "liberalism" understood first in the Lockean sense and now in the left-liberal-progressive sense, urbanization, industrialization, civil emancipation for Jews, Muslims, atheists, racial minorities and women, along with capitalism, socialism, Marxism, feminism, abortion, gay rights, etc. The main difference between reactionary Christian movements of the 19th century and today is in some of the issues against which the groups were/are reacting - but the fierce reactionary spirit is the same.
My book offers historical studies of right-wing reactionary movements in France and Germany before World War II, and of contemporary Russia, Poland, Hungary, Brazil, and the US. Christian despair over unwelcome liberalizing and pluralizing trends, Christian rejection of or contempt for democracy, the desire for a Christian strongman who can Make X Great Again, has a very wide reach. It has contributed to right-wing autocracies, some of them fascist, in multiple countries.
I see a family resemblance across these different contexts -- and indeed in the contemporary scene there are a number of direct international connections among these authoritarian reactionary Christian movements -- and feel the need to call it as such.
KDM: You make the case that a close alignment between Christianity and the state is bad for both. The threat to democracy is clear, but how is this also bad for the church?
DG: The marriage of church and state confuses Christians about their identity and loyalty, reduces Christianity to a certain version of worldly politics and thus makes politics a new creedal element, often corrupts Christian moral behavior because of the ends-justify-the means dynamics in politics, drives dissenting Christians out of the church, distorts Christian public witness, and positions Christians as oppressors of minority groups in society. Other than that, it's perfectly lovely. 🙂
KDM: Because of democracy’s “Christian enemies,” we might say that fellow Christians have a special obligation to show up and defend democracy in this moment. In concrete ways, what does it look like for American Christians to do this right now?
DG: Evaluate all politicians on whether they are genuinely committed to the democratic rules of the game rather than to creating some kind of post-democratic authoritarian regime. Renew our acquaintance with the historical arguments and events that led many Christians to support democracy and that are still compelling. Make your voice heard. Organize. Vote.
KDM: As you well know, the power dynamics in Christian spaces means that speaking up can come at a cost. What would you say to readers who share your concerns but are reluctant to speak out?
DG: There is a time where silence is just not acceptable. As we prepare for 2024, we are in one such moment.
I agree. This is NOT a time for silence. I enjoyed this interview. Thank you!!
This conversation helps us to better identify and name the current chaos. As one who has journeyed from one camp to the other, I need help recalling epiphanies that prompted me to move away from "authoritarian reactionary Christianity," step by step, to make a map for others. Clear, apt terminology really helps. Thanks.