Netflix, Amazon Prime, Hulu, and other streaming services can provide an insightful international education if you want one. With movies and television shows from any country with enough money to trot them out, one can get a good idea about what appeals to the popular passions of numerous different cultures. As an American viewer, what I notice is a theme that one no longer finds in American films: unbridled nationalism.
By nationalism, I mean an outlook in which membership in a nation and national identity are prioritized more than other identities (religious, family, gender, friend, profession, etc.).1 It also defines one’s ultimate loyalties and sense of right and wrong. Understanding other countries’ nationalism can help us think through our own.
Netflix Nationalism: America versus the World
The reason why American films no longer celebrate American nationalism largely has to do with money. The American film industry makes films for the world. Thus, it is always best if the villains are not from China, Iran, or Russia, after all, Russia and China are now important markets.2 Instead, they need to be aliens, predators, apes, supervillains, computers, robots, or faceless masses directed by a demented leader. For example, the recent Top Gun: Maverick movie substituted the Russians from the previous film for a nameless enemy. The reality is that American popular movies do not contribute to that nationalism as they did half a century ago (e.g., Rocky IV; Red Dawn).
In contrast, I find that nationalism is alive and well in the movies produced by other nations. Ponder the 2018 Indian film Raazi about the 1971 India-Pakistan war. One is treated to lines such as this one from the heroine: “My father has also taught me that there is nothing above nation, not even yourself.”
Or consider the Netflix Turkish series Wolf about a Turkish special forces group. The opening season is loosely based on the failed 2016 coup. In episode five in the first season, one of the “good guy” leaders says to one of the special forces leaders, “You asked me who to trust, remember? Trust yourself first. Then the ones under your command. Trust the truth. But above else, trust your nation.”
A perusal of Chinese movies finds the same themes. The second-highest-grossing 2022 film in the world, The Eight Hundred, celebrated the heroic actions of 800 Chinese troops in Shanghai who defended a warehouse against invading Japanese troops in 1937. In a “love” letter (with a double-meaning for love) read near the end of the movie, the writer of the letter, an officer, proclaims, “When our kids grow up, they shall join the army to avenge their father. To devote themselves to their country. There will be a day when our flag will fly on the peak of Mount Fuji. So that our descendants won’t suffer anymore humiliation. The restoration of the Hun awaits the younger generation.”
If one wonders why nationalism is resurgent in certain countries but not others,3 one only has to look at the historical stories that certain nations’ people imbibe on Netflix, Amazon Prime, and other streaming services. Often, it’s pure emotion-laden nationalism designed to shape an audience’s affections but disguised as entertainment.
What about Christian Nationalism in America?
One would not know it by the number of recent books published about Christian nationalism in America (over fifty by my last count), but Americans are far less nationalistic when compared to the population of numerous other countries, according to various measures. For example, one recent study found that when measuring low levels of trust of people of another nationality, Americans had been the most trusting between 2004 to 2009 and were only slightly eclipsed by Australians from 2010 to 2014. In contrast, citizens from Colombia, Ghana, Morocco, Rwanda, Romania, South Korea, and Thailand exhibited twice as much distrust of foreigners as Americans.4 Christian scholars should always get in the habit of making realistic cross-cultural comparisons when writing about a subject.
On other measures of nationalism, Americans are more in the middle. Research from the same journal article found Americans to be slightly above average when comparing “citizens who are very proud of their nationality,” but they still were beaten out by respondents from Australia, Colombia, Ghana, Jordan, Morocco, Rwanda, South Africa, Turkey, and New Zealand.
Another related concept that is gaining some traction among social psychologists is national narcissism.5 It is defined as “a belief that one’s social group is exceptional and entitled to special treatment but not appreciated enough by others” (p. 437). A measure has been devised that has been the basis of a 56-nation multi-country study. According to that measure, the United States again scores in the middle, with countries such as Iraq, Morocco, Nigeria, Pakistan, Venezuela, and Western Sahara showing the highest. It appears that this feature is related more to Muslim countries (or, in the case of Venezuela, dysfunctional socialist countries). For those worried about populist leaders such as President Trump, the scholars “also tested whether citizens’ national narcissism was higher in countries led by populists but found no evidence for this effect” (p. 437).
