Religion and Nationalism in Global Perspective offers an analysis of how countries adopt specific models of religion and nationalism, and why some countries adhere to more stable versions than others who adopt identical models. Drawing on a historically grounded theory and accompanying historical and empirical analyses, J. Christopher Soper and Joel S. Fetzer produce a timely theoretical contribution to the field of religion & politics. The authors begin with a paradox between the obvious connection that exists between religion and nationalism globally, and the presumption that a singular model of these variables’ relationship to one another is unattainable. The book questions whether this presumption is true, and further asks what explains state divergence in how closely national ideas are institutionally and ideologically linked to religious ones? The book further addresses why some countries’ models of religion-nationalism seem more stable than others.

The book's answer to these questions is three-fold. First, it claims that nations tend to develop dominant models of religion-nationalism. The authors posit three dominant models of civil religious nationalism, religious nationalism, and secular nationalism. Second, and crucially, the book argues that a state's formation period explains which religion-nationalism model a nation adopts and retains. The premise here is that whichever model of religion-nationalism a country adopts is the function of three historical factors: 1. the social and political power of religious and political elites at the point of state formation; 2. the constitutional status of religion in the new order; and 3. the country's demographic makeup at the point of state formation. While the authors admit each model can experience fluctuations, the centerpiece of this book's theory is the emphasis on the power of state formation dynamics to generate a status quo that makes modification challenging. The book's third argument is that these same state formation factors also affect the stability of the state's dominant religion-nationalism model. Stability is defined not as the absence of conflict or controversy, but rather as a reliable level of support for a country's status quo religion-nationalism model. Stable countries should not expect to see changes to their dominant model anytime soon, whereas unstable countries tend to provide more supportive contexts for any modifications that could potentially occur.

The book is organized around an overarching theoretical framework described in the first chapter with subsequent individual chapters examining six different cases of countries with differing religion-nationalism models, categorized as stable and unstable models of civil religious nationalism, religious nationalism, and secular nationalism. Each of these chapters begins with a historical analysis to illustrate each country's development of a particular type of religious nationalism, and then goes on to present empirical analyses of public opinion data and content analyses of either publications and/or elite rhetoric to test the more ideological claims put forth by their theory. Chapters 2 and 3 examine civil religious nationalism models, with the United States serving as the stable version and Israel serving as the unstable version. The book's United States case is particularly strong in tracing the historical process outlined by the book's theory. It describes its civil religious nationalism formation as the result of political elites who espoused spiritual rationales for independence while rejecting anticlerical views, a formal Constitution that did not establish formal ties to religion but supported religious values, and an outgrowth of religious sectarian conflict that prompted Protestant leaders to seek points of moral compromise to avoid disrupting the national order. In the chapter that follows, Israel's elites, laws, and demographics similarly drove the state to adopt a model of civil religious nationalism, although one that is unstable due to challenges that initially arose during state formation.

Similar comparisons are drawn for religious nationalism's development in Chapters 4 and 5, which describe Greece's model as stable due to its homogeneous religious demography and overall elite support for a religious nationalist state, and Malaysia's model as unstable due to its diverse religious demography and sustained elite conflicts over which model should dominate. Finally, the book compares secular nationalist models, with Uruguay serving as the stable model in Chapter 6 due to its early leaders’ intellectual history of secular thought and the historical lack of resources from the Catholic Church to push a religious nationalist agenda. Meanwhile, India is presented as an unstable model of secular nationalism in Chapter 7, largely due to religious elites who once agreed to a secular state, but who have become more than comfortable supporting a religious nationalistic agenda. In addition to historical overviews, each chapter is buttressed by empirical analyses that test the modern-day relationship of religion to nationalism, using public opinion data, periodicals, and elite rhetoric to demonstrate the relative stability of each country's model.

In generating a parsimonious model of religion's influence on narratives of nationhood, the book succeeds in answering the questions it poses. Some critics might say that the research sacrifices depth for parsimony, while other critics might argue the book fails to address a diverse audience within the nationalism literature and thus does little to bridge the gap between the political science sub-disciplines. The book's defense lies undoubtedly in its well-grounded theory and breadth of analyses to examine the important religion-nationalism intersection. Overall, the book takes great care to thoughtfully demonstrate that the relationship between religion and nationalism can indeed be explained on a global scale, providing an important contribution to the field of religion & politics.

This book is well written, offers a cogent argument, and makes use of multiple methodologies to lend credence to its claims. The book does not end the debate over what shape the religion-nationalism intersection takes in every country around the world. However, it provides profound new insights into how we might begin to understand the development of countries’ religion-nationalism nexus as well as its reproduction in both institutional and ideological settings—a praiseworthy achievement that many works have been unable to offer so succinctly while covering such a wide terrain.