In recent years, political, and religious commentators have increasingly employed the term “Christofascism” to describe a fusion of extreme Christian Nationalism with authoritarian methods of governing.
While the term evokes strong reactions among many believers and nonbelievers alike, its history extends well beyond current debates. A growing body of researchers, theologians, and political scientists argues that this ideology has periodically surfaced throughout history.
The ideology has taken on new forms, based on the social and cultural climate of the times. In recent years it has found renewed momentum in the United States through the rise of Donald Trump and his “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) allies.
DEFINITION AND ORIGINS
Christofascism is most often understood as a movement or mindset in which a version of Christianity is employed as a basis for rigid, authoritarian rule. Critics of the ideology say it goes beyond merely mixing faith and politics. Instead, it subordinates religious teachings to a political agenda, using Scripture as a tool to justify exclusionary or oppressive policies.
While the precise origin of the term is a subject of scholarly debate, it is frequently traced to theology professor Dorothee Sölle in the 1970s. Her critiques warned of political systems that manipulate Christian doctrines to legitimize discrimination and to stifle dissent.
A key feature of Christofascism is its portrayal of cultural or national identity as synonymous with Christian identity. This can manifest in rhetoric emphasizing a moral obligation to defend the nation against internal or external forces perceived as threatening “true” faith.
The ideology postulates a divine right of rule, suggesting that political leaders or movements claiming to uphold a particular Christian worldview are not merely guided by faith, but sanctioned by God to impose it. While the theology behind Christofascism can vary, it often incorporates millenarian or apocalyptic themes, ideas drawn from interpretations of biblical prophecy.
These themes may frame sociopolitical events as harbingers of a final cosmic battle between good and evil, painting opponents of a particular political agenda as antagonists against God’s plan. Beyond offering religious justification, such interpretations can intensify political polarization, as policy disputes become rebranded as moral or existential struggles.
EARLY HISTORICAL CONTEXT
The roots of what might be considered prototypical Christofascism can be found in various eras, though the term itself only gained currency in the latter half of the 20th century. Historically, whenever religious authority intertwined with political power in a way that permitted little to no dissent, scholars identify the seeds of the phenomenon.
Medieval Europe saw instances where church leaders sanctioned the persecution of heretics or fueled crusades, viewing secular and religious power as one. While this era cannot be labeled Christofascist in the modern sense, the alignment of theological justification with state-backed force set a precedent.
During the colonial expansion of European powers, Christian ideology was sometimes used to legitimize the subjugation of Indigenous populations. Religious justification was often interwoven with political conquest, though theological debate about morality and the rights of Indigenous people did exist among certain clergymen.
For critics who connect those historical moments to Christofascism, the defining characteristic lies in the certainty that one group’s Christian identity granted them moral superiority and divine justification to dominate, forcibly convert, or marginalize others.
The 20th century witnessed newer iterations. Some historians point to authoritarian regimes in Europe that employed Christian symbolism to bolster nationalistic platforms. For example, the Franco regime in Spain aligned itself with conservative elements of the Catholic Church.
Though the broader dynamics were complex, and the label “Christofascist” was not widely used at the time, the framework—an authoritarian government claiming religious backing — resonates with later critiques. These historical episodes illustrate a recurring pattern. Whenever political power co-opts religious dogma to suppress or eliminate opposition, the core ingredients for a Christofascist system emerge.
MODERN RELIGIOUS NATIONALISM
In the United States, the notion of a “Christian nation” has long been an undercurrent in political discourse. However, it has taken different shapes, evolving with changing demographics, global conflicts, and domestic shifts in religious practice.
The 1970s and 1980s saw a surge in conservative Christian involvement in politics, often associated with the Moral Majority and the Christian Right. Leaders in these movements advocated for legislation and social norms that aligned with their interpretations of Christian values.
Though most Christian conservatives reject the extremist label, critics argue that certain wings of this movement crossed over into Christofascist territory when they pushed for policies that blended religious mandates with aggressive nationalism.
The “us vs. them” framing grew more pronounced after events such as the Cold War, which was sometimes depicted as a struggle between godless communism and Christian democracy. This was reinforced by the cultural conflicts of the late 20th century, in which political campaigns against abortion, same-sex marriage, and secular public education were framed by some activists as battles to preserve Christian heritage in the face of moral decay.
In this environment, warnings about Christofascism gained traction among theologians and political analysts concerned about the potential erosion of pluralism and democratic norms. Although the term retained a niche status, it steadily garnered attention as certain factions within the Christian Right advocated increasingly authoritarian measures.
The exact boundary between conservative Christian politics and Christofascism remained hotly debated, with defenders asserting they sought merely to protect their beliefs, and critics maintaining that cloaking political agendas in religious absolutism could pave the way to oppressive governance.
TRUMP’S EMERGENCE AND THE MAGA COALITION
The election of Donald Trump in 2016 marked a turning point in America’s conversation about Christian Nationalism. Though Trump had not been a longstanding figure in conservative Christian circles before launching his presidential campaign, he gained a fervent following among White Evangelical voters.
His campaign messaging frequently invoked themes of national greatness, with Christian language woven into his rhetoric at rally events and public appearances. Trump’s administration featured several high-profile evangelical advisors, some of whom depicted his presidency as a divine intervention or a cosmic struggle against evil forces.
Symbolically, moments such as the Bible photo op outside St. John’s Church in Washington DC, became focal points for both fervent support and vociferous critique. Those who viewed the display positively saw Trump’s stance as a necessary stand against lawlessness, while opponents condemned what they perceived as an authoritarian show of strength using Christian imagery for political gain.