Based on this evidence, I think a strong case could be made that Christian scholars have largely overreacted to the whole Christian nationalism issue (and been ethnocentric in their concern). I do not mean to imply that American Christian nationalism cannot be dangerous. It can. Most American Christian nationalists have no idea that Foxe’s Book of Martyrs and Martyr’s Mirror are largely filled with Christians killed by other Christian rulers. But do we really need over fifty books decrying it, which is more than twice the number of books published on Christ-animating learning in all academic disciplines over the past ten years?6
In reality, the attention being given to this issue merely reflects a form of Christian scholarly idolatry that most of these writers are supposedly arguing against. They want to tell American Christians that we should not spend so much time focusing on American politics, when in fact, they are focusing their scholarly energy on American politics. I saw this same thing in the 1980s and 90s with the emergence of the Religious Right and later during the early 2000s amid the “George Bush, Jr. is bringing Theocracy” publishing hysteria. These kinds of periodic publishing trends produced by political angst are great for booksellers but horrific for Christ-animated scholarship that would have a longer shelf life.
Christian scholars engaged in this conversation need to ask some hard questions in light of taking a broader international view. Are they wasting precious academic energy that could be used elsewhere? I think many of them are. These tomes will likely be out of date in five years as the next source of political angst takes center stage. Furthermore, most of us, thankfully, are not spending the majority of our time seeking to be excellent Christian citizens in the purely political sense (and we should not). We are too busy trying to be excellent members of Christ’s body, excellent professionals, excellent spouses, parents and children, excellent friends, excellent neighbors, excellent members of voluntary organizations, and more. For most North American Christians, political engagement is occasional and not a major focus in their lives (with the exceptions being Episcopalians and United Church of Christ members).
Rethinking Our Scholarly Priorities
If you want to do something less nationalistic for the Kingdom, I suggest a few other options. First, add to the scholarly field that seeks to explore how Christ animates learning in various other academic fields. As George Marsden noted a quarter century ago, we need to engage in the hard work of developing Christian theory or Christian critiques of the foundational theories in various academic disciplines.7 We have made some substantial progress, but more work remains to be done.
Second, consider writing about what we can learn from the universal church instead of the political views of American Christians. Personally, I found the best way to recover from an American graduate education, where we spent time talking about ideas in a seminar room without really understanding the consequences of those ideas, was to spend time living in or performing research in countries that are not liberal democracies, especially ones where the Christian church has been or continues to be persecuted. I also continue to benefit from the insights of those engaged in Christian higher education around the world.8
Finally, it also helps to be reminded of the provincialism of our outlook. I suggest following news sources that are concerned with religious persecution of Christians in China, Pakistan, Nigeria, Syria, or India, the growth of the church in the global south, or new intellectual developments fostered by the Church around the world. Perhaps you could attend the upcoming International Network for Christian Higher Education’s conference in South Korea to learn about what is happening in Christian higher education around the world. Certainly, we should give our time and scholarly effort to these important global endeavors that can help defeat the idol of nationalism around the globe.
Footnotes
- For a related definition, see Florian Bieber, “Is Nationalism on the Rise? Assessing Global Trends.” Ethnopolitics 17, no. 5 (2018): 520. https://doi.org/10.1080/17449057.2018.1532633.
- A decade ago, Clint Eastwood broached a topic that might have veered into self-congratulatory nationalism, but he instead directed two films. One told the American side of the story (with a measure of cynicism about the use of Iwo Jima to raise money) and the other told the Japanese side (with a bit more emphasis on the noble enemy).
- Bieber, “Is Nationalism on the Rise? Assessing Global Trends.”
- Bieber, “Is Nationalism on the Rise? Assessing Global Trends.”
