The new fight against "Christian nationalism"

[Josh]

Ask them if they support seeing their young people drafted into the military so that Christianity and the State can work together hand-in-hand to advance national political objectives.

That isn't the topic at hand. The topic is the neologism "Christian nationalism" and using it as a term to foment political division by identifying an "other" that is OK to be against or even to hate. That is precisely the kind of thing I personally try to avoid.

There is no clear, concise definition of what "Christian nationalism" even is. The most common definition is a strawman one: someone basically describes "people I don't like", and then says "That is Christian nationalism". That kind of thing isn't helpful. It would be better to just describe it as "People that so-and-so don't like" or "Belief systems that so-and-so doesn't like". And in some cases, strawmen don't actually exist in the real world, or are very isolated, fringe, and small. I have yet to run into any of this so-called "Christian nationalism" in real life anywhere, and I know a diverse group of people with a very wide range of beliefs.

It's somewhat similar to listening to right-wing sort of people who are fearful of things on the left wing talk about conspiracies to "take our children away" and "make us all go live in camps" or something.

[justme]

There is no clear, concise definition of what "Christian nationalism" even is.

then how can it be said w such certainty that anabaptists are against christian nationalism?

For what it’s worth virtually 0.00% of conservative/plain Anabaptists are “against Christian nationalism” or even care about it at all.

[Josh]

There is no clear, concise definition of what "Christian nationalism" even is.

then how can it be said w such certainty that anabaptists are against christian nationalism?

For what it’s worth virtually 0.00% of conservative/plain Anabaptists are “against Christian nationalism” or even care about it at all.

How can you be against something if you’ve never heard of it before?

[Valerie]

There is no clear, concise definition of what "Christian nationalism" even is.

then how can it be said w such certainty that anabaptists are against christian nationalism?

For what it’s worth virtually 0.00% of conservative/plain Anabaptists are “against Christian nationalism” or even care about it at all.

How can you be against something if you’ve never heard of it before?

Other than this forum, I haven't heard of it anywhere else either.

[PetrChelcicky]

You didn't need to remind me that Anabaptists don't appeal to "Caesar" and they don't pass laws against sinners, I've read it before. For example here:
https://anabaptistworld.org/its-a-myth/
The author, Steve Griffin is lead pastor of Bellwood Mennonite Church, Milford, Neb. He relies to Greg Boyd "The myth of a Christian Nation" 2006, who asks:
"Did Jesus say we should try to acquire the power of Caesar?
Did Jesus work to pass laws against the sinners he hung out with?"

I am of the generation who got a computer only in midlife. So it took me ten minutes to find the following example:
https://www.mennoniteusa.org/menno-snap ... -violence/
"On Sunday, May 21, 2023, more than 260 people – including members of at least six local Mennonite Church USA (MC USA) congregations – gathered for a Gun Violence Awareness Day witness walk in Lansdale, Pennsylvania. Participants were walking ... to support stronger and more effective gun laws and regulations.... in support of four pending bills. As of today, two of the four bills passed in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives.
The event “gave people a sense of empowerment,” said Dave Greiser, lead pastor of Salford Mennonite Church in Harleysville."

To be fair, they did not acquire power, but only a sense of empowerment. And Caesar was not involved, but only the Pennsylvanian parliament. Also the laws were not directed against sinful gun owners, but only against the guns themselves. Personally, I suppose that "stronger laws" are laws with stronger penalties for the owners ...

[PetrChelcicky]

Obviously there are fine lines between what is deemed acceptable and what isn't. For example Karl Barth decreed that it was quite acceptable to support the Communists as long as the word "Christian" was not used.The Christian may privately be informed by his Christian ethics, but in a secular surrounding he has to pose as a secular person.
This idea has become very widespread, nearly self-evident. On the other hand I think that a simple-minded Evangelical will not understand it or find it insincere.

[barnhart]

PetrC, do you understand historically Anabaptists did not have the luxury of reducing "christian" nationalism as a ploy of partisan politics because real life "christian" nationalism was attempting to exterminate them. This is why you and I live on continents separated by an ocean, my ancestors (spiritual and genetic) had to flee the amalgamation of "church" authority and state authority.

I understand many (most?) American Anabaptists do not hold such things in their working memory and have lost any ethical structure that could inform them how to apply this history to their lives, but there are still some who cling stubbornly to memory. Our perspective on state, church and ethno culture may differ from yours, but there is real life experience behind it.

[Josh]

PetrC, do you understand historically Anabaptists did not have the luxury of reducing "christian" nationalism as a ploy of partisan politics because real life "christian" nationalism was attempting to exterminate them. This is why you and I live on continents separated by an ocean, my ancestors (spiritual and genetic) had to flee the amalgamation of "church" authority and state authority.

I understand many (most?) American Anabaptists do not hold such things in their working memory and have lost any ethical structure that could inform them how to apply this history to their lives, but there are still some who cling stubbornly to memory. Our perspective on state, church and ethno culture may differ from yours, but there is real life experience behind it.

PetrC’s criticism of non-plain Anabaptists who merrily promote legislation that punishes people they don’t like (like gun owners) whilst simultaneously bemoaning legislation passed by people they don’t like is a very valid criticism. Of course, his complaints aren’t directed at plain people, but they are certainly valid complaints for everyone else here is Anabaptist and not plain and participates in the political process.

More interestingly, barnhart, in your post above is an almost unconscious expression of American idealism. Do you really think America is the city set on a hill, a bastion of freedom, a haven for religious pluralism of all kinds?

[MaxPC]

For whatever it is worth, my perspective is that Christian nationalism will always be an issue among voters and citizens. Various churches through the centuries (indeed, I include my own) have promoted agendas and candidates under the category of 'saving the nation'. I personally think a much better category would be Save the Biblical Family.

[justme]

There is no clear, concise definition of what "Christian nationalism" even is.

then how can it be said w such certainty that anabaptists are against christian nationalism?

For what it’s worth virtually 0.00% of conservative/plain Anabaptists are “against Christian nationalism” or even care about it at all.

How can you be against something if you’ve never heard of it before?

i'm so confused. and it's not your fault. (well, it is for using the % that turns your statement around and makes it mean the opposite of what it seems too. but that's a comprehension prob on my end)

i apparently can't read. or write. i think i missed the word not when i was writing my question. then how can it be said w such certainty that anabaptists are not against christian nationalism?

let me try again, if christian nationalism does not have a clear concise definition, then how can a person say they are for or against it? and how can there be a statement of 0.00% w such certainty?

(i think your statement would make more sense to me if it said 0.00% of anabaptists even care about it at all. and left out the 0.00% are against it. by default, the opposite would be 100% are for christian nationalism. it feels to me like you're trying to put 2 separate thots into the same sentence. i'm having a hard time w computing.)

i do apologize for not making a whole lot of sense