Book Review: "Preparing for War: The Extremist History of White Christian Nationalism--and What Comes Next" by Brad Onishi
Lightweight and Disappointing; Made Me Less Worried About Christian Nationalism
Overall Rating: 2.5/5.0
[tl;dr for readers: As you can see, I found this book disappointing, although not completely without merit. If you know of better books on Christian Nationalism, please drop a note with your recommendations.]
In the last few years, I have noticed a trend toward higher-caliber thinkers emerging within the Christian Nationalist movement in America, along with a bleeding of their beliefs into Trumpism. Since Trump was more successful in the November 2024 election than I expected---with some commentators attributing this success in part to rising support for Christian Nationalism---this made me wonder if rising Christian Nationalism is more of a threat to the United States than I had previously thought. Thus, I decided to do more reading on the subject, and Brad Onishi's Preparing for War: The Extremist History of White Christian Nationalism--and What Comes Next came up near the top of a list of recommended books.
Although the book clearly aims to sound the alarm bells about how Christian Nationalism is a growing menace, I found it ineffective in making its case. Indeed, after reading the book, I felt less worried about Christian Nationalism than before. Although Christian Nationalism may be a serious threat, this particular book does not make the case well.
Overview of Contents
Preparing for War traces the history of Christian Nationalism in the United States. It covers topics such as the 20th-century split between the "mainline" and Nationalist branches of American Christianity. Here, the former focused on both individuals and society making greater efforts to help the poor. In contrast, the latter focused on themes such as a strong American defense policy, the rising threat of secular humanism and Communism, American social decay, the nearing of the end times, and the Prosperity Gospel in which one's success in life, such as their wealth, is primarily a function of how much favor they have won from God by acting in accordance with his wishes.
Onishi argues that Christian Nationalist themes and the movement were primarily propelled by social upheaval beginning in the 1960s and that Christian Nationalism is, indeed, a counterrevolution to these changes. Onishi describes opposition to school desegregation as one of the most critical initial forces. From this, he concludes that racism plays a substantial role in the rise of Christian nationalism, although he does note that not all Christian Nationalism believes in the superiority of white people to lead the nation.
Onishi also traces the origins of conspiratorial thinking's prominence in Christian Nationalism to the John Birch Society. In addition, he traces the migration pattern of particularly conservative Christians in the United States and discusses a growing fondness for foreign dictators such as Putin. He describes a generally growing willingness to dispense with democracy, if need be, to preserve the United States as a Christian nation in which white people retain primary control and in which counter-movements such as LGBTQ are fought back against.
Throughout the book, Onishi revisits January 6 multiple times, wondering if he would have been there had he not ejected himself from the evangelical movement, where he had been a church leader, as a result of his religious studies at Oxford.
The Book's Strengths
This fairly short book covers history I was previously unaware of: for instance, the Sunbelt Migration of Southern Evangelicals to Southern California and the centrality that evangelicals there played in the rise of Evangelicalism starting in the 1960s. I also was not previously aware of and was disappointed by the role that some Christian churches played in opposing school desegregation. Also, although I did know a bit about the John Birch Society, its prominence in the fashionability of conspiratorial thinking on the far-religious right was new to me.
Additionally, the book included some interesting speculations. For instance, it suggests that Christian Nationalists accept Trump even knowing that he does not act in a very Christian manner because they realize that the war they imagine will require leaders to act in non-Christian manners at times. They contrast this to weak leaders like Jimmy Carter, who remained closer to Christian behavior while in office but ended up as a failure from the Christian Nationalist perspective.
The Book's Weaknesses
Theological and Ideological Analysis
Although I did learn important new facts about the history of Christian Nationalism in America, overall, I found the book lightweight and disappointing. For instance, how exactly do Christian Nationalists reconcile the New Testament's clear focus on helping the weakest and poorest in society with the Prosperity Gospel and America's classical Libertarian/highly individualistic culture? What parts of scripture do they quote from, or what other techniques do they use to seemingly try to mix oil and water?