- Cichocka, Aleksandra, Nikhil Sengupta, Aleksandra Cislak, Bjarki Gronfeldt, Flavio Azevedo, and Paulo S Boggio. “Globalization Is Associated With Lower Levels of National Narcissism: Evidence From 56 Countries.” Social Psychological & Personality Science 14, no. 4 (2023): 437–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506221103326.
- I believe Michael Wear’s suggestion to call this phenomenon “Political Therapeutic Deism” is a helpful one. https://mereorthodoxy.com/political-therapeutic-deism
- George Marsden, The Outrageous Idea of Christian Scholarship (New York: Oxford, 1998).
- Joel C. Carpenter, Perry L. Glanzer and Nick Lantinga, eds., Christian Higher Education: A Global Reconnaissance (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2014).
Perry
I read CSR once or twice a week, but when I see you post I read most of those that same day. I read your post yesterday. I just had to sleep on it more.
I read your posts faithfully because you write clearly, use lots of creative and useful illustrations and give copious supporting citations. Plus, you write a lot on Christian morality and Christian colleges, two of my favorite subjects. Yesterday’s post was no exception. I finish most of your posts and articles resonating with them, either because they confirm an unarticulated view I had but now see better, or they changed my thinking. Rarely, am I compelled to push back. This is one of those times.
You were concerned about the rise of Christian’s scholar’s writing about Christian nationalism. They and I are more concerned about the rise of Christian nationalism, itself, then scholarship about it.
Maybe one of the reasons that Christian scholars have been vigilant–hypervigilant by your measure– against Christian nationalism is that many know–most by reading, but a few by living–what happened in Lutheran Germany and Catholic Italy about 80 years ago. The church was complicit in the rise of nationalism. The world paid a brutal price for such silence and complicity. As many stood quiet and stood by, Jews, Poles, gypsies, Jehovah witnesses and others were brutalized by the reign of nationalism, and whole nations were overran by rogue nations. It was a bad time. I am sure you know that.
A saying I heard as a kid applies here, “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.” I think Christian scholars don’t want this to happen again.
As nationalism attempts to crab the cloak of the church here in America, I applaud the prophetic spirit of fellow scholars who don’t want to sit idly by and be fooled again. They also want to warn others. They don’t want the carnage that happened last time and want to stand in the gap this time.
They read history well. They read their Bible well. They do good scholarship. Praise God.
It is the least they can do.
What is seen as fixation, I would label as calling. What is labeled idolatry, I welcome as ministry.
I see my colleagues as correctly responding to the movement of the Holy Spirit on their scholarship.
Isn’t that what the CSR organization has championed for over 50 years. Why squelch it when it is happening? Why not celebrate it?
Duane Covrig
Duane, I think you raise an excellent question that reveals something my post perhaps did not adquately address: Are they responding to the Spirit and an actual threat to the church or the social media spirt of the this age? I think the answer to that question would be an empirical one. Our Spirit-led responses to a crisis should discern, by empirical means, whether there is an actual crisis. For example, I think that you would be right to claim that if South Korean scholars produced a slew of books addressing why South Koreans are more likely to distrust foreigners when compared to other nations that would likely be a Spirit-led movement since it addresses a problematic reality. I tried to point out that Americans, compared to the rest of the world, are not as nationalistic. So, the threat may be overblown. However, I think you raise a good point about the possibility of a rising threat within the church. I think the answer to that question was not covered in my essay: Do we have longitudinal research from American Christians that nationalism, as how I defined it, is rising within the churches? Or do we simply have a few loud voices on social media and a couple of books defending Christian nationalism? I did refer to my past experience. For example, the specte of theonomy under George Bush was clearly an overblown threat but it produced lots of books. I don’t think that was Spirit-led. I think it was responding to the spirit of the age. I also referred to political activity within different denominations. For example, based on political activity and behavior, it would appear that Episopaleans may be some of the most nationalistic–after all Christian nationalism can be demonstrated by being consumed with political protests, political activism, etc. Yet, I think I should have looked for and added longitudinal studies of beliefs and behaviors within the whole church. If those are increasing, I think an argument could be made these scholars are responding in a Spirit-led way to an emerging issue. Thanks for pointing me in that direction.
