Ethno-Nationalism is an ideology that primarily defines/reduces national identity to shared ethnic heritage, race, or culture, often seeking to create a homogeneous nation-state that excludes those outside the ethnic or cultural majority. This inclination to define "us" versus "them" along ethnic lines is not unique to any one region or historical period; it reflects a deep-seated aspect of human nature where initial wariness toward strangers or those who are different has often contributed to the survival of groups throughout history. However, ethnocentric identity has repeatedly surfaced in different forms globally, from ancient China’s concept of Han identity to the Roman Empire’s distinctions among ethnic groups and their rights. In modern times, ethno-nationalism has often become entangled with politics, especially in contexts where national or cultural identity is perceived as threatened by external influences or internal diversity.
Ideology, History, and View of Human Nature
Ethno-nationalism rests on the idea that national unity and strength depend on cultural or racial homogeneity. This ideology tends to view human nature through the lens of fixed identities, assuming that people are bound primarily by their ethnicity or culture. Ethno-nationalism promotes the belief that shared ethnicity or heritage is a natural bond that supersedes all other ties, such as shared political or moral principles. It suggests that differences between ethnic groups are insurmountable or incompatible, leading to the assumption that peace and harmony are only achievable in a homogeneous nation-state. By reducing individuals primarily to their ethnic or cultural backgrounds, ethno-nationalism can perpetuate division, excluding or discriminating against those seen as “outsiders.”
Historically, ethno-nationalism has emerged wherever societies feel threatened, whether by political, economic, or cultural change. While ethno-nationalism was present throughout history, the 19th and 20th centuries saw it formalized in political ideologies, particularly in Europe, where nationalist movements developed in response to imperial decline and the rise of self-determination. In more extreme cases, such as Nazi Germany, ethno-nationalism turned violent, seeking to “purify” the nation by eliminating those deemed racially or culturally inferior. Today, ethno-nationalist rhetoric has resurfaced in reaction to globalization and multiculturalism, promoting the idea that ethnic purity is essential to a nation’s health and stability.
Ethno-nationalism often implements its ideology through policies that enforce racial homogeneity, sometimes extending to exclusionary practices, overly-restrictive immigration laws, and aggressive cultural gatekeeping. By attempting to create a unified national identity based on ethnicity, ethno-nationalism fosters division within multicultural societies and often leads to conflict. (*see note at bottom)
Different Types of Nationalism: Ethno-Nationalism vs. Civic Nationalism
Nationalism is a broad ideology with various forms, and it is essential to distinguish ethno-nationalism from other types, particularly civic nationalism. Civic nationalism is based on shared political values and loyalty to a nation’s laws and principles rather than on ethnicity or culture. An example of civic nationalism is American nationalism, rooted in the ideals of the Bill of Rights, constitutionalism, separation of powers, individual liberty, personal responsibility, and limited government. American civic nationalism, sometimes referred to as constitutional nationalism, values loyalty to the principles of the republic over cultural or ethnic ties, promoting a form of national identity that includes people from diverse backgrounds who are united by shared ideals.
In contrast, ethno-nationalism seeks unity through shared ethnicity, sometimes at the expense of minority populations or immigrants. Ethno-nationalism views diversity as a threat to social harmony, while civic nationalism sees diversity as compatible with national unity, as long as citizens adhere to common political values and respect the rule of law. Civic nationalism encourages citizens of different backgrounds to participate in a shared national identity without being bound to any particular ethnic or cultural identity, whereas ethno-nationalism often enforces exclusivity.
Christian Critique of Ethno-Nationalism
Christianity presents a radically different view of human identity and community than ethno-nationalism. Scripture teaches that all human beings are created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27), giving each person intrinsic value and dignity that transcends ethnicity or nationality. The Bible emphasizes that humanity’s fundamental identity and unity are found not in ethnic homogeneity but in Christ, who reconciles people “from every tribe and language and people and nation” (Revelation 7:9). This understanding of unity in Christ affirms that, within the Christian community, there is “neither Jew nor Greek” (Galatians 3:28), meaning that ethnic distinctions should not create division within the body of Christ.
Ethno-nationalism’s approach to human value and purpose is reductionistic, defining people primarily by their ethnicity or cultural heritage. This ideology often assigns worth based on ancestry, leading to exclusion and sometimes hostility. In contrast, Christianity teaches that individual worth comes from God’s love and the image of God imprinted on every person, regardless of ethnic background (Colossians 3:11). The Christian call to love one’s neighbor (Matthew 22:39) challenges the ethno-nationalist perspective that outsiders are inherently threatening, instead promoting a vision of community grounded in grace and mutual respect.
