The logical place to start this post is with a clear definition of Christian Nationalism. I’m taking my definition from Andrew Whitehead and Samuel Perry, sociologists and leading scholars on Christian Nationalism in the United States. Whitehead co-authored Taking America Back for God: Christian Nationalism in the United States and has extensively researched how Christian Nationalism shapes political and social attitudes. Perry has written multiple books on the intersection of Christianity and American culture, including The Flag and the Cross: White Christian Nationalism and the Threat to American Democracy.
Together, Whitehead and Perry have conducted research using national survey data to show how Christian Nationalism influences views on democracy, race, gender roles, and policy decisions in the U.S. Their work highlights the distinction between personal faith and a political ideology that seeks to merge Christianity with national identity. This is a paraphrase of their definition:
Christian nationalism is a collection of myths, traditions, symbols, narratives, and value systems—centered on the belief that America is and should be a Christian nation—that seeks to merge Christian and American identities, prescribing a particular expression of Christianity as the only true religion and the foundation of civic life.
The term Christian Nationalism is being used frequently—often without a clear understanding of what it truly means. It’s a phrase that sparks strong reactions, yet many people seem to conflate it with simply being a patriotic Christian, or engaging in politics from a faith-based perspective. It’s important to unpack what Christian Nationalism actually is, how it differs from personal faith, and why its influence is worth examining critically. (I will diving deeper into this during Parts 4 and 5 of this series.) Christian Nationalism goes beyond Christian political engagement, asserting that American identity is inseparable from Christianity. It promotes the belief that the U.S. was founded as a Christian nation and should be governed by Christian principles—often from a conservative evangelical perspective. This ideology justifies political power under religious authority, reinforces racial and gender hierarchies, and marginalizes non-Christians by advocating for Christianity’s dominance in public life.
Many American citizens, however, believe that a healthy democracy respects religious freedom while ensuring that no single belief system dominates public policy. This is a huge tenant to the Separation of Church and State, which is not about restricting religious expression, but about preventing any one religious perspective from becoming the foundation for laws that govern everyone. This protects both religious institutions from political manipulation and government from becoming an enforcer of religious doctrine.
So, with this as the backdrop, I want to take a closer look at the second half of the Civics + Culture class at Calvary Chapel Chattanooga on January 26th. And, again, there was A LOT I could dissect, but for the sake of time I’m being selective in the points I’m underscoring.
The second speaker on January 26th set the tone in her opening remarks:
“It’s not just time to sit back and relax. Having Trump as our President really just gives us four more years to freely get involved, to freely proclaim Christ, and to help build a church, to build souls to the kingdom, most importantly, and now we know that there are more people to fight with us than against us.”
This statement reflects a fusion of Christian identity with national politics, which is a key characteristic of Christian Nationalism. It frames political victory as a religious mandate and creates an us vs. them mentality, suggesting that Christianity is in a battle against opponents rather than a mission of love and service. It also merges national identity with faith, reducing the church’s role to a political strategy rather than a spiritual calling. True Christianity transcends politics and thrives regardless of who is in power. More importantly, the idea that Trump’s presidency allows Christians to “freely proclaim Christ” suggests that religious freedom is contingent on a specific political outcome. However, religious freedom in the U.S. has been constitutionally protected regardless of who is president.
The speaker then spent quite a bit of time talking about the recent Tennessee Education Freedom Act of 2025, which established a universal school choice program, providing families with state-funded scholarships of approximately $7,300 per student to cover private school tuition and related educational expenses.
I’m sitting here, sprawled out on my bed with my notes, a few books, and not enough hours in my day to dissect the misleading, and overtly false, statements. But, I do want to highlight a few of them:
- “When the Pilgrims first arrived, they didn’t build public schools. They built their homes and they built one building, which was their civic center, their religious center, their church, and their school. It wasn’t public schools.”
- While the Pilgrims didn’t establish “public schools” in the modern sense, education was a priority in early colonial settlements. Churches often played a role in education, but separate schoolhouses were common as towns developed. By the late 1600s, New England had an expanding network of dedicated school buildings. They were often funded by taxes or community contributions and intended to serve all children, making them more akin to public schools than the statement suggests.
