Christian Nationalism: Voddie Baucham Calls the Debate a Smokescreen
When Allie Beth Stuckey invited Dr. Voddie Baucham, dean of theology at African Christian University in Zambia, onto her podcast, the conversation quickly turned to the hot‑button phrase Christian nationalism. Baucham didn’t just defend the term; he called it a deliberate “smokescreen” designed to shut down Christians who want to shape public policy.
Why the label is, in his view, a political weapon
Baucham argues that opponents of conservative faith‑based politics have taken a neutral‑sounding phrase and turned it into a loaded accusation. By painting any Christian involvement in governance as extremist, they create a false binary: either you’re a secular‑only citizen or you’re a dangerous nationalist. He points out that this tactic mirrors earlier shifts from “White nationalism” to “White Christian nationalism,” each step meant to split voting blocks and keep believers from organizing.
According to Baucham, the confusion isn’t accidental. He says the term is used to conflate three distinct ideas—traditional Christian political engagement, race‑based nationalism, and a hybrid called “White Christian nationalism.” By lumping them together, critics can dismiss legitimate biblical arguments for moral governance while simultaneously portraying all Christians as a monolithic threat.
What genuine Christian political participation looks like, according to Baucham
The theologian leans on Romans 13 and passages like Romans 2:6‑12 to argue that government exists as a servant of God’s higher authority. He stresses a concept called “sphere sovereignty,” which respects the separate roles of home, church, and state but still encourages believers to be active citizens—voting, mentoring leaders, and praying for officials.
He cites historical examples, from Daniel’s stand against a corrupt ruler to modern‑day local councils that have passed faith‑inspired ordinances. For Baucham, asking a representative government to reflect biblical values isn’t a radical overhaul; it’s a continuation of a long‑standing Christian civic duty.
Baucham also calls out what he sees as a double standard: African nations like Zambia can openly embrace Christian‑inspired policies without facing the same level of media backlash that Western Christians encounter. He suggests the criticism is less about theology and more about protecting a pluralistic status quo that marginalizes overt faith‑based politics.
Finally, the scholar warns that secular critics often wield Scripture themselves to justify policy positions—pointing to Governor Gavin Newsom’s use of religious language to support same‑sex marriage as a prime example. Baucham sees this as hypocrisy: if believers are silenced for citing the Bible, why are secular leaders free to do the same?
Throughout the discussion, Baucham urges Christians not to shrink back in fear of the label. He frames engagement as both a right and a responsibility, insisting that the impact of Christianity on Western freedoms is undeniable and should be proudly acknowledged in the public arena.