How “peoplehood” replaces “Christendom” as the political imagination
Purpose in the series
This episode explains why modern politics increasingly treats the “nation/people” (rather than a shared Christian civilisation) as the primary unit of meaning, loyalty, and legitimacy. It clarifies how industrial modernity helped create mass publics, national identities, and state-centred political belonging—a shift that profoundly shapes how the Bible is heard in public life.
1. Industrial modernity creates “mass society” conditions
Industrialisation accelerated urbanisation, wage labour, large-scale production, and new communications and transport networks. These changes reshaped social life from local, face-to-face communities to more anonymous and mobile populations—conditions that favour mass organisation, standardisation, and central administration. The “political” consequence is that governance increasingly depends on managing large populations through institutions, law, education, and infrastructure rather than personal allegiance alone. (Encyclopedia Britannica)
2. Nationalism reframes legitimacy around “a people”
Nationalism is not merely “patriotism”; it is a political principle that a people (conceived as a nation) ought to have political self-determination and a state that expresses its identity and will. Modern scholarship typically stresses that nationalism is historically tied to modern state-building, mass communication, and the mobilisation of populations at scale. (Encyclopedia Britannica)
A helpful analytical lens is that nations are, in important respects, socially constructed communities sustained by shared narratives, symbols, education, and media—what Anderson influentially described as “imagined communities”. This is not a claim that nations are unreal, but that they are constituted through cultural and institutional processes rather than by face-to-face community alone. (Colorado Mountain College)
3. Mass politics replaces elite politics
As populations grew and literacy expanded, politics became increasingly “mass”: popular newspapers, parties, trade unions, and (eventually) broad suffrage produced mobilisation on a scale that earlier polities rarely experienced. Modern European history is commonly described in terms of the rise of party competition, mass participation, and state efforts to incorporate or manage these forces. (Encyclopedia Britannica)
This is the context in which “peoplehood” becomes the dominant political imagination: states increasingly speak in the name of the people, claim to represent the nation, and cultivate civic rituals and narratives that can bind millions of strangers.
4. Why this displaces “Christendom”
“Christendom” (as a broad cultural-political imagination) presumed a shared religious frame for public life. Industrial modernity did not simply “remove religion”; it re-specified religion’s place amid competing sources of legitimacy—nation, progress, class, race, party, empire. In practice, religion often becomes (a) a marker within national identity, (b) a moral voice critiquing the state, or (c) a contested element in culture wars.
5. Biblical-theological integration: Kingdom vs peoplehood
In the Gospel narratives, Jesus does not seek legitimacy by controlling the mechanisms of coercion. His Triumphal Entry is a public claim to kingship, yet enacted in a way that rejects the usual foundations of political domination (Matthew 21:1–11; Zechariah 9:9). That pattern challenges modern believers to distinguish ultimate loyalty (to God’s reign) from proximate loyalties (nation, party, class). The New Testament’s political edge is not that it endorses apathy, but that it relativises every earthly sovereignty under God’s authority (cf. John 18:36).
Preaching and teaching angles
- Sermon thesis: “Modern politics asks, ‘Who are the people?’ The Gospel asks, ‘Who is the King?’”
- Application: critique idolatrous nationalism without refusing civic responsibility; practise public truth-telling without adopting coercive methods.
Reflection prompts
- Where does “peoplehood” (nation/identity) function as a substitute for moral or spiritual authority in my context?
- How do I practise faithful public witness without making the state (or my political tribe) ultimate?
- What would “donkey-shaped authority” look like in contemporary leadership?
References
Anderson, B. (2006) Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. Rev. edn. London: Verso. (Colorado Mountain College)
Breuilly, J. (1993) Nationalism and the State. 2nd edn. Manchester: Manchester University Press. (Manchester University Press)
Encyclopaedia Britannica (n.d.) ‘Industrial Revolution’; ‘Nationalism’; ‘Political party’. (Accessed: 22 January 2026). (Encyclopedia Britannica)
Hobsbawm, E. (1990) Nations and Nationalism since 1780: Programme, Myth, Reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Cambridge University Press & Assessment)
Tilly, C. (1990) Coercion, Capital, and European States, AD 990–1990. Oxford: Blackwell. (pages.ucsd.edu)
The Holy Bible (NRSV or equivalent). Matthew 21:1–11; John 18:36; Zechariah 9:9.