In recent years, the intersection of far-right political ideologies and religious fervor has sparked a conversation about what could happen if these ideals reached the peak of government influence. The idea of mandating one specific sect of Christianity may sound like a dystopian tale, but it raises a fundamental question: in a government mandated by far-right thinking, which version of Christianity would be deemed the “official” one?
Firstly, it’s essential to recognize that Christianity itself is not a monolith. Christianity includes a diverse range of beliefs and practices, from the liturgical traditions of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy to the evangelical and charismatic Protestant movements. Even within Protestantism, denominations like Baptist, Lutheran, Pentecostal, and non-denominational groups often interpret scripture and practice faith in contrasting ways. Far-right ideology has often been linked to certain Protestant evangelical beliefs, particularly because of shared social conservatism, but that doesn’t encompass all Christian thought.
Should a far-right government take power with a mission to make Christianity the state religion, they would likely face the immediate problem of defining “Christianity.” Catholics might expect their rituals and sacraments to be prioritized, given the global scale and historical influence of the Church. Evangelicals, on the other hand, might push for an interpretation of Christianity more focused on a literal reading of the Bible and individual salvation, emphasizing personal piety over institutional authority. And Orthodox Christians would likely resist both, emphasizing tradition and doctrinal continuity.
The differences extend far beyond just liturgical preferences; they’re deeply embedded in doctrines, politics, and visions for society. For example, Catholic social teaching often advocates for the poor and emphasizes social justice—a philosophy sometimes at odds with the libertarian economics embraced by some Protestant far-right groups. Meanwhile, certain evangelical groups prioritize issues like restricting abortion and opposing LGBTQ+ rights, which often aligns with far-right policies. If a government mandated adherence to one “official” Christian teaching, these ideological differences would likely become sources of division rather than unity.
Furthermore, history shows that when religious institutions intertwine with government, it rarely fosters harmony. The wars of religion in early modern Europe, the oppression of religious minorities in various theocracies, and even the American founders’ desire to separate church and state were all reactions to the chaos that ensues when the state imposes a particular religious perspective. If the government were to enforce one interpretation of Christianity today, we could face a similar risk of division, disenfranchisement, and social unrest.
In a pluralistic society, freedom of belief allows for a diversity of Christian practices as well as space for other faiths and non-belief. Far-right rhetoric might champion “Christian values,” but any attempt to enforce one Christian doctrine could lead to splintering within Christianity itself, with numerous denominations and believers resisting the notion of a state-mandated version of their faith. The real question might not be which Christian sect would reign supreme, but whether the forced unity under one doctrine would drive more people away from Christianity altogether.
Ultimately, the diversity within Christianity is both its strength and its protection against a singular, authoritarian vision. The resilience of belief comes from freedom—the freedom to interpret, the freedom to question, and the freedom to follow faith as one’s conscience dictates. Any government seeking to mandate one form of Christianity over others may find that it unravels not just social unity, but faith itself.
Wanderings and wonderings 