Mike Johnson and the 'Christian nationalist' bogeyman

In late October, the speaker spectacle paralyzing the House of Representatives ended with the selection of Mike Johnson (R-La.) as the 56th speaker of the House. He was then a relatively unknown figure to the public. The media immediately sought ways to sound an alarm at Johnson’s election.

Among other lines of attack, critics pegged Johnson as a “Christian nationalist.” Since his election, the attack has only intensified. His orthodox Christian views on same-sex marriage are anathema. He said the separation of church and state is “a misnomer.” (In fact, he merely pointed out that the phrase comes from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote and appears nowhere in the Constitution.) He displayed a Revolutionary War-era “Appeal to Heaven” flag outside his office, which is supposedly a Christian nationalist signifier.

Ultimately, we’re told we must recoil from Johnson’s religious beliefs and regard his speakership as part of an existential threat to our republic. Now, Rob Reiner has a documentary on the way preaching the dangers of this movement and these persons.

But we should take such breathless heralds of doom with a grain, if not a block, of salt. First, before assessing this claim about Johnson, we must come to some conclusion about the meaning of the phrase itself.

Thomas Kidd, one of our best historians of American Christianity, recently noted that in online discourse, people use the term “Christian nationalist” against those Christians with differing political viewpoints from their own. Usually, the designation comes when a believer asserts a greater role than his accuser for Christian theology or the Bible in the public sphere, especially in discerning justice or assessing candidates for office or bills seeking to become laws.

We should not let the media smear Mike Johnson for merely living out his religious faith in the public sphere. Few things are more American, historically and in principle, than that.

Here, the critics seem to think Johnson is a “Christian nationalist” simply because he sees his faith as informing his political beliefs and that so doing is consistent with American principles. He has consistently taken this line since before his entry into the political scene. If that makes him a Christian nationalist, then most Christians in American and world history have fallen into the same camp.

In his speech accepting the speakership, Johnson made several references to Christianity. They all show a man serious about his faith but far from the theocratic monster the media continues to try to make him out to be.

Johnson mentioned looking up at and being moved by the relief portrait plaque of Moses found the House chamber. Johnson did not hang the portrait. It has been part of the chamber since the space was remodeled more than 70 years ago. It holds this prestigious place because the laws relayed by Moses, especially the Ten Commandments, have formed a foundation for law across Western civilization. This point was commonly held until recent times. Thus, Moses’ role as a lawgiver seems entirely appropriate to acknowledge in the nation’s legislative branch. These are not the schemes of a marginalized religious zealot.

Later in the speech, Johnson said, “I believe that scripture, the Bible, is very clear that God is the one that raises up those in authority. He raised up each of you. All of us.”

In American and Western history, this statement is about as vanilla as it gets. Romans 13, among other passages, clearly states that God establishes political rule and particular rulers. That claim does not endorse a particular form of government or condone the actions of individual rulers. (Scripture says God can intend rulers for blessing or judgment.) Johnson’s statement does not question the legitimacy of anyone holding a seat in the House, regardless of political or religious views. Instead, he explicitly affirmed the propriety of their holding office. Again, this is hardly a cause for alarm.

Finally, Johnson noted how our documents, from the Declaration of Independence to the motto, “In God We Trust,” explain fundamental principles we hold as a country. He sees the Declaration, in particular, as both our “birth certificate” and our “creed.” That starting charter declared us a nation committed to the idea that all men are created equal by God and possess inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Some Christians may balk at the word “creed,” though Martin Luther King, Jr. used the same word to describe the Declaration. And I’m not seeing too many people accuse King of Christian nationalism.

Instead, Johnson merely showed knowledge of the logic of America’s founding principles. He articulated them succinctly and accurately. American history has consistently seen our equality and rights as originating in a divine Creator, and that origin, as well as those rights, helps to order our political system.

If these are the words of a “Christian nationalist,” then the accusation is all bark, no bite. If how he has acted as House speaker regarding religious matters is all we will see from him, then the accusations continue to prove risible. The attacks should only frighten persons who see no role for religious faith in the public sphere or who only see it contrary to men like Johnson. But they are outliers to American history and our fundamental commitments.

For those of us situated within that history, we should join Speaker Johnson in his affirmations, not as the words of some monster but as the unexceptionable commitment to American Exceptionalism.

None of that affirmation means Johnson will be a good, much less great, speaker. The jury remains out, more than two months later, as Johnson faces some of the challenges his predecessors faced without clearly better results — at least not yet. It does not mean we will agree on the application of his religious principles in all instances, either. But we should not let the media smear him for merely living out his religious faith in the public sphere. Few things are more American, historically and in principle, than that.