Holy Post swings at Christian Post on Christian nationalism, but misses

By Mikale Olson, Op-ed contributor Monday, October 12, 2026

The popular evangelical podcast The Holy Post uploaded a video on September 20 on its YouTube channel titled “Why Conservative Media Is Turning on Christian Nationalism.” In it, the hosts discussed an article I recently wrote for The Christian Post titled “'Christian nationalism’ already failed America once.”⁠

Normally, I welcome the opportunity for other Christian commentators to engage with my work, especially on issues as important as the relationship between Christianity and political power. Christians should be able to debate these matters openly, challenge one another’s conclusions, and sharpen each other’s thinking.

Unfortunately, that is not quite what happened here.

Rather than simply engaging with the substance of my argument, The Holy Post presented my article as evidence of what it considers a broader shift among conservative Christian publications. According to their framing, outlets like The Christian Post, supposedly too politically attached to Donald Trump and the MAGA movement to confront Christian nationalism before now, are finally discovering the courage to criticize it.

There is just one problem with that narrative.

It is demonstrably false.

And ironically, the very article they highlighted is evidence of just how badly they have misunderstood what The Christian Post has been publishing for years.

To understand why, we should first revisit what I actually argued.

My September 3 article made a relatively straightforward historical observation: Christian nationalism, particularly the versions advocating some institutional merger between church and state, is hardly a new political experiment. It has been tried repeatedly throughout Western history, including on American soil, and its record should give modern Christians serious pause.

Long before the United States existed, European governments frequently maintained established churches, giving particular Christian denominations privileged relationships with civil authorities. Depending on the country and historical period, dissenting Christians faced legal penalties, restrictions on worship, imprisonment, and sometimes execution.

The same basic problem followed European settlers across the Atlantic.

In colonial Massachusetts, Puritan authorities enforced religious conformity and punished dissenters. Roger Williams was banished in 1635 after challenging the colony’s religious arrangements. Baptists and Quakers likewise suffered persecution under governments that considered themselves defenders of Christian orthodoxy.

The bitter irony was that Christians were using the machinery of government to persecute other Christians, often while insisting they were protecting Christianity itself.

This history helped inform the American Founders’ eventual rejection of a national religious establishment. Article VI of the Constitution prohibited religious tests for federal office, and the First Amendment subsequently prohibited Congress from establishing a religion.

That did not mean the Founders wanted Christianity banished from public life or regarded religious morality as irrelevant to republican government. Rather, the constitutional system distinguished between the moral character of the people and the religious authority of the state.

The federal government would not be empowered to establish a national church or dictate theological orthodoxy. Americans would remain free to practice, preach, persuade, and organize their religious communities without a federally imposed denomination.

The application of religious liberty was incomplete, of course. Several states maintained religious establishments after ratification, and the country’s history contains many failures to honor its professed principles. Nevertheless, the constitutional architecture represented an important departure from the traditional European model of church-state relations.

And that brings us to today’s Christian nationalist movement.

Whether we are discussing Roman Catholic integralism or various Protestant proposals advanced by figures such as Joel Webbon and Dale Partridge, the central question remains the same: What happens when the state is given the power to privilege and enforce a particular understanding of Christianity?

More importantly, who gets to decide which understanding?

A Roman Catholic integralist and a Reformed Protestant advocating a Christian civil order do not share the same theology. Neither does a Baptist necessarily agree with either of them. Once the government assumes responsibility for enforcing religious orthodoxy, theological disagreement inevitably acquires political consequences.

To be clear, not everyone using the label Christian nationalist advocates the same political arrangement. Some simply mean that Christianity should influence American culture and public policy. Others envision something far more expansive involving state-enforced religious norms.

My criticism concerns the latter, particularly those proposals that seek to give civil government authority over matters properly belonging to the Church and the conscience.

My larger argument was that these ideas are not revolutionary. They are variations of political arrangements that Christians have already experienced, fought over, and, in many cases, deliberately rejected.

We do not need to rerun that experiment.

But here is what makes The Holy Post’s characterization particularly frustrating: I have been making versions of this argument for years.

Since January 2025, The Christian Post has published roughly 20 articles of mine, many addressing the emerging Woke Right, post-liberalism, Christian nationalism, and the increasing willingness of certain conservatives to abandon the American constitutional tradition.

I have written about the authoritarian tendencies emerging within segments of the Right, the adoption of critical theory-style tactics by ostensibly conservative thinkers, and the ideological overlap between some post-liberal political proposals and the very progressive assumptions conservatives once opposed.

My August 31 article, “The post-liberal Right’s war on America’s founding — and why it’s not conservative,”⁠ was published just three days before the article The Holy Post highlighted.

