Christian nationalism: the state of the debate

[HondurasKeiser]

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.

I would argue that your argument feels like wish-casting on one level and a severe misunderstanding of Two-Kingdom theology at another.

Anabaptists may lean towards more rather than less separation; they certainly don't desire a state church situation like ones they escaped in Europe. Nevertheless, I would posit that neither do they desire a strict separation which borders on the French model. For example, in the Yoder decision, it was the State of Wisconsin that took the hard separation position and the Court that lowered the wall if ever so slightly. Anabaptists neither desire forced participation in a state religion nor a forced relegation of their religion to a purely private affair.

Two-Kingdom theology does not have much to say about what the State ought to do with respect to religion and this or that aspect of religious expression in the public square. It has everything to do with how the Church and individual members ought to relate to the State.

[Josh]

I agree with you. I don't think that voting one's values means that someone is a Christian nationalist.

Would you accept that some Christians want to vote for Christian values, then, and that would include things like wishing to protect their children from being pressured to become homosexuals and transsexuals in school, or think the government should protect little babies from being murderers?

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.

The only people really talking about are liberals. They usually breathlessly talk about it and claim Christians want to change society to something like A Handmaid’s Tale. That is an absurd conspiracy theory.

It often comes up in discussion of abortion. Szd, when you hold the position that opposition to abortion at all is “Christian Nationalism”, you’ve just decided to make yourself sound as reasonable as some guy who thinks the moon landing was faked and vaccines cause autism.

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.

I did not say any of that. Stop putting words in my mouth.

#1. The Bible says atheists are fools.

#2. I believe the Bible is true. (Do you?)

#3. It is not good to have fools as kings, politicians, or voters.

[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.

I would argue that your argument feels like wish-casting on one level and a severe misunderstanding of Two-Kingdom theology at another.

Anabaptists may lean towards more rather than less separation; they certainly don't desire a state church situation like ones they escaped in Europe. Nevertheless, I would posit that neither do they desire a strict separation which borders on the French model. For example, in the Yoder decision, it was the State of Wisconsin that took the hard separation position and the Court that lowered the wall if ever so slightly. Anabaptists neither desire forced participation in a state religion nor a forced relegation of their religion to a purely private affair.

Two-Kingdom theology does not have much to say about what the State ought to do with respect to religion and this or that aspect of religious expression in the public square. It has everything to do with how the Church and individual members ought to relate to the State.

I guess it is a matter of perspective.

Some would argue that Yoder increased the separation of church and state by stating that the state had no right to intervene in the child-rearing and education of Amish children. Yoder restricted the ability of the state to infringe into the religious sphere.