- “The question that comes to my mind, is how do I, as a tax payer.. once my tax dollars are received by the government, they will then be given, through the filters of bureaucracy, to another family that will send their child to a private school of their choice. Well, what if that private school is the one with the mosque over there at Hamilton Place? They’re going to teach anti-Judeo, Christian values. They’re going to teach anti-Judaism.”
- The statement implies that Islamic schools promote anti-Jewish teachings, reinforcing harmful stereotypes and promoting fear-based rhetoric rather than informed discussion about education policy. (This was one of the moments where I had to collect myself because the blatant Islamophobia was so shocking and unapologetic that it left me momentarily speechless.) The assumption that an Islamic school would inherently teach hatred toward Jews and Christians was not just ignorant, but deeply prejudiced. It reflected a broader pattern of fear-mongering that seeks to exclude certain religious groups from the very freedoms that others take for granted.
- “Now there will be parents who receive government funding to send their children to private schools. Of course they’re going to be satisfied. Why would you not be? Give me free money that’s not actually free. It’s somebody else(s) paying for it and then my kid get to go to CCS? That’s awesome. I can’t afford that. I would be satisfied… I do not mean to be rude or judgmental, but a parent that is given money that they did not work for, to send their child to a private school, is going to be satisfied with that program. Until they’re not and then they want more, which is what historically happens when any government subsidy is provided.”
- The claim that parents will inevitably demand more is a slippery slope fallacy, ignoring that many government programs provide necessary aid without leading to endless dependency. (I speak from experience—when we had our first child, federal assistance was a lifeline during that first year. Programs like Medicaid and WIC provided the support we needed to stay afloat, giving us the stability to regain our footing and become self-sufficient.) Additionally, the argument applies a double standard, questioning lower-income families benefiting from vouchers while ignoring tax breaks or financial advantages that wealthier families use for private education. Assuming that recipients will always be satisfied until they “want more” oversimplifies reality—if a program is ineffective, parents will voice concerns just like any other taxpayer. Rather than focusing on misconceptions, the debate should center on whether the program effectively serves students and promotes educational equity.
The speaker went on to spend some time discussing the upcoming Hamilton County election. While she didn’t explicitly endorse a mayoral candidate, she implied disapproval of the current mayor, stating that he is “doing the surveillance” and expressing her dissatisfaction with it. This remark served as an indirect appeal to vote for his opponent. (The “surveillance” reference stemmed from Chattanooga’s partnership with the World Economic Forum (WEF) through the G20 Global Smart Cities Alliance. In November 2020, Chattanooga was selected—alongside San Jose, California—as one of only two U.S. cities to pilot the Alliance’s smart technology policy roadmap, which aims to promote the ethical and responsible use of data and technology in urban environments.)
But, not everything was implied.
Both speakers openly expressed their concerns about Red Bank “going blue,” with the final speaker emphasizing that it was “something really on our hearts.” Her primary concern centered on the presence of four standalone CBD dispensaries in the community, but she focused much of her time on the recent controversy involving Pizzeria Cortile.
With a personal stake in the issue, she described how the restaurant’s owners—whom she identified as believers—were “completely slaughtered by the left” after refusing to cater a same-sex wedding. She characterized the backlash as “shameful and demonic,” claiming the press framed them as “bigots and homophobes” and worked to destroy their business.
She then recounted how her husband publicly supported Pizzeria Cortile, leading to what she described as “24 hours of attacks” against them. Frustrated, she asserted that “in our red county, the left is destroying people” and criticized the city for offering little more than a single police car for one day. However, what she said next was particularly telling: “I also saw nothing from the local Republican Party to support a small business of conservative, Republican values.”