Over time, commentators increasingly used the term Christofascism to describe the milieu around the MAGA movement. They pointed to the fusion of hardline immigration policies, strong anti-abortion measures, and a staunch defense of gun ownership, all couched within a particular interpretation of Christian values.
Political scientists noted that some branches of the Trump-aligned Christian Right blended nationalistic pride with apocalyptic narratives, asserting that opposing Trump’s agenda meant opposing God’s plan for America.
KEY TENETS AND CLAIMS
Supporters of the Trump-era Christian Nationalist movement often emphasize their sense of a moral duty to restore America to what they believed was its White Christian foundations. They point to early colonial documents and the religious affiliations of some Founding Fathers as evidence of a divine mandate.
Critics, however, dispute those heavily distorted and misrepresented interpretations, arguing that many of America’s founding statesmen were religiously diverse or adhered to deist philosophies. They contend that the Constitution’s emphasis on freedom of religion undermines any strict notion of a legally or culturally mandated Christian state.
In describing the ideology as Christofascist, commentators typically highlight these tendencies:
- Authoritarian Leadership: The portrayal of a strong, decisive leader who wields near-absolute authority, often claimed to be sanctioned by God.
- Exclusionary Policies: A belief that the government should enforce a Christian moral code, marginalizing or punishing nonconformists or those of other faiths.
- Nationalistic Mythology: The use of patriotic and biblical motifs to assert a divine right to sovereignty, casting dissenters as enemies of both church and nation.
- Moral Absolutism: Complex policy questions are reduced to all-or-nothing, good-vs.-evil propositions that leave little room for compromise or nuance.
Critics fear these themes erode democratic ideals by conflating political dissent with moral or spiritual betrayal. They argue that once religion is used to consecrate political authority, it becomes difficult to hold leaders accountable through constitutional means, as opposition is framed as being against the will of God.
HISTORICAL ECHOES AND CONTEMPORARY CONCERNS
Analysts note parallels between the modern movement and past attempts to unify church and state under authoritarian systems. While the differences in historical context are vast, elements of scapegoating, the demonization of perceived internal enemies, and the use of religious symbolism to sanctify violence or oppression are recurring themes.
Opponents of Christofascism caution that these precedents illustrate how blending extreme nationalism with religious absolutism can escalate quickly if checks and balances fail. Many worry that heightened political polarization and disinformation may weaken the public’s ability to identify and resist extremist ideologies.
The Capitol riot on January 6, 2021, is frequently cited as an example of Christian Nationalism taking a more militant turn, as religious symbols were prominently displayed by some participants who believed they were carrying out a divinely sanctioned mission.
RESPONSE FROM RELIGIOUS LEADERS
Despite the high-profile nature of the debate, it is important to note that many Christian leaders across denominations reject Christofascist ideologies. Prominent pastors, priests, and lay leaders have publicly critiqued the notion that faith can be fused with coercive political power.
One such voice is John Pavlovitz, a progressive Christian pastor and author who has consistently opposed the political exploitation of faith. In his writings and public commentary, he warns believers that conflating religious conviction with hardline partisan agendas erodes the gospel’s foundational call to empathy, justice, and humility.
Other religious leaders all maintain that Trump’s efforts betray the core teachings of Christianity. Pope Francis has often cautioned against nationalism and scolded Trump for his toxic behavior, urging believers to remember that the message of the Gospel transcends borders and partisanship.
And even in the evangelical community, a rift has emerged. A portion of believers wholeheartedly embrace the MAGA platform, while another faction warns that wedding the church to political power could undermine the church’s moral authority.
These debates have played out at denominational gatherings, on Christian college campuses, and among younger evangelicals who may hold more moderate or progressive social views than their elders. The intrafaith conflict underscores the complexities of connecting, or separating, religious faith and governance in a diverse democracy.
MEDIA AND PUBLIC PERCEPTION
News coverage has fueled public awareness of Christofascism, although critics say some outlets resort to sensationalism. With competing narratives in the media landscape, perceptions vary widely. Right-wing Conservative media personalities often dismiss the concept as an overblown accusation aimed at silencing devout patriots.
Progressive publications, on the other hand, view it as a legitimate descriptor of a growing movement that threatens the rule of law and religious pluralism.
Social media has also intensified the debate. Viral clips of political rallies featuring Christian iconography or apocalyptic rhetoric spread quickly, sparking heated discussions. Hashtags referencing “Christian nationalism,” “Christofascism,” or “MAGA Christianity” pop up on platforms like Twitter and TikTok, where users trade interpretations of biblical verses and constitutional principles.
Academics engage in these conversations as well, striving to offer context through historical analogies and theological insights that can otherwise get lost in the noise.
NAVIGATING WHAT LIES AHEAD
As the United States continues to grapple with political polarization and questions about the role of faith in public life, the debate around Christofascism is unlikely to abate anytime soon. Experts warn that further political upheaval could intensify the embrace of authoritarian measures cloaked in religious language, particularly if Americans continue to split along cultural and religious lines.
At the same time, mounting criticism from within Christian communities suggests that not all people of faith support the more extreme versions of mixing piety with Trump’s politics. Whether the term “Christofascism” continues to gain traction or evolves into another label, the underlying tensions between religion, nationalism, and authoritarian governance are set to remain front and center in America’s public discourse.
© Photo
Evan Vucci (AP) and Alastair Grant (AP)
