Week 27: In Our Front Yard (Part 1 of 4)

Who: Me and a Few Friends

Church: Calvary Chapel Chattanooga

Topic: Christian Nationalism

Back in November, I visited Calvary Chapel Chattanooga. That experience turned into my longest post to date—for now. (My next one might take the title.) But more than just its length, that post sparked the most DMs I’ve ever received. Calvary Chapel has a reputation in our community. Depending on who you ask, that reputation varies—sometimes dramatically and the responses to my post made that even more clear.

People had thoughts.

Some messaged to share their own experiences—some affirming, some challenging. One person just wanted to say, “Thank you for putting words to something I’ve felt but never voiced.” And that response confirmed that this conversation—about faith, church culture, and the rise of Christian Nationalism in our front yard—is one people are ready to have.

So, a few weeks ago, someone showed me a screen shot of a public Facebook post about an upcoming event at Calvary Chapel. Apparently, the church gathers once a month for lectures, discussions, and biblical teachings through their Civics + Culture series. These classes address topics such as policy, legislation, law, and social issues, providing participants with resources to prepare them for important conversations, advocacy, and activism.

Full disclosure, I wouldn’t typically consider attending an event like this, but I was curious to understand how a church like Calvary Chapel approaches civics and cultural engagement. Given its reputation in the community, hearing firsthand how they discuss policy, legislation, and social issues through a biblical lens, as well as how they view current events and the role they believe the church should play in shaping culture, I thought it could be helpful when trying to engage in dialogue with those who agree with their stances.

It also needs to be said that the Facebook post had some rather disconcerting language. Some red flags, if you will:

“In 537 BC, a massive political shift took place that set the stage for one of the most important revivals in Israel’s history. When the political environment went from extreme hostility towards the Jews, to one of favor almost overnight – they knew it was time to act; but, it would require much work and sacrifice to achieve their revival.

“In a few days (please note: this was posted right before the inauguration), we will experience another massive political shift. The Church in the United States will no longer co-exist with a government hostile towards her; but, a government that stay(s) out of her way. Are we ready to make the sacrifice to do the work that God is calling His Church to do?”

There are several problematic aspects of this statement, particularly in how it frames historical and contemporary political events:

1. Misapplication of Historical Context – The reference to 537 BC likely points to the Persian King Cyrus allowing the Jewish exiles to return to Jerusalem, ending their Babylonian captivity. However, equating this event with a modern U.S. political transition is historically and theologically questionable, at the very least. Ancient Israel was a theocratic nation, whereas the United States is a secular democracy with religious freedom for all. The comparison implies a level of divine endorsement for a political shift that is not theologically, or historically, sound. (Make a mental note about King Cyrus, because this will be mentioned in Part 2 and how leadership at Calvary Chapel equate Cyrus to Trump. Additionally, there is a growing contingent who want to see the United States become a theocracy.)
2. Assumption of Political Favoritism by God – The quote suggests that one government is “hostile” toward the Church while another will allow it to thrive. This assumes that political favor equates to God’s favor, which is a problematic perspective. Christianity has historically thrived under persecution and hardship, and Jesus Himself warned that His followers would face opposition (John 15:18-20). The idea that a government that “stays out of the way” is inherently better for the Church oversimplifies complex religious and political dynamics.
3. Exclusionary and Partisan Framing – The quote implies that only one political party, or government, can truly support Christianity, alienating believers who may have different political views. It also ignores the religious pluralism of the U.S. and the fact that many people of faith exist across the political spectrum. (The Calvary Chapel staff member leading this class made it VERY clear that he believes it impossible for Democrats to be Christians. This will also be discussed in Part 2.)
4. Over-Simplification of Religious and Political Reality – The statement assumes that the previous administration was actively hostile toward Christianity and that the new administration will be entirely hands-off. In reality, religious freedom is protected by law, and policies affecting religion are complex and nuanced. The suggestion that Christians can now suddenly act because of a political shift disregards the ongoing work of churches and believers who have been active in their faith regardless of political leadership.
5. The Danger of Christian Nationalism – The language suggests that the Church’s success is tied to political power, which aligns with Christian nationalistic thinking. Throughout history, whenever Christianity has been deeply intertwined with political power, it has often led to corruption, exclusion, and the oppression of others rather than the gospel’s message of love, justice, and humility.

That was a lot to digest, but I think it’s important—now more than ever—to take a step back and really examine what’s being said in our churches and by those who profess a faith in Jesus, particularly when it comes to the intersection of faith and politics.

Christian nationalism is not just about patriotism, or civic engagement; it’s a distortion of the gospel that fuses national identity with religious belief, often at the expense of the very teachings of Jesus. When church leaders and Christian influencers frame political power as proof of divine favor, or suggest that the church’s mission is tied to the success of a particular government or ideology, we have to ask:

• Is this truly what Jesus taught?
• Are we being led by the gospel, or by fear, power, and political ambition?
• Are we shaping our faith around Jesus’ call to love, serve, and uplift others, or are we reshaping Jesus to fit a political agenda?

The danger of Christian nationalism is that it often weaponizes faith—turning it into a tool for exclusion, control, and, at times, outright oppression. It can lead to marginalizing those who don’t fit a particular political or cultural mold, rewriting history to serve ideology, and prioritizing power over the radical love and humility that Jesus modeled.

As followers of Christ, we have a responsibility to be discerning. That means not blindly accepting everything spoken from a pulpit, or platform, simply because it carries Christian language. It means examining the fruits of these teachings—are they producing justice, mercy, and humility, or are they fostering division, fear, and a thirst for control?

Jesus never sought political dominance. He never called His followers to secure power at all costs. Instead, He told them to love their enemies, serve the least among them, and seek a kingdom that is not of this world. 

If our churches are preaching something else, we need to ask: Whose kingdom are we really building?

SIDE NOTE: This is the first post in what I anticipate will be a four-part series. The next two posts will offer an in-depth look at two separate Civics + Culture events at Calvary Chapel Chattanooga that I personally attended. The fourth post will take a deeper dive into the Christian Nationalist movement—why it stands in direct opposition to the life and teachings of Christ, how it distorts the mission of his followers, and the ways we can challenge and counter a harmful theology that prioritizes political power over the gospel’s call to love, humility, and justice.