The new fight against "Christian nationalism"

[PetrChelcicky]

I have treated Christian nationalism as an interesting intellectual challenge. (My solution is "federalism" - the Catholic concept of a society which on the one hand allows all kinds of people, Christians included, to separate into different associations who more or less rule themselves - but on the other hand strives for intergroup organizations to negotiate the problems which concern more than one single group.)

I now see that I was completely wrong. The matter we have to analyze is the "fight against Christian nationalism" - not only a momentaneous whim of the "Anabaptist Worlders", but an important movement. It's a well-organied attack which includes people of different religious denominations - progressives playing the newest variant of the traditional-Puritan crusade game: playing "God's army" against the conservative "army against God" in which God's army must win the war (of course only by "spiritual fighting") in order to make the world God's kingdom.
That means that we can't concentrate to judge Christian nationalism by his own merits and flaws. We have to look into the progressive mind: Which feelings are there and in which way do they shape a certain concept of the "Christian nationalist" enemy?

[barnhart]

Petr, I recommend to you the latest installment of the Anabaptist Perspectives podcast in which John Roth examines the historic uses of the phrase "The Earth is the Lord's" from Psalm 24, to illustrate three truth claims of historic Anabaptism. All three bear on your curiosity of relations between Anabaptism, Nationalism and Empire.
1. Political. Anabaptist have historically regarded the Lord Jesus as sovereign over world powers as well as heavenly citizenship and identity over earthly versions of these realities.
2. Economic. Since everything is rightfully owned by the Lord, all possessions are viewed as loans or temporary stewardships to be shared or distributed according to need.
3. Cosmological or Philosophical. Since the Lord Jesus has already conquered, it is not the calling of his followers to defeat evil, only to bear faithful witness to his victory over it.

Taken together these concepts leave little room for a struggle over nationalism, Empire or ethno-sovereignty.

[Josh]

#2 is particularly interesting - it would seem to conflict with what many Christians and Anabaptists do, which is try to accrue dynastic wealth and keep it in their own family.

[Dan Z]

You may be right Petr, that a look at the politically progressive mind might help one understand much about the opposition to Christian Nationalism within society...I just don't think you will find many insights into why non-conformed Anabaptists oppose Christian Nationalism there.

In fact, the Anabaptist rejection of Christian Nationalism (or any type of nationalism, patriotism, totalitarianism, monarchism, "empireism" for that matter) comes from a rather conservative, literalist approach to the New Testament and the teaching of Christ that has historically grounded Anabaptism's understanding of the incompatible nature of the two kingdoms, and vested it in the ultimate victory of the boundaryless Kingdom of God. We reject Christian Nationalism not because of the conservative "Christian" values it portends to restore (like the political left does), but because it is rooted in the idolatrous and violent nature of humanity's lust for power - wrapped (as it often has been throughout history) in religious garb.

[Falco Knotwise]

We reject Christian Nationalism not because of the conservative "Christian" values it portends to restore (like the political left does), but because it is rooted in the idolatrous and violent nature of humanity's lust for power - wrapped (as it often has been throughout history) in religious garb.

Unmasking every kind of kind of public religious institution in terms of power politics is something anabaptism does in fact share with Marxism and Liberalism — and I think that goes to Peters point.

Though there's many differences among them, yet there does seem to be a similar sort of Puritanical crusader spirit animating all three of them.

[PetrChelcicky]

