In recent years, many religious conservatives have set far more ambitious goals than merely rolling back the progressive programs and policies of years past. Today, partially as a consequence of so many believers accepting a punitive, authoritarian vision of God, several Christian movements which are intensely anti-democratic, classist, misogynistic, homo and transphobic, and frequently racist are rapidly growing in numbers and influence. Many leading voices in the Trump administration, and the MAGA movement are influenced by these reactionary Christian movements which, despite having differing doctrinal beliefs, converge in several crucial ways.
The White Christian Nationalist movement is a broad coalition of conservative white evangelicals, charismatic Pentecostals, post-liberal Catholics, and far-right political operatives whose uniting belief is that America was founded as a Christian nation, that its laws should explicitly reflect biblical morality, and that white Christians must maintain cultural and political dominance.
About two thirds of white evangelical Protestants are white Christian Nationalists. The coalition also includes religious movements that are not exclusively white such as the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) currently led by Pastor Dutch Sheets. The NAR is a decentralized network of independent, charismatic ministries and mega churches that reject modern liberal democracy and individual autonomy arguing instead for Dominionism a political and theological framework teaching that Christians have a divine mandate to take top-down control over all secular institutions. NAR expresses this as the “Seven Mountain Mandate,” asserting that Christians are divinely commanded to conquer and control the seven key spheres of culture: government, media, education, business, family, religion, and entertainment to implement biblical law and values.
Another highly influential ultra conservative religious movement is Christian Reconstructionism as promoted by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s church the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches led by co-founding pastor Doug Wilson. Christian Reconstructionism argues that all aspects of modern society including law, government, economics, and family life must be completely “reconstructed” according to strict Old Testament biblical principles. The movement explicitly rejects classical liberal democracy, secular neutrality, and the separation of church and state. Instead, it advocates for a system of governance where biblical law replaces civil law
Also, becoming increasingly influential, is a misanthropic, authoritarian, and anti-democratic interpretation of Catholisim, often referred to as Catholic Integralism or Post-Liberal Catholicism promoted by Harvard Law professor, Adrian Vermeule, political science professor at Notre Dame, Patrick Deneen, political theorist, and Neo-Reactionary blogger, Curtis Yarvin, and by tech billionaire, Peter Thiel. Their movement argues that liberal democracy has failed and that state power should be used to enforce Christian moral order.
Yarvin and others argue that modern democracy is an unstable, inefficient, unsuccessful experiment that breeds chaos. Instead, they advocate for “formalism” a political philosophy that treats the state like a corporation. It argues that governance should be implemented by a single, powerful executive — essentially a CEO or monarch with centralized authority, total control, and the absolute power to punish transgression. Yarvin’s ideas strongly influence key MAGA figures, tech billionaires, and politicians like JD Vance. Their philosophy provides the intellectual justification for treating a political leader not as a public servant, but as an absolute ruler who should dismantle the democratic state and restore top-down order.
Presently there are also some leaders in public life who continue to cite religious faith and scripture as the rationale for a progressive agenda. And it may be that in some cases, like the senatorial campaign of James Talarico in Texas, being able to fluently justify progressive policies with references to scripture is necessary to gain support. But even in such cases, referring to our pro-social nature as supported by evidence, and explaining why all of us always behave exactly as everything leading up to that behavior causes us to behave could be a game changer. Rather than arguing based on religion alone, adding such a secular component could help build a foundation for progressive change that will be better at resisting the pushback it is eventually likely to face.