Why the PRRI/Brookings Christian Nationalism Survey Matters

It doesn't take a majority to shape national policy

Last week, the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) cooperated with the Brooking Institute in releasing a poll focused on Christian Nationalism in the US. Using a national sample of just over six thousand people, the poll explored levels of adherence to some basic tenets of Christian Nationalism.

Similar to the excellent work of sociologists Andrew Whitehead and Sam Perry in Taking America Back for God, they divide the respondents into four categories¹: Adherents, Sympathizers, Skeptics, and Rejectors based on their scores on a series of questions.

The questions ask if America should be declared a Christian Nation, if US laws should be based on Christian values, if losing Christian foundations means “we won’t have a country anymore”, if being Christian is key to being American, and if God has called Christians to exert “dominion”² over all of US society.

The topline reporting suggested that nearly three in ten Americans are supporters of Christian Nationalism. That figure combines the Adherents and the Sympathizers.³ I read some pushback on Twitter over the weekend suggesting that this exaggerated the role of Christian Nationalism. That’s debatable, but I get the point. So let’s focus just on the adherents.

While the adherents make up just 10% of the overall sample, their commitment to Christian Nationalism is overwhelming. Three quarters of them want America declared a Christian Nation⁴. Eight in ten say laws should be based on Christian values. Nearly 85% say that if we move from Christian values, we won’t have a country.⁵ Over three quarters saying being Christian is key to being American. Interestingly, just over half completely agree with the Dominion language (although only 10% disagree).

One might be tempted to minimize these findings, given that only 10% are Christian Nationalism adherents. That would be a mistake. On one hand, it is idolatrous, as Andrew Whitehead’s Baker Press book releasing in August argues (I pre-ordered today). But even if you somehow ignore the theological implications, 10% is a lot. The Census Department reports that the adult population of the US is 258.3 million. Ten percent of that number is 26 million people.

A vocal minority like this, having such a strong unanimity of belief, can easily overwhelm a larger yet more diffuse population. They have the opportunity not just to dominate social media feeds, conservative podcasts, and conferences. They create a position that policymakers feel they must respond to (or nakedly pander to).

Consider the “parents’ rights” drives to remove books from school libraries. While I haven’t seen actual data on this, my instincts tell me that the vocal minorities pushing such activist agendas likely do not exceed 10% of the parents in public schools.⁶ They are organized around their cause in ways that the majority of normal parents are not. (By the way, Margaret Atwood wrote an excellent essay in The Atlantic today about the biblical origins of The Handmaid’s Tale.)

The surprising thing about those tempted to dismiss the PRRI study as “only a minority of Americans supporting Christian Nationalism” is that Christians (especially White evangelicals) have long believed in the ability for a small group to change the broader society. Consider the “He Gets Us” campaign that culminated in Super Bowl ads.

Bob Smietana of Religion News Service has some excellent reporting on the campaign. The ads, which will be followed by a book from Max Lucado, are aimed at introducing a post-Christian population to Jesus. Smietana reports that major funding for the campaign, while primarily anonymous, includes backing from Hobby Lobby co-founder David Green. The ads that I’ve seen are interesting in that they focus on conflict and offer Jesus as someone who understood. But as Belmont marketing professor Lora Harding told Smietana:

the anonymity of the group behind the ads plays to the group’s advantage. It would be easy for viewers to dismiss an ad coming from a faith-based organization or religious group. The “He Gets Us” ads wait until the end to mention Jesus and don’t point to any specific church or denomination.

We won’t know the impact of the “He Gets Us” campaign for years. But it’s clear that evangelical donors were willing to invest over $100 million. They clearly expect to shape public conversation in the days to come.

Here’s another example from last week’s news. If you pay attention to happenings in the religious world, you know that there’s been a revival going on at Asbury University for the past several days. In ways that call back to a similar Asbury revival 50 years ago, the Asbury community has remained in the chapel and other buildings praying, singing, confessing, reconciling, and repenting. Many people have documented what’s been occurring in Wilmore, Kentucky. John Fea has been updating running reports on his Current newsletter.

No one knows the long-term impact of the revival. In some ways, it may be years before that can be identified. Some, like me, remain cautiously skeptical but willing to be proven wrong. Others are wholeheartedly embracing Asbury, offering funding for students from other churches and Christian colleges to travel to Asbury to experience it.

I don’t mean to minimize the potential impact of either the “He Gets Us” campaign or the Asbury revival. Both are important and, in their own ways, may prove significant for the Christian world when we look back with a decade or so of hindsight.

This brings me back to the PRRI data on Christian Nationalism. If we believe that these relatively small initiatives can impact society for the good, we have to acknowledge that a similar minority can influence it in a very different direction. This is where the 19% who are Sympathizers come in. They provide cover for the tenth of Americans who are Christian Nationalist adherents. They move the so-called Overton Window to legitimize certain kinds of dialogue around public policy.⁷

We’ve seen how this story plays out with regard to anti-CRT instruction, book banning, and accusations of teachers as groomers. The minority position is fast becoming actual policy in some states.⁸

As Margaret Atwood writes, “Sometimes, these things get started out of a genuine need and concern, but a takeover by some bureaucratic version of the Inquisition is very likely to follow.”

[Note to readers: As I’ve noted before, my retirement gig is chairing accreditation for the Higher Learning Commission. I have a visit coming up in two weeks and need to devote my scholarly attention to that project until that visit is over in early March. I’ll be back to a regular schedule then, although I of course reserve the right to jump back on here when something absolutely MUST be written about.)

1. I like Andrew and Sam’s categories better: Ambassadors, Accommodators, Resisters, and Rejectors

2. There is a segment of Christian America focused on what is called Seven Mountains Dominionism, exerting at least influence if not control over the major institutions of American society.

3. I think of the Sympathizers as equivalent to the “lean Republican” survey questions about partisanship. They may not be solid partisans but have a tendency in a particular direction.

4. I’ve used only the “completely agree” category from the PRRI findings

5. The “not have a country anymore” has been a catchall to describe “the wrong kind of country” that would remain.

6. Some reporting suggests that these proponents were not fans of public schools in the first place. The “government schools” trope reflects their prior commitments to homeschooling and Christian schools.

7. That far too often has echoes of Replacement Theory.

8. For now, at least. It will be interesting to see what happens once the lawsuits start.