Perry
You raise a very legitimate concern about differentiating two possible influence….with an eye for how to methodologically navigate this.
Is this increased Christian nationalism scholarship a spirited response to social media or a Spirit-led response God is waking the church to?
We are told to “test” the spirits (1 John 4:1-6). John’s call may be just as much a social scientific invitation to methodologically “measure” or “isolate” or “test” differences as well as an ecclesiastical invitation “for the prophets to be subject to the community of the prophets” (1 Corinthians 14:32). (which is a form of spiritual discernment practice and process).
I have been working on an article arguing Christian teachers are called to this prophetic role that seems to include prediction. Jesus’ concern in Luke 12:54-56 seems to call us all to be better at reading the times:
“And He was also saying to the crowds, “When you see a cloud rising in the west, immediately you say, ‘A shower is coming,’ and so it turns out. And when you see a south wind blowing, you say, ‘It will be a hot day,’ and it turns out that way. You hypocrites! You know how to analyze the appearance of the earth and the sky, but why do you not analyze this present time?”
I argue we teachers are called to predict as well as prescribe and then use both to prepare students for the future. I admit the prediction role has been more difficult for me to process. Prediction is a dubious work even in weather forecasting. In complex social-spiritual-political contexts where variability is even higher, I see Jesus’ call as almost impossible. But I end my article convinced Jesus expects “reading the times” which requires predictive modeling.
Some of that may explain concern over Christian nationalism. Some of that may be hyped by social media.
I would like to see how you methodologically nuance measuring such differentiation. I think it would help with this larger challenge of prediction in general that is driving some of our attempts to read the times.
Thanks again for your amazing labor of research and writing. I am indebted to your work.
DC
Duane
Duane,
I think you raise a very, very important question! In fact, I think it would be worth a whole blog post (if you’re interested in offering it). I’ll offer a short answer, but it may need to be expanded to a blog post as well. I think one principle I use is whether the scholar is writing out of fear. It is amazing how often academics use the word “crisis.” I think the calling of a Christian scholar and teacher is to set forth a creative and redemptive vision for one’s area of expertise without appealing to fear. Jesus was not fear-mongering.
Now, as Christians, we are called to expose evil (Eph. 5:11), and I think that Christian scholars can do that in sophisticated ways (using empirical methods). But I want to say something about how one chooses the area.
I think that many Christian scholars write out of their own woundedness instead of Christ’s redemptive work in their lives. They perhaps grew up in a church that was fallen regarding X,Y, and Z, so they’re going to warn the world about the evil they experienced growing up or even as an adult. While I understand that approach, it focuses on the evil one has experienced.
I think Christians are called to focus more on exposing the evils others have experienced throughout the world. That’s why when I have written about ordering the evils one addresses, I think Christians should focus on large scale evils such as the genocide of Uyghurs, famine in certain areas, or systemic persecution of oppressed groups (e.g., Jews).
Second, they should expose evils experienced by historically disempowered groups (e.g., slavery, the poor, the unborn). What I often see, however, is Christians focusing on the evils of the people to the politically right or left of them. They are focused on serving their political tribe instead of the broader human race or oppressed groups.
Perry
Thank you, Perry, for encouraging us to engage connections that extend beyond particular moments in the United States. Our world needs deep Christian reflections in our fields of special knowledge and expertise. For example, how does one intersect Biblical exegesis with the rising educational tide of AI, its energy requirements for worldwide data centers, the related rush to capture rare earth minerals, and the development needs of the global poor, This is a global matter that could overwhelm the dynamics of Christian nationalism soon. Such topics will be addressed in the International Network for Christian Higher Education (INCHE) conference in South Korea on Nov. 24-26. Registration remains open through November 7 at: https://inche.one/inche-ao-50th-conference-cover-copy. U.S. citizens need only a Korean e-visa.