I'm fine with Anabaptists being truly disinterested in power or sovereignty. Only: When some Anabaptists feel a resentment against other people's lust for power or sovereignty - or if they feel that they are chosen to fight against other people's power and sovereignty - isn't this an indicator that they are not as disinterested as they believe or try to make believe?
I insist that the story of Christian Nationalism does not start with the Evangelicals. It starts with Roosevelt's war. Roosevelt, like Stalin, needed a broad national coalition, including the Christian churches, and that's why he proclaimed the "four freedoms", including freedom of religion. The "four freedoms" are nowadays mostly identified with Norman Rockwell's pictures - but even if Rockwell gave them a definite conservative interpretation ("family values") that was just what Roosevelt needed.
Now all that had not much influence on Catholics who were well-grounded, rooted or based. But it had an enormous influence on Evangelicals who had been during the Red Decade a despised and marginalized minority and now had the first opportunity to find respect again. This spilled into the Fifties with Billy Graham as a renowned public commentator and preacher, and as with all such movements some Evangelicals overdid it and projected a theocracy. This then led to the completely hysterical reactions of secular writers in the 1990s who proclaimed a severe Evangeical danger for the U.S. (This seems to have been the same time when other books detected that Evangelicalism was a severe danger for the mental health of its adherents.)
In the Clinton and Obama years all went well for the Left, so the hysterics disappeared - only to start again in the Trump era. The interesting point here is that in the meantime a Christian and Evangelical Left had developed which has more or less internalized the reproaches by the 1990s seculars, so that it is now a case of Christian infighting.

[Praxis+Theodicy]

The idea that a few Evangelicals "took it too far" during the start of the movement into the direction of theocracy is really generous. Billy Graham was as much a political mover as he was a revivalist preacher. Political talking points were front and center in his preaching many times, especially as the Cold War tension increased. Further, he had a VERY close relationship with the Nixon administration, being a close confidant and serving as a consult in many matter, and organizing ongoing White House "church" services. The first third of the book "In God We Trust" details the history pretty well.

[Ernie]

The idea that a few Evangelicals "took it too far" during the start of the movement into the direction of theocracy is really generous. Billy Graham was as much a political mover as he was a revivalist preacher. Political talking points were front and center in his preaching many times, especially as the Cold War tension increased. Further, he had a VERY close relationship with the Nixon administration, being a close confidant and serving as a consult in many matter, and organizing ongoing White House "church" services. The first third of the book "In God We Trust" details the history pretty well.

While this is true, Billy Graham did regret "crossing a line" sometimes. For those of us who believe in two distinct kingdoms and that a follower of Jesus cannot have one foot in each, it seems to us that Billy Graham was more often across the line than not.

This is an interesting article.

[Praxis+Theodicy]

While this is true, Billy Graham did regret "crossing a line" sometimes. For those of us who believe in two distinct kingdoms and that a follower of Jesus cannot have one foot in each, it seems to us that Billy Graham was more often across the line than not.

This is a good point, thank you! My intent isn't to demonize or disparage Graham or anyone else in particular. But I did want to point out that the use of political power to influence wider society to adopt a certain kind of Christian culture was a part of the evangelical movement from the beginning. It's a softer, behind the scenes kind of Christian Nationalism, but it still is an attempt by Christian's to seize power over others for what they perceive as righteous motives.

[Falco Knotwise]

Addendum:

I would distinguish the communalism of Anabaptism from socialism.

Communalism — property owned and shared voluntarily by small communities.

Socialism — property is owned by the state/collective and is government controlled and directed.

I do not believe Communalism is antibiblical, in fact, I think it is closely modeled on many Catholic religious communities (Benedictine monks, for example, live in similar communal structures. There are several co-op businesses in Europe especially, with the backing of Catholic social teaching.)

However, Catholics have never insisted that only communal societies are a legitimate form of Christian living and radically de-Christianized the rest of society. They do not insist on a pure Church in which there is only wheat and no tares.

The Parable of the Weeds or Tares is a parable of Jesus which appears in Matthew 13:24–43. The parable relates how servants eager to pull up weeds were warned that in so doing they would root out the wheat as well and were told to let both grow together until the harvest.

I would suggest this is the one lesson puritanical sectarians of every stripe do not take to heart and we can see what radical secularism has done and continues to do to society.

Anabaptists contribute to the mess by insisting on their radical two kingdom principles, at least in so far as they continue to deligitimize every public religious institution by "unmasking" them all in terms of political power, privilege, and inherent racism & bigotry or whatever.

At this point in history I see no possibility of healing the rift.

Christianity will eventually only come to seem even more irrelevant to the problems of society than it already does with all the identity movements (pick an identity, any identity!) and digital transhumanism and the "posthumanism" to which that will likely lead.

After all, we're all cyborgs now.

(Seriously, how long can any of us stay away from our phones/tablets and off the internet?)