Additionally, Christianity teaches that true peace is found not in homogeneity or cultural exclusion but in reconciliation through Jesus Christ. Whereas ethno-nationalism assumes that harmony is achievable only through shared ethnicity or heritage, Christianity demonstrates that genuine harmony comes from reconciliation with God and one another. Jesus’ teachings to love one’s enemies and seek peace (Matthew 5:44) directly counter the ethno-nationalist inclination toward exclusion and suspicion, affirming instead a community defined by self-giving love.
Not all ideas are equal, and some ideologies truly offer better, more life-affirming, and freedom-promoting outcomes than others. Recognizing the dignity of every person means that while we respect individuals, we also have the responsibility to critically evaluate, debate, and even oppose ideas that may harm societal well-being or contradict fundamental truths about human dignity and justice.
This balanced approach allows us to focus on the merits or dangers of ideas rather than resorting to reductionistic judgments based on ethnicity, nationality, or heritage. Engaging in open, respectful debate on the ideas themselves promotes understanding and progress. It’s about valuing people for who they are and engaging them in discussions that seek truth and justice, without attributing a person's worth or identity solely to their background.
Ultimately, this approach mirrors the biblical perspective: we are called to "speak the truth in love" (Ephesians 4:15) and "test everything; hold fast what is good" (1 Thessalonians 5:21). This means we uphold truth, reason, and justice, while also recognizing that every individual, regardless of heritage, is made in the image of God and worthy of respect—even when we profoundly disagree on ideological grounds.
Christianity’s Superior Response to Reality
Christianity provides a worldview that better corresponds to the reality of human nature, identity, and community. The Bible affirms that human beings, though diverse in culture and ethnicity, are united in their shared need for God and His redemption. Ethno-nationalism attempts to create unity through uniformity, but it fails to address humanity’s deeper need for reconciliation with God, which alone can bring lasting peace and unity. Christianity speaks to the root of human conflict—sin, pride, and division—and offers a solution through Jesus Christ, who reconciles individuals and communities to God and each other (2 Corinthians 5:18-20).
The Christian understanding of human worth and community provides a foundation for peace and cooperation that goes beyond ethnic identity, inviting people to transcend cultural boundaries through love and service. Scripture calls believers to welcome the stranger and love the foreigner (Leviticus 19:34; Hebrews 13:2), promoting a society where individuals are valued for their character and actions rather than their ethnic background. In Christ, humanity finds both identity and purpose that supersede earthly distinctions, providing a basis for unity in a diverse world.
Conclusion
Ethno-nationalism is a worldview that reduces individuals to their ethnic or cultural identity, fostering division and suspicion rather than unity. It promotes a false sense of peace through homogeneity, neglecting humanity’s deepest need for reconciliation with God. Christianity, by contrast, affirms the worth of all people, calls believers to love and serve others regardless of ethnicity, and provides the foundation for true unity in Christ. By offering redemption, purpose, and peace that transcend cultural and ethnic lines, Christianity presents the only worldview that fully addresses humanity’s longings for identity, community, and reconciliation.
* Note: Opposition to mass immigration is not always rooted in ethno-nationalism or racial prejudice; often, it stems from concerns over sustainability, economic impact, and social cohesion. While ethno-nationalist rhetoric indeed leverages these issues, many individuals approach immigration policies from a standpoint of practicality and economic prudence rather than exclusivist ideologies.
For example, with a population of roughly 360 million in the U.S. and potentially as many people worldwide desiring to immigrate, unrestricted immigration could place unsustainable demands on public resources, including welfare, healthcare, and infrastructure. Additionally, large-scale immigration without sufficient assimilation can lead to cultural fragmentation, which, for civic nationalists, risks undermining the foundational principles that hold diverse communities together under shared laws and values. Concerns over resource allocation, economic balance, and social unity are legitimate factors that shape debates on immigration policy, independent of ethno-nationalist motives.
This distinction is crucial because it clarifies that one can support controlled immigration and assimilation policies while still affirming the dignity and worth of individuals from diverse backgrounds. Civic nationalism, as discussed earlier, supports the idea of a nation grounded in shared values rather than ethnic homogeneity. In this view, concerns about immigration are related to preserving the political and social stability that enable a cohesive society, rather than excluding people based on ethnicity or cultural identity.
Thus, while ethno-nationalism and anti-globalist rhetoric exploit fears of cultural dissolution, it is important to recognize that reasonable limits on immigration can align with civic nationalism and Christian principles, prioritizing a balanced approach that values both the common good and the inherent dignity of all people. This helps prevent the oversimplification of immigration debates, allowing for a more nuanced discussion that respects both practical considerations and moral responsibilities.