A study recently published in Sociology of Religion explores the moral values behind support for and opposition to Christian nationalism. The findings show that loyalty and sanctity are key motivators for supporters, while fairness drives opposition. Contrary to popular belief, authority and care were found to have minimal influence.
Christian nationalism is the belief that the United States was founded as a Christian nation and has a divine mission to uphold Christian identity, values, and traditions. Proponents argue that America’s success depends on maintaining its Christian heritage, viewing the nation as a “city on a hill” with a sacred obligation to God. This ideology often intertwines religious and patriotic symbols, promoting policies that emphasize traditional Christian values. However, critics see Christian nationalism as a threat to the principles of equality and pluralism, arguing that it privileges a single religious tradition at the expense of others.
Moral foundations theory provides a framework for understanding the values and intuitions that shape individuals’ ethical beliefs and social attitudes. It identifies six basic moral foundations: care (concern for others’ well-being), fairness (emphasis on justice and equality), loyalty (commitment to one’s group), authority (respect for tradition and hierarchy), sanctity (protection of sacred values), and liberty (sensitivity to individual autonomy). While all individuals possess these moral foundations to varying degrees, political and cultural differences often reflect how people prioritize them.
Although Christian nationalism has been extensively debated, little is known about the moral intuitions that underpin its appeal and opposition. Previous research has focused on its demographic and political associations—such as its links to conservative religiosity or racial resentment—but has often overlooked the foundational moral concerns driving these attitudes.
“In other research, my co-authors and I have found Moral Foundations Theory to bring a lot of clarity to why people support or oppose different political and policy positions,” said study author Kerby Goff, the associate director of research at The Boniuk Institute for the Study and Advancement of Religious Tolerance at Rice University.
“We were curious whether common assumptions about Christian nationalism’s moral (or immoral) motivations would hold when examined through the lens of Moral Foundations Theory. We also think this kind of research provides the kind of knowledge which is necessary for increasing mutual understanding and bridging deep difference.”
The researchers examined the moral foundations underlying support for or opposition to Christian nationalism using data from a survey of 1,125 adults in the United States. The survey, conducted in June 2021, included participants from diverse demographic, racial, and political backgrounds, with an oversample of Black respondents to improve representation. To ensure the findings were generalizable to the broader U.S. population, the researchers employed statistical weighting to match the sample’s characteristics to those of the 2019 American Community Survey.
Participants completed the Moral Foundations Questionnaire, a tool designed to measure six core moral values. The researchers also collected responses to a widely used six-item Christian nationalism scale. This scale asked participants to rate their agreement with statements like, “The federal government should declare the United States a Christian nation,” and “The success of the United States is part of God’s plan.”
Participants who scored high on the Christian nationalism scale tended to emphasize moral values related to loyalty and sanctity. Interestingly, authority — often linked to nationalism — was not a significant predictor of support for Christian nationalism in this study.
On the other hand, participants who opposed Christian nationalism were more likely to prioritize fairness, reflecting a concern for justice and equal treatment of all people. Surprisingly, care—concern for the harm or well-being of others—was not strongly associated with opposition. This suggests that critics of Christian nationalism are more focused on its perceived violation of fairness, such as privileging one religious tradition over others, than on the harm it may cause to specific groups.
“We were surprised that the moral foundations of care and authority were not related to Christian nationalism,” Goff told PsyPost.
The liberty foundation showed a weak but positive association with support for Christian nationalism. However, this association became less significant when controlling for other variables. The researchers found that supporters of Christian nationalism tended to prioritize economic and governmental liberty (freedom from state interference) over personal lifestyle liberty (freedom in personal choices).
These results challenge some common assumptions about Christian nationalism. For example, while Christian nationalism is often described as authoritarian, this study found little evidence that authority is a driving moral concern for its supporters. Instead, loyalty and sanctity—the desire to protect group identity and sacred symbols—appear to be the key moral drivers. Similarly, opposition to Christian nationalism is less about concern for harm and more about a commitment to fairness, highlighting the ideological divide between prioritizing group cohesion versus individual equality.
“Our findings help reframe the debate about Christian nationalism in the general population by looking beyond religious or political tribalism and by dispelling assumptions about the moral motivations behind support or opposition to Christian nationalism,” Goff explained. “Support is less about a thirst for power or authority for its own sake, and rather is more about a concern for national loyalty and the sanctity of the nation as a symbol of Christian faith and identity. Opposition to Christian nationalism is less about concerns for the harm it creates and more about the unfairness Christian nationalism introduces in religiously pluralistic nation.”
“A second takeaway builds on research which shows how research on Christian nationalism in the general population often conflates the desire for what scholars Richie Li and Paul Froese call ‘Christian Statism’ and a Christian civil religion. We add that there are distinct moral motivations behind these two orientations. The difference between supporting a statist orientation or a civil one is whether one is particularly sensitive to violations of loyalty, leading to Christian Statism, or liberty, leading to Christian civil religion.”
“Based on this research, I think that there are bridges to be built by articulating alternatives to Christian nationalism around shared moral concerns, such as loyalty to the country and the importance of liberty in religious practice and expression, which could create space for compromise rather than intractable conflict,” Goff added.
But as with all research, there are some caveats to consider. The study’s cross-sectional design makes it difficult to establish causation, leaving open questions about whether moral foundations influence support for Christian nationalism or if support for Christian nationalism shapes individuals’ moral priorities. While the survey included an oversample of Black respondents, the relatively small sample sizes for other racial and religious minorities limit the ability to generalize findings across diverse groups.
“Some research suggests that Christian nationalism in the general population is connected to white ethnocentrism and racism, and that Christian nationalism has different meanings for Americans of color, particularly Black Americans,” Goff said. “We did not find any differences across racial groups in our analysis, but our sample size prevented us from drawing strong conclusions. ”
“Additionally, attempts to measure Christian nationalism in the general population have changed some since our study, but there is still a dearth of research on various orientations people have towards the relationship between religion and the state. Therefore our ability to speak about the diversity of orientations towards Christianity and the state are limited by available measures and the current state of research on this topic.”
Future research could address these limitations by employing longitudinal designs, expanding sample diversity, and refining measurement tools. Looking forward, Goff hopes “to expand the research on the moral dimension of orientations towards religion and the state.”
The study, “The Moral Foundations of Christian Nationalism,” was authored by Kerby Goff, Eric Silver, and John Iceland.
