Christian Nationalism

[JohnH]

You may be interested in this from Scott Alexander

Are you saying we should e-mail you first if we want it?

[Neto]

Doug Wilson in an interview with Ross Douthat.

I'm quite curious how you feel about these definitions. This looks like a textbook example of what I am concerned is coming our way.

In so far as one is willing to take these sentences purely at face value, I say, I affirm all of the above.

The pivotal distinction is, what is a Christian nation/state? That is, what is a Christian Kingdom where Christ reigns? I'd warrant it is nothing like the USA, with the key distinction being, the lever of the Christian state and redemption is the way of the cross and not the way of the sword. The way of love and not the way of hate. The way of giving and not receiving.

Additionally it has nothing to do with a geopolitical area marked by artificial "borders."

Wilson's natinoalism, means, using "anti-Christ" levers to usher in a puritanical (literally) regime premised on bloodshed and violence as supposed levers of salvation. His ilk literally joke about bringing back the methodologies of the worst sorts of Protestant and Catholic abuses. That version of a nation-state (is not Christian for one) and has been tried and been horrible for all, including Christians.

To be a Christian nation, the said nation must actually act and look like Christ.

I hear you, but I think that what you understand as the meaning of "Christian" is quite different from what those who engage in "Christian Nationalism" mean by the same word. Their basic premise is contrary to the teaching of Christ, so it cannot really be "Christian", can it?

(A fellow worker once asked me if I was a 'Christian', 'born again', or a 'believe'. I asked her what those terms meant. She explained that
- a Christian is someone who grew up in the church and never left.
- A born again person is one who grew up in the church, left, then returned.
- A believer is someone who did not grow up in any church, but joined as an adult.
It is very important to know what people mean when they use certain terms. In Brazil, 'believer" is a term used by Protestants to slam Catholics as 'not real Christians". The term Christian means Catholic. After I became aware of this, I always ignored the 'Christian equals Catholic' idea, and told people I was a 'Christian'. This avoided the offense which always just shut down all conversation about Jesus. They eventually found out I was American