This was not some sudden political awakening.

It was a continuation of a long-running argument, one that The Christian Post has repeatedly allowed me to make before a conservative Christian audience.

And I am hardly the only person who has been making it.

Consider Janet Mefferd, whose May 11, 2024, article, “New Christian nationalism is, in fact, a ‘woke right,’”⁠ directly confronted the movement more than two years before The Holy Post’s recent video.

Mefferd argued that the emerging Christian nationalist movement had begun adopting some of the same ideological habits as the progressive Left, including its tendency to divide society into competing categories of oppressors and oppressed.

Several weeks later, she published “The woke right: The Constitution is a ‘dead letter’? (part 1),”⁠ addressing the growing hostility toward constitutional government among elements of the post-liberal Right.

Notice those publication dates.

May 2024.

Well before September 2026.

Then there is Neil Shenvi, who has repeatedly warned about ideological developments within conservative Christianity.

In December 2025, Shenvi published “The rise and fall of Christian nationalism,”⁠ examining the increasingly troubling relationship between Christian nationalist circles and explicitly racist, antisemitic, and extremist rhetoric.

He documented examples of self-identified Christian nationalists praising Adolf Hitler, attacking Jews, and embracing racial theories fundamentally incompatible with Christianity.

These were not mild disagreements over campaign strategy. They were serious theological and moral criticisms of a movement that Shenvi believed was becoming corrupted by extremist influences.

The Christian Post published them.

Or consider Will Spencer, whose March 23, 2026, article, “8 steps to scapegoating: How smart people end up believing conspiracy theories,”⁠ examined how legitimate frustration with institutional corruption can devolve into elaborate conspiracy thinking and eventually antisemitism.

Again, this was hardly an example of a conservative Christian publication refusing to address uncomfortable problems within its own political coalition.

Then there is Brandon Showalter, an opinion writer and social commentator at The Christian Post.

In May 2026, Showalter published “Confused about Christian nationalism? I was, too, and I’m a Christian journalist.”⁠

His article explored the confusion surrounding the term while warning Christians against ideological movements that distort the Gospel for political purposes.

He subsequently published “Why Evangelicals have been slow to discern Right-wing distortions of the Gospel” in July 2026, continuing that criticism.

These are only some examples. Other contributors have likewise addressed constitutional conservatism, political extremism, antisemitism, and the theological dangers of subordinating Christianity to political ideology.

And they are available for anyone to read.

So where, exactly, has The Christian Post been silent?

The historical record of its own published commentary directly contradicts the impression that criticism of Christian nationalism suddenly became acceptable at the publication in September.

In fact, the problem with The Holy Post’s narrative is that it requires viewers to overlook years of public evidence to the contrary.

That is not a small oversight. It undermines the central premise of their criticism.

But there is another part of their characterization worth addressing.

Apparently, The Christian Post is also “very Trumpy.”

This is an interesting description, not because some contributors and readers might support Donald Trump, but because of what the label is being used to suggest.

It appears that The Holy Post wants its audience to understand conservative Christian publications primarily as extensions of the MAGA political movement. Under this framing, criticism of Christian nationalism becomes noteworthy precisely because such publications are presumed to be politically loyal to Trump and reluctant to challenge the Right.

But this confuses ideological agreement on particular issues with political subservience.

Of course, many conservative Christians voted for Trump. Of course, some contributors to conservative publications support aspects of his administration’s policies. None of that is particularly surprising, nor is it evidence that their moral convictions rise and fall according to the preferences of Republican politicians.

The relevant question is whether these publications are willing to criticize ideas, movements, and individuals on the Right when they believe those things conflict with biblical teaching or constitutional principles.

As the examples above demonstrate, The Christian Post has repeatedly provided a platform for precisely that criticism.

Indeed, some of the fiercest opponents of the Woke Right and contemporary Christian nationalism are themselves politically conservative Christians.

They oppose these movements not because they have abandoned conservatism, but because they believe the movements have abandoned important conservative and Christian principles.

There is an enormous difference between those two things.

And it raises an uncomfortable question about The Holy Post’s own approach to political commentary.

If the standard is that Christian publications should be willing to challenge their perceived political allies, should that standard not apply equally to everyone?

Because from where I sit, The Holy Post seems considerably more interested in identifying moral failures on the political Right than applying the same scrutiny to the contemporary Left.

To be clear, there is nothing wrong with criticizing Donald Trump, the Republican Party, or Christian nationalism. I have spent years doing precisely that.

The problem arises when criticism becomes so politically lopsided that audiences are left wondering whether the standard is biblical morality or partisan preference.

