Christian nationalism: the state of the debate

[ohio jones]

The American nation as reflected in the Constitution was founded as a secular nation with no state church. To the contrary. A state church is explicitly forbidden by the 1st Amendment.

State churches continued to exist after adoption of the First Amendment, which forbids a federal church.

In the US? Where?

The First Amendment was passed in 1791. Two colonies disestablished their state churches before the Revolutionary War, four never had one, and most of the rest disestablished between 1776 and 1791. The holdouts were Massachusetts (1811 or 1833, depending on definition), New Hampshire (1817?), and Connecticut (1818). The Fourteenth Amendment (1868) applied the First Amendment to the individual states, but no state churches remained.

[Szdfan]

State churches continued to exist after adoption of the First Amendment, which forbids a federal church.

In the US? Where?

The First Amendment was passed in 1791. Two colonies disestablished their state churches before the Revolutionary War, four never had one, and most of the rest disestablished between 1776 and 1791. The holdouts were Massachusetts (1811 or 1833, depending on definition), New Hampshire (1817?), and Connecticut (1818). The Fourteenth Amendment (1868) applied the First Amendment to the individual states, but no state churches remained.

Interesting.

[Szdfan]

I understand this as a viewpoint that argues that people of faith should be the ones running the country because atheists are icky. While that might not be directly Christian Nationalism, I think it’s an argument located somewhere in the neighborhood.

Atheists reject truth itself and God’s revealed and inspired word. This goes way beyond being “icky”. Atheism is the literal enemy of men’s souls and will lead many to eternal damnation.

As the Bible says, “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.”

But going back to Szd’s post, what polity, exactly, are you saying is “good”? Should we have people who are antichrist writing the laws? What exactly do you consider a “good” organisation and system of government?

We don’t live in a theocracy. What you’re arguing is a Christian Nationalist argument or at least adjacent to it.

[Bootstrap]

Back in the day, Christians had strong control of government. Catholics, Zwinglians, Lutherans, Calvinists. And they all persecuted and killed Mennonites.

That's why Mennonites have traditionally believed in a Two State Theology where Caesar's role is not the same as the role of the church. And calling him Caesar implies that he is not Christian. After all, Christians cannot bear the sword.

[Josh]

I understand this as a viewpoint that argues that people of faith should be the ones running the country because atheists are icky. While that might not be directly Christian Nationalism, I think it’s an argument located somewhere in the neighborhood.

Atheists reject truth itself and God’s revealed and inspired word. This goes way beyond being “icky”. Atheism is the literal enemy of men’s souls and will lead many to eternal damnation.

As the Bible says, “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.”

But going back to Szd’s post, what polity, exactly, are you saying is “good”? Should we have people who are antichrist writing the laws? What exactly do you consider a “good” organisation and system of government?

We don’t live in a theocracy. What you’re arguing is a Christian Nationalist argument or at least adjacent to it.

No, I’m not making a “Christian Nationalist” argument, although if you wish you may indulge your own fantasies that I am.

I will repeat myself: an atheist has rejected truth itself and is a fool. The Bible says so and agrees with me. It is very bad to have fools running a country.

[PetrChelcicky]

As for the problem of state churches:
As far as I know, part of the "colonies" had been founded as identitarian settlements for a particular religious minority - Massachusetts for Puritans, Maryland for Catholics, Rhode Island for Baptists, Pennsylvania for Quakers. Now I understand that they not all wanted to uphold that status. But I think that they should have upheld the general right to create identitarian (and insofar exclusive) settlements. Hasn't this at least been discussed by the Founders' generation?
We have now successful Jewish-orthodox settlements in NY State. And there has been an attempt to found a Catholic settlement, but I don't know what happened with that.

[Bootstrap]

As for the problem of state theology:
As far as I know, part of the "colonies" had been founded as identitarian settlements for a particular religious minority - Massachusetts for Puritans, Maryland for Catholics, Rhode Island for Baptists, Pennsylvania for Quakers. Now I understand that they not all wanted to uphold that status. But I think that they should have upheld the general right to create identitarian (and insofar exclusive) settlements. Hasn't this at least been discussed by the Founders' generation?

Endlessly.

Which is why we have freedom of religion. Which was really unusual back then.

[HondurasKeiser]

I understand this as a viewpoint that argues that people of faith should be the ones running the country because atheists are icky. While that might not be directly Christian Nationalism, I think it’s an argument located somewhere in the neighborhood.

Atheists reject truth itself and God’s revealed and inspired word. This goes way beyond being “icky”. Atheism is the literal enemy of men’s souls and will lead many to eternal damnation.

As the Bible says, “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.”

But going back to Szd’s post, what polity, exactly, are you saying is “good”? Should we have people who are antichrist writing the laws? What exactly do you consider a “good” organisation and system of government?

We don’t live in a theocracy. What you’re arguing is a Christian Nationalist argument or at least adjacent to it.

To be fair to Josh though - there is a lot of distance between the strict/high wall of separation that you and Ken seem to prefer and that of a theocracy. I'd posit that both "Christian Nationalism" and the early republic of the Founders come down somewhere between those two poles, albeit at different points.

Mennonite World Review recently ran an RNS piece that, I found mildly helpful in discerning what "Christian Nationalism" actually is:

Perry argues that Christian nationalism is not a synonym for evangelical Christians. And not everyone who “votes their values” — a term often used by politically active conservative Christians — qualifies as a Christian nationalist. Nor do people who want religion to play a part in public life, he said.

Perry and Whitehead have defined Christian nationalism this way: “a cultural framework that blurs distinctions between Christian identity and American identity, viewing the two as closely related and seeking to enhance and preserve their union.”

[Ken]

To be fair to Josh though - there is a lot of distance between the strict/high wall of separation that you and Ken seem to prefer and that of a theocracy. I'd posit that both "Christian Nationalism" and the early republic of the Founders come down somewhere between those two poles, albeit at different points.

I would argue that strict separation is what Anabaptists prefer. That is the entire premise of the Two Kingdom theology and much of traditional Anabaptist thought.

And as I suggested earlier, the entire point of the Christian Nationalist movement is not to implement a Medieval-style theocracy. But rather to push the country back in the other direction towards that pole.

[Szdfan]

To be fair to Josh though - there is a lot of distance between the strict/high wall of separation that you and Ken seem to prefer and that of a theocracy.

I agree with you. I don't think that voting one's values means that someone is a Christian nationalist. I also think that for Josh to insist that Christian Nationalism is a liberal paranoid fantasy while simultaneously arguing that atheists should be banned from politics is some pretty epic gaslighting.

I think that Josh's argument goes beyond voting one's values to disenfranchising a particular group of people (atheists) because of their religious beliefs (or non-belief) and identity. That may not make Josh a Christian Nationalist, but it's certainly an argument adjacent to it.

Mennonite World Review recently ran an RNS piece that, I found mildly helpful in discerning what "Christian Nationalism" actually is:

Perry argues that Christian nationalism is not a synonym for evangelical Christians. And not everyone who “votes their values” — a term often used by politically active conservative Christians — qualifies as a Christian nationalist. Nor do people who want religion to play a part in public life, he said.

Perry and Whitehead have defined Christian nationalism this way: “a cultural framework that blurs distinctions between Christian identity and American identity, viewing the two as closely related and seeking to enhance and preserve their union.”

I think this is a good definition.