(I also want to take a moment to note that she spent time explaining how the Christian community rallied around the owners of Pizza Cortile and gave them the best week of business since opening their doors. This was met with a round of applause from the crowd, which also underscores the deep sense of solidarity among those who saw the situation as a stand for religious beliefs and conservative values. It also highlights how cultural and political divides are increasingly shaping economic and social dynamics within the community.)
Hypothesizing if the situation was reverse, and local conservative, pro-Christians did the same thing to local CBD stores, the speaker stated, “I guarantee you, the City of Red Bank would have shown up and I also guarantee you the Democratic Party of Hamilton County would have shown up.” Her frustration was underscored by her inability to understand how this could happen in “our red county, in our red state.”
She use this as the opportunity to let the audience know that because she’s been “watching Christians get destroyed, and mocked, and ridiculed for their beliefs”, she’s decided to run for leadership in the local Republican Party. She told the audience that she made this decision with the support of Pastor Frank, the lead pastor at Calvary Chapel Chattanooga, and that she felt it was her calling to “help identify solid candidates who can stand up against this leftist ideology that’s permeating all of our levels of elected government, even the Republicans. People cannot be afraid, or nervous, to proclaim their faith and their values. We need a local Republican leadership who engages the family, and who helps to engage voters, and gives a voice to everyone.”
The remaining 10 minutes was spent highlighting the candidates running to replace the current Republican leadership in Hamilton County, with special recognition going to three of the five candidates “sitting under Pastor Frank’s teaching, and that all of us are like-minded advocates for freedom.” She then pointed people to the Activate Hamilton website to read their platform and asked people to 1) registered for the convention and 2) make some phone calls (and give them money) to get the vote out.
But, what she said next has stayed with me the past two months.
She went on to explain that Shelby County just flipped their “establishment GOP”, presenting it as a model for what could happen in Hamilton County. Her message was clear: the alternative to the establishment GOP isn’t just a different faction of the party—it’s a movement led by faith-driven conservatives who are unafraid to put their values at the forefront of political leadership.
In her closing remarks from January 26th, the following was said:
“As far as I’m concerned, we are not going back to the ways things were. Even just six months ago, things were wild. It was only a month ago that I was being called the most vile and disgusting things online for all saying, basically saying that I’m a Christian, Constitution supporting business owner… Satan has lost major ground right now. But, I’m telling you, and you know it in your soul, that he’s going to do everything that he can to take it back. We were complacent for decades. We got by. By God’s grace and mercy, we now have a season of fresh wind and freedom. So, I’m asking you to join us as a church, over these next four years, we’re going to put our shoulders to the plow and we’re going to work and protect these freedoms that we just received because they need to be protected for four years. And then, please God, we need another four years. A deadly wind is at our backs. The Lord is at the helm, and like He always has been. We have the time now to gain souls, most importantly, to proclaim our faith in confidence, and fight for a government that will protect those rights for generations to come.”
This statement has several problematic elements:
Messianic Framing of Political Cycles – The statement implies that a specific political leader or party is essential for securing God’s will, reducing faith to a political strategy rather than a personal or communal belief system.
Christian Nationalist Undertones – It frames political power as a divine battle, conflating faith with government control, implying that Christianity should dominate politics.
Persecution Narrative – It presents a false equivalence between personal criticism online and true religious persecution, reinforcing a victim complex to rally support.
Apocalyptic Rhetoric – It portrays political opposition as a battle between God and Satan, casting ideological opponents as evil rather than simply having differing views.
Misrepresentation of Religious Freedom – It suggests that Christians have only recently “received” freedom and that it must be protected politically, ignoring that religious freedom has always been constitutionally guaranteed.
Partisan Religious Call to Action – It urges a church community to work toward securing specific political outcomes, potentially blurring the line between faith and partisan activism in ways that could conflict with legal church restrictions (e.g., the Johnson Amendment).
Next week’s post will dive into the February 23rd workshop at Calvary, where leaders outlined a strategy to mobilize their congregation in local elections. Understanding the groundwork they’re laying and the steps they’re taking is key to seeing the bigger picture.
Searching for Jesus in A̶m̶e̶r̶i̶c̶a̶ Chattanooga 