Along similar lines, although Onishi is correct to be concerned about rising anti-democratic sentiment among Christian Nationalist thought leaders, he fails to make the cases compellingly by citing the exact names of these figures, providing direct quotes, or even stating what they are advocating to replace democracy with. From other sources (see, for example, James Lindsay's WTF is Christian Nationalism?), it appears to be some kind of constitutional monarchy, but the options they are contemplating are unclear from this book.
Historical Accuracy
Besides bypassing a discussion of Christian Nationalist theology and ideology at an adequate level of depth, as I would expect from an Oxford-educated religious scholar, Onishi also uses supposed facts that have been thoroughly debunked in making his case and, generally, fails to deal with redeeming aspects of evangelical history.
Regarding debunked alleged facts, although Onishi warns of Christian Nationalist beliefs that are "just known" but false, he states, as fact, beliefs from the left that fit that description. For example, Trump did not call White Nationalists in Charlottesville "very fine people" (see Snopes Fact Check). He did not order BLM protesters to be tear-gassed to clear the way for a photo-op with an upside-down bible in 2020 (see AP Article). Indeed, along the lines of not portraying the other side as fairly as possible, although Onishi correctly mentions that many Christian evangelical churches opposed the end of slavery, he only hints that, even in the South, many evangelical churches did oppose slavery. Even more significantly, he fails to mention that northern evangelical churches (especially women) were the primary force behind abolitionism (see Daniel Howe's What Hath God Wrought.) Sorry, Professor Onishi, but whatever you think of modern-day Evangelicalism, it does not excuse you from presenting history fairly.
Weak Analysis of January 6
First, to be clear, January 6 was undoubtedly one of the most egregious acts in Presential history, and Trump bears sole primary responsibility for what happened on that day. With that said, I, nevertheless, found Onishi's analysis of January 6 to be weak. Although he does correctly note that parallels do exist between Hitler’s Beer Hall Putsch and January 6, where Hitler received only a "slap on the wrist" and indeed became a more powerful political figure as a result, he omits analysis of considerable differences. For example, aside from post hoc ergo propter hoc arguments, it is not clear that any police officers died as a result of January 6. At the very least, the uncertainty should be mentioned. Also, when assessing if the events are comparable, one would have to note that Germany was a much smaller nation and that Hitler was a relatively minor figure at the time, certainly compared to the power and prestige of the President of the United States today. How comparable is the amount of violence in light of this?
In the days leading up to January 6, I knew there would be violence, but what surprised me is that with the President suggesting that there had, essentially, been a successful coup by the left, there was relatively little of it. Contrary to Onishi’s argument, I believe that the reason there was relatively little violence from the right was that there was not a "permission structure" granted to excuse murder. In fact, the day's outcome suggests the opposite.
Conclusion
Although there is some good material on the history of Christian Nationalism in America here, the arguments that it is a serious threat are weak. For whatever reason, Onishi has clearly chosen not to make a rigorous presentation in this book. It is definitely not at a "professorial" level. Since he is, indeed, a professor, however, it is hard to escape the conclusion that if he is presenting weak arguments, that is all he has. If there were stronger arguments, would those not be the ones to present? Is he playing into what he knows will reinforce existing views on the left and keeping it lightweight to reach a wider audience? Ultimately, I finished the book feeling less worried about Christian Nationalism. (Perhaps, however, other books make the case better, so I am still open to the possibility.)
As it stands, the most interesting finding to me from this book was learning about the "American Redoubt:" an area of the northwestern United States centered around Idaho that the religious right is flocking to. Interestingly, I was planning on moving to Idaho in the future even before knowing about The Redoubt. Although, as an atheist, a Christian Nationalist country is not one I would prefer to live in, none of Onishi's descriptions of The Redoubt made it sound like something that I should be afraid of. Indeed, even supposedly at its Ground Zero, we learn that the locals came down hard on White Supremacists who felt they would have free reign there. Thus, the existence of an area that people voluntarily migrate to makes me wonder what exactly is wrong if people want to live near like-minded folks? Won’t it also diffuse the likelihood they would cause trouble elsewhere if they, instead, simply moved to communities they were happier with?