Is Christian nationalism a real threat, or a small, extreme faction with outsized press coverage?
While the American media and researchers have reported that around 50% of Americans are CN Adherents or Sympathizers— which would indeed warrant severe concern for America’s democracy and civic life—our improved scale and methodology in our study has shown that the most serious CN Adherents are a much smaller group of Americans than has been reported, and that they exhibit many prosocial tendencies.
Kaitlyn Scheiss, in her article entitled “Pastors: Model Faithful Christian Witness in Public” in our executive report, writes, “Some Christian Nationalism adherents or sympathizers might be concerned that America will not remain open to the public contributions of people of faith, and their concerns can be channeled not into a radicalizing internet group but into dialogue and cooperation with other faith communities.”
This remains a surprising finding in our study: that CN Adherents report highly civic and prosocial attitudes. They are highly likely to say that they would work across faith lines to improve society (88%). They are among the most likely Americans to claim interest in working together with people of other religions on specific things like interfaith dialogues (52%); providing food, medical supplies, or clothing to those in need (77%); and discussing local issues and solutions (65%).
Another surprising finding from our study is that CN Adherents are also more favorable toward groups like Jews, Asian Americans, and African Americans than non-Adherents. For example, 88% of CN Adherents say they would be at least moderately willing to cooperate with other faiths to improve society, compared to 93% of the overall sample of American
adults.
By most of our measures, CN Adherents are equally willing to engage in civic work with those of different faiths as others. There are even a handful of activities (such as gathering to discuss solutions to community issues and raising money or organizing help for victims of natural disasters) where they are actually more willing to do so than the average American.
This distinction between misconception and reality matters because 1) it points to the need for further study on CN and other popular movements shaping how Americans approach religion and civic life, resulting in a more accurate assessment of the threat level posed by Christian nationalism—which can lead to more effective policy responses. 2) It also betters our understanding of CN in America today and signals ways that America’s religious and political mainstreams can better engage these groups, fostering a deeper understanding of our neighbors, and bridging divides.
How do we engage with this on a more practical level? Scheiss adds, “When church leaders hear concerning language or ideas in their church, they should ask questions rather than jumping to conclusions, learning more about what their congregants mean by the words they’re using. Asking open-ended questions about what elements of Christian Nationalism sound appealing, what problems in the country concern them the most, and what solutions they find viable can open up better conversations about pluralism and Christianity.”
Along with asking questions and continued learning, there are several other ways to engage this issue. For instance, promoting education on religious pluralism and media literacy can help combat extremist ideologies. One way this can be done is by supporting educational programs in schools and community centers. In addition, creating platforms for interfaith dialogue—like book clubs and cultural exchange events—can contribute to building stronger relationships across different groups.
These practical steps allow individuals to work in a more positive way toward engagement and change, acknowledging the complexity of the issue but not neglecting relationships.