Christian nationalism: the state of the debate

[PetrChelcicky]

Some new developments on both sides:
In Pennsylvania 77 clerics have published a condemnation of "Christian nationalism", meant as a weapon against Mastrioni. Among them are four Mennonite clerics. Read for that:
https://anabaptistworld.org/christian-n ... ued-in-pa/

On the other side there are two new publications:
Andrew Torba/Andrew Isker: Christian nationalism (described as a digestible introduction and defense of the movement)
Stephan Wolfe: The Case for Christian Nationalism, a 430-pages-book by an author with a more academic mindset. A rather long review by Isker:
https://news.gab.com/2022/11/why-you-mu ... tionalism/
Wolfe defines Christian nationalism as "a nation pursuing its own earthly and heavenly good"

Some personal thoughts about the matter.

1. We should not forget that Christian nationalism stems from Roosevelt's wartime coalition: Roosevelt had to frame the United States as the international defender of (Judaeo-)Christian values. This was extremely popular at its time and was the reason why Evangelicals, in particular Billy Graham, could get a position as national speakers after the war.
2. As for history, it's not a question of yes or no, but a question of how much: Real historians should be able to agree about the facts. The founding fathers were under Jewish and Christian influence, there's a lot of studies about the "political Hebraism" of the Puritan colonies. From this we can deduce that Jews and Christians have an advantage in understanding the American Constitution (it does not follow that Christians must have special privileges granted by the state - but is there indeed anyone who asks for this?)
3. Modern "kingdom" theology is a hopeless mess between two different intentions: the Puritan mind who claims that God must be the Lord over this world, and the regressive mind who claims that his kingdom is NOT "of" this world. These slogans don't become better by endless repeating them. The result is simply that everyone uses them according to his own political goals: the first slogan for to back up his own party, the second one to stigmatize the opposite party.

[temporal1]

These slogans don't become better by endless repeating them.

Not better, not truer, either.

The result is simply that everyone uses them according to his own political goals:
the first slogan for to back up his own party, the second one to stigmatize the opposite party.

Ignore and move on.

James 4:15
https://biblehub.com/james/4-15.htm

14You do not even know what will happen tomorrow! What is your life?
You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes.

15Instead, you ought to say, “If the Lord is willing, we will live and do this or that.”

16As it is, you boast in your proud intentions. All such boasting is evil.…

[PetrChelcicky]

I have no definite answer to the rather complex questions with that subject.
But I suppose we need a test about honesty.
My test is the blame game. A Buddhist would agree with the modern idea that "identities" are a social construct. National identities are today not so much kept up by "national pride" on "national efforts", but much more by blame for a "national sin" or "national guilt". There's were Christian churches come in.
Those churches like to use the "we"-form. "We (as a nation) are guilty of ..." But you cannot say "we as a nation" honestly, if you pretend that a Christian has nothing to do with his/her nation.
From that point of view, a lot of Christian anti-nationalism is dishonest.

[justme]

But you cannot say "we as a nation" honestly, if you pretend that a Christian has nothing to do with his/her nation.

that's a statement worth thinking about.

[barnhart]

Petr, what do you consider "Christian anti-nationalism."

[MaxPC]

Petr, this is an excellent and thoughtful perspective on a very complex topic. I agree that there are no easy stances and that constantly repeating the diatribes held dear by each side does nothing to improve relationships nor even bring progress to solutions. I have seen similar behaviors between religious group representatives. On occasion breakthroughs occur when one side or both admits that they may not have all the answers.

[PetrChelcicky]

Petr, what do you consider "Christian anti-nationalism."

At that moment I simply meant a fierce opposition against Christian nationalism.

I admit that from the standpoint of a taxonomist there are more distinctions necessary. For instance, between the positions pro- and anti- there would be a possible position of neutrality.

A caveat: I have mostly considered things the other way round ("How does a nation behave against its Christians?"), and from that point of view I insist on a distinction between a positive or amiable neutrality (the traditional position in the U.S. and West Germany: we appreciate Christianity and all other religions likewise) and an unfriendly neutrality (the traditional position in France: we abhor Christianity and all other religions likewise). And I think we can transfer this distinction to the Christianity-nationalism-problem. There could be a friendly neutrality (we Christians appreciate all nationalisms likewise) or an unfriendly neutrality (we abhor all nationalisms likewise).

Of course, opinions will be more open and clear if people don't only tell us what they don't like but also tell us what they would prefer. So I state that I myself prefer a position of friendly neutrality (which explains why here I am defending a nationalism which is not my own nationalism).

[barnhart]

...
I admit that from the standpoint of a taxonomist there are more distinctions necessary. For instance, between the positions pro- and anti- there would be a possible position of neutrality...

... I myself prefer a position of friendly neutrality (which explains why here I am defending a nationalism which is not my own nationalism).

I prefer that as well, but I don't see defending Christian Nationalism as the path to that destination.

[HondurasKeiser]

...
I admit that from the standpoint of a taxonomist there are more distinctions necessary. For instance, between the positions pro- and anti- there would be a possible position of neutrality...

... I myself prefer a position of friendly neutrality (which explains why here I am defending a nationalism which is not my own nationalism).

I prefer that as well, but I don't see defending Christian Nationalism as the path to that destination.

Isn't that the conceit of the modern liberal project though, that there is not and indeed cannot be something like neutrality, even positive or friendly neutrality, with respect to Truth? I don't ask this in a defense of Christian Nationalism or integralism or dominionism, only as someone skeptical that the thing we prefer (because I too prefer it), namely a space that is neither hostile to nor aggressively promotional of our faith, can be actualized.

[Bootstrap]

I prefer that as well, but I don't see defending Christian Nationalism as the path to that destination.

I agree.

For Christians, the Kingdom of God is key. It doesn't depend on any nation or any political wing or party. It is not loyal to any nation or any political wing or party Christian nationalism is like raccoon sushi. It's a very strange combination of words. Whatever it means, it can't be good.