Consider, for example, what happened in Massachusetts earlier this year.

On August 10, 2026, Democratic Governor Maura Healey signed legislation expanding access to abortion after 24 weeks of pregnancy⁠. The law, which takes effect November 8, removes previous statutory criteria limiting abortions at that stage to circumstances such as maternal health concerns or grave fetal diagnoses, replacing them with a physician’s professional-judgment standard.

For Christians who hold that human life possesses inherent dignity from conception, that development raises profound moral questions.

Where is the comparable urgency from Christian commentators who devote so much energy to criticizing the Right?

And what about the ongoing battles surrounding medical interventions for minors experiencing gender dysphoria, particularly the use of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and irreversible surgical procedures?

These are not minor theological disagreements. They involve competing understandings of human nature, bodily integrity, parental authority, and the moral obligations society owes to children.

Christians can and do disagree about the relevant medical evidence and legal responses. But Christian commentators who claim to evaluate politics through a biblical worldview should be prepared to address these questions seriously, regardless of which political party promotes the policies in question.

Now, perhaps The Holy Post would dispute my characterization of its editorial priorities. Fair enough. Individual episodes could be offered as counterexamples, and no podcast is obligated to give every political controversy equal airtime.

But the broader criticism remains: Is the same moral scrutiny being applied to progressive political movements that is so readily applied to conservative ones?

That is a legitimate question, especially from a program willing to scrutinize the supposed political loyalties of other Christian media outlets.

If The Holy Post believes conservative Christian publications are compromised by their political affiliations, it should be equally willing to consider whether its own ideological sympathies create similar blind spots.

One cannot condemn conservative Christians for allegedly excusing the moral failures of their political allies while treating the moral failures of one’s own preferred political coalition as less deserving of scrutiny.

That would be the very inconsistency being criticized.

And ultimately, this is much bigger than a disagreement between two Christian publications.

American Christianity has spent decades struggling with the temptation to subordinate biblical conviction to political identity.

For some Christians, that temptation manifests itself through an increasingly uncritical allegiance to the Republican Party or Donald Trump. For others, it manifests itself through an unwillingness to confront progressive ideology when it conflicts with historic Christian moral teaching.

Neither problem can be solved by pretending only one side is susceptible to political compromise.

Scripture does not instruct Christians to apply one moral standard to Republicans and another to Democrats. Nor does it permit us to excuse sinful ideas merely because they are advanced by people who otherwise share our political priorities.

The Apostle Paul instructed believers to “test everything; hold fast what is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21).

Everything.

Not merely the political movements we already dislike.

This is why I have been so outspoken against the Woke Right and the more authoritarian versions of Christian nationalism. I believe these movements represent serious departures from biblical Christianity and the American constitutional tradition.

I also believe Christians should be just as willing to confront the moral and ideological failures of the progressive Left.

Those convictions are not contradictory. They arise from the same basic principle: Christianity must remain the standard by which political ideology is evaluated, rather than the other way around.

That is what intellectually honest Christian commentary should look like.

And contrary to the impression created by The Holy Post, The Christian Post has been providing space for that kind of criticism for years.

Its contributors have challenged Christian nationalism, criticized post-liberalism, exposed antisemitic conspiracy theories, confronted extremist voices on the Right, and warned against distorting Christianity for political purposes.

The articles are published. The dates are public. The arguments are there for anyone interested in reading them.

No one has to take my word for it.

Which brings me back to the September 20 video.

Had The Holy Post simply engaged with the substance of my argument against Christian nationalism, we might have found considerable common ground. After all, we apparently agree that Christians should be deeply skeptical of movements seeking to merge ecclesiastical authority with the coercive power of government.

But instead, they chose to frame my article as evidence of a supposedly newfound willingness among conservative Christian publications to criticize the Right.

That story may be convenient. It may confirm what some of their viewers already believe about conservative Christians and MAGA politics.

But it does not withstand even a cursory examination of The Christian Post’s publication history.

And Christian journalism should demand more than politically convenient storytelling.

If The Holy Post wants to challenge conservative Christians to be more intellectually consistent, I welcome that challenge.

But the expectation must go both ways.

Criticize Christian nationalism. Criticize Trump. Criticize the Republican Party when warranted. I will happily join you when the criticism is justified.

But bring that same moral seriousness to the progressive Left. Challenge its ideological excesses, confront its moral failures, and refuse to excuse ideas simply because their proponents occupy a different political coalition.

Because the standard for Christian commentary cannot be determined by whether the person in question wears a red jersey or a blue one.

It must be determined by truth.

And if we are unwilling to apply that standard equally, we have no business accusing others of the very hypocrisy we are practicing.