
Who: Sam
Church: Calvary Chapel Chattanooga
Lunch: Mac’s Kitchen and Bar
Topics: Christian Nationalism
Before I dive into this week’s post, I need to provide some context and acknowledge a few of my personal blind spots and grievances. I’m under no illusion that anyone is eagerly awaiting my thoughts on this church—or any church, for that matter. But I’m deeply invested in this project because I genuinely want to move beyond my blind spots, challenge my assumptions, and engage in honest, meaningful conversations about faith, community, and the role of the church in our lives.
I also believe that Christian Nationalism is one of the biggest obstacles to genuine faith and meaningful community that we’re collectively facing at this moment. It often conflates religious identity with political ideology, distorting the core teachings of Christianity and creating division instead of unity. By prioritizing power and cultural dominance over humility and service, it undermines the church’s ability to reflect Christ’s love and engage with the broader world in a way that fosters understanding, compassion, and justice.
Having said this, for those reading this post, I hope you can see the care and intentionality behind my words. Calvary Chapel is doing some meaningful work in our community, and I want to acknowledge that. However, there are also some aspects that merit a closer look—areas where I believe there’s room for growth, or conversations, that need to happen. My goal is not to criticize for the sake of it, but to engage thoughtfully and honestly with both the strengths and challenges I’ve observed.
Before visiting on Sunday, my only associations with Calvary Chapel were two experiences separated by about four years. The first was in 2020 when they invited Charlie Kirk to speak at their weekend services about one month before the presidential election. I took a screenshot from their website (pictured below), and I think it speaks for itself. Having someone like this speak during a church service raises several concerns, primarily related to the separation of church and state, tax laws, and the potential impact on the congregation’s unity and focus.

The second was more recent, during a workshop where I met a few people working with a nonprofit that was previously under the organization. However, due to a loss of financial support tied to the church’s political stances, the nonprofit has placed some distance between themselves and the church.
THE GOOD: However, I want to start off by highlighting some of the positive efforts coming from Calvary Chapel. For many evangelical churches, the pro-life ethos begins and ends with the ballot box, or legislative initiatives. But, Calvary Chapel is actively encouraging and equipping its congregation to engage with the pressing needs of fostering and adoption in our community. This emphasis reflects an important extension of the pro-life ethos—caring for vulnerable children and families in tangible, life-changing ways.
The church has also organized efforts to serve the homeless community in Chattanooga, including providing meals, clothing, and other essentials. These initiatives often involve members of the congregation volunteering their time and resources to meet immediate needs. They have also been involved in disaster relief efforts, both locally and regionally, mobilizing volunteers and supplies to assist communities affected by natural disasters. Calvary also hosts programs aimed at mentoring and supporting at-risk youth, often providing opportunities for education, personal development, and spiritual growth.
So, given how much good work is coming from Calvary, why is there so much hostility aimed at this church?
I think it can be boiled down to two things: Patriarchy and Politics. And I’m not trying to be flippant. These are complex, deeply rooted issues that shape how many evangelical churches are perceived, and I can’t unpack these topics in one blog post. However, I can provide a brief overview based on conversations I’ve had with both those who attend and those who do not.
Patriarchy: The nuances of this topic are immense, encompassing theological, cultural, and personal dimensions. Yet for many within evangelical churches, it can feel as though there’s little room for meaningful dialogue. The concept is often presented as a settled issue—rooted in tradition and scriptural interpretation—leaving little space to question, critique, or explore alternative perspectives. This lack of conversation can lead to frustration or disengagement for those who want to wrestle with the complexities, particularly in a modern context where questions of equality, leadership, and gender roles are increasingly relevant. For many, “patriarchy” symbolizes centuries of systemic inequality where women and marginalized groups were excluded from power, opportunities, and decision-making. It is often associated with oppression and unjust societal norms that have subordinated women in various spheres of life—family, work, religion, and government. This issue is SO MUCH more than women not having the ability to hold pastoral positions, or a wife submitting to her husband.
Politics: For many, a church’s alignment with specific political figures or ideologies blurs the line between faith and partisanship. When a church aligns itself with a particular political ideology, it can inadvertently misrepresent the faith to outsiders, making it seem that being a Christian is synonymous with belonging to a specific political party. When a faith community is seen as prioritizing political agendas over spiritual ones, it can alienate those who hold different views or who are seeking a space free from political divisiveness. Political discussions often involve complex, nuanced issues that don’t always align neatly with a single theological perspective. Simplifying, or polarizing, these issues can lead to a lack of critical thinking and thoughtful engagement.
Churches are called to focus on higher, eternal principles that transcend political ideologies. When politics takes center stage, it can detract from the church’s role in promoting love, justice, and reconciliation, reducing its impact to a partisan tool rather than a spiritual refuge.
So, what was my experience at Calvary Chapel Chattanooga?
Specifically focused on the sermon, because concerts with flashy lights and big video screens distract me…. the sermon was, overall, pretty solid. It should be noted that it was presented by “Pastor Kenny” and not their lead pastor. (I’m going to nerd out for the remainder of this paragraph and the next, so if preaching styles aren’t your thing, skip these paragraphs.) Going in, I was curious if Calvary would lean into expository teaching, drawing out the meaning of a specific passage by explaining its context, breaking down individual verses or phrases, and connecting them to the broader biblical narrative. And for the most part, he did. But he also used textual preaching, focusing on a single verse or small passage but does not systematically work through an entire section or book. There was definitely some cherry-picking going on, which can definitely happen when you use NT verses to underscore OT passages, creating theological and interpretive challenges.
The New Testament often references the Old Testament, fulfilling prophecies or expanding on earlier principles. However, these connections require careful handling to respect the original OT context. Misapplying NT insights can impose meanings on OT passages that were not intended by their original authors. Without considering historical, cultural, and literary contexts, the preacher risks creating theological inconsistencies. The strength of scripture lies in its complexity and interwoven narrative. While NT verses can illuminate OT themes, careful exegesis ensures that connections enrich understanding rather than detract from the integrity of either testament. (Okay… I’m done geeking out.)
THE BAD: The name of the sermon series, Under God, One Nation, is a mirror of our country’s Pledge of Allegiance. It might be a pithy play on words, or it could symbolize a bigger agenda. I won’t pretend to know their intentions, but it was definitely a red flag for me. And while I will not give a complete breakdown of the sermon, I do want to note one thing I found a little unsettling. The sermon was based on 1 Samuel 13:16-14:23 (focused primarily on Jonathan and Saul), but the pastor took time to interject how wives are responsible for supporting and encouraging their husbands. He actually noted that he was moving off topic to specifically talk to wives, which is always a red flag to me. (See my notation above about the patriarchy.)
He said the following: “What this armor bearer just said to Jonathan speaks your husband’s love language when he’s looking around and saying, ‘Is there anybody that believes, wants to believe God with me?’ He goes on to tell wives that they should know that their husbands aren’t pigs, or egotists, and that God has hardwired them to believe that where there is support there is respect. And that wives need to recognize the reality that God has a design and a plan for our husbands, that when we challenge our husbands we are not “freeing them up to be everything God has called him to be.” (Please, feel free to listen to this excerpt from the November 17th sermon, beginning around the 38 minute mark.)
The summation of this weirdly placed side sermon: if we “release” our husbands to be everything that God calls them to be, we will have husbands that will love us as Christ loves the church. This is a theological minefield. First, and foremost, the love that Christ demonstrates for the church is unconditional, sacrificial, and initiated by Christ, not contingent on the church’s actions. This love is rooted in grace and reflects Christ’s sacrificial nature, not the church’s merit or behavior. Imposing a condition like “release” undermines the unconditional nature of Christlike love.
Additionally, the idea of “releasing” implies that wives hold significant control over whether their husbands fulfill God’s calling. This perspective can shift responsibility away from husbands’ personal accountability to God for their growth, character, and obedience. Biblically, every believer, male or female, is individually accountable to God (2 Corinthians 5:10). But, most importantly, teaching this principle could unintentionally perpetuate unhealthy dynamics in marriage where wives feel pressured to defer, or comply, unconditionally, even in situations that may be harmful, or unwise. It risks enabling manipulation by framing spiritual growth as contingent on the actions of one spouse rather than both pursuing God together.
ALL THE QUESTIONS THAT I HAVE: So, why did I bring up Christian Nationalism at the beginning of the post? A few weeks ago, Calvary Chapel Chattanooga uploaded a video on their social media platforms from their lead pastor. This same video was played the Sunday before the 2024 presidential election. In this video, he stated,”I do feel that for a church like ours, an election message may have in many ways been sort of redundant.” This was followed up with a reference of James 4:17: Remember, it is sin to know what you ought to do and then not do it.
This is important and I’m going to circle back to it.
While I can critique the use of cherry-picking scripture to serve his own agenda, or manipulate his congregation, the truly egregious offense was his admonishment of anyone who would choose to sit this Presidential election out, or choose to write in a candidate that accurately reflects their own beliefs. He then went on to say, “I’m convinced that the Christian in the West is going to be judged for how he or she voted.”
At the very least, declaring that Christians will be judged for how they vote fosters division within the body of Christ. It creates an “us vs. them” mentality that prioritizes political allegiance over unity in faith. Criticizing those who sit out an election or vote for a write-in candidate as sinful overlooks legitimate reasons for such actions. Christians may abstain from voting as a form of protest or choose a candidate who aligns more closely with their moral convictions, even if that candidate has no chance of winning. Reducing these nuanced decisions to “error” or “sin” marginalizes thoughtful, prayerful political engagement.
But, it was his “quick side note” that was most problematic for me: “…to those of you who now by grace have recognized your error in the past, you’ve got to repent. You must repent of the part you played and what it is that has come upon us. I feel that many Christians have blood on their hands and will answer for it one day… I don’t have to tell you, Church, which way to vote. I’m confident that you will and that you’ll vote the right way.”
Statements like “you’ve got to repent” and “Christians have blood on their hands” weaponize guilt to enforce political conformity. This rhetoric implies that voting for a particular candidate is not only a civic duty, but also a spiritual one, with eternal consequences. It places undue pressure on congregants and could alienate those whose consciences lead them to different political conclusions.
The pastor closed out his address with this acknowledgement: If you’re unclear at this point as to which of these two candidates to choose, then perhaps I have absolutely failed you as your pastor… and then tells people that they know what to do and if they don’t do it then it’s a sin. (Circling back to James 4:17 reference.)
This is disconcerting for several reasons, particularly in how it blends theology, personal responsibility, and political coercion. Using James 4:17 in this context risks distorting its meaning to pressure congregants into a specific political action, equating non-compliance with sin. This interpretation could manipulate congregants’ spiritual sensitivity and misrepresent scripture’s intent. (This verse addresses personal moral conviction and accountability before God.)
The pastor’s comments, especially “I don’t have to tell you which way to vote…you’ll vote the right way,” heavily imply a partisan preference. Coupled with his statement that he feels he has failed as a pastor if congregants are unclear on the “right” candidate, this crosses into the territory of political endorsement, which churches are advised to avoid under IRS 501(c)(3) regulations. This can blur the line between spiritual guidance and political advocacy, risking the integrity of the church’s mission. (Calvary Chapel Chattanooga has drawn this criticism several times in the past.)
So, where does that leave us?
In seminary, I remember debating another student about the influence of eschatology, a branch of theology that deals with the study of “last things” or end-times events, when it comes to our world view and how our eschatology dictates our motivations and actions. He fervently disagreed with me, but I think this is a clear example of the power eschatology holds. Christian Nationalists generally align with an eschatology that supports their vision of societal transformation under Christian dominance. At the risk of nerding out again, here are a few potential frames of reference:
Postmillennialism often encourages believers to engage in politics, law, and education to establish God’s kingdom on Earth before Christ’s second coming. This fits the Christian Nationalist agenda of intertwining religious and governmental power. (The world will gradually improve as Christian principles permeate society.)
Dominion Theology overlaps with eschatological beliefs and is influential in some Christian Nationalist circles. It emphasizes direct engagement with societal systems to bring them under Christian control, often merging with postmillennial thought. Christians are called to “take dominion” over society, based on Genesis 1:28 (“fill the earth and subdue it”). As a result, political and cultural institutions should reflect biblical laws and governance.
Critics argue that the blending of eschatology with nationalism often distorts Christian theology, focusing more on political power than on Christ’s teachings about humility, love, and grace.
I agree.
If you’ve read this far… I’m impressed. I’m also exhausted. This past week has taken me back to my seminary days and, honestly, I’ve loved it. Before Be The Change Youth Initiative took us on this life-changing, crazy adventure, my goal was to teach theology at a collegiate level. Since then, the Lord has placed new desires on my heart, but, regardless, sound theology is important… now more than ever. And the only advice I can give is to be mindful of who you sit under. Church leadership wields significant influence, and a pastor’s worldview, especially in a Christian Nationalist context, can shape not only your theology, but also how you engage with others and society as a whole.
Being part of a church means aligning yourself with its doctrine and practices to some extent. If a pastor’s teachings frequently merge faith with political ideology, or create an “us vs. them” mentality, it distracts from the gospel’s central message of grace, love, and humility. Take time to evaluate whether the teaching aligns with the whole of Scripture, challenging you to reflect Christ in your daily life, and equipping you to engage in the world with compassion and integrity.
I’ll end with this. I know a lot of people who call Calvary Chapel Chattanooga their home. I love them dearly. They are genuine, kind-hearted individuals striving to live out their faith and serve others. I’ve seen their passion for their community, their willingness to help those in need, and their desire to follow Jesus sincerely.
Would I choose to attend a church like Calvary? The short answer is NO. Their lead pastor is objectively partisan and this is problematic, to say the least. And I don’t feel called to navigate those waters. (I do feel this is a calling and I know people who are firmly planted in churches that border on Christian Nationalism for this reason.) My fear is that we are moving into an era where we’re no longer choosing our churches based on denominational beliefs or proximity to community… or even for the more superficial things like worship preferences (that’s a jab at myself). My fear is that our tribal political stances have infiltrated sects of the institutional church to the point where unity SEEMS futile.
But, I pray it isn’t. And I’m trying my best to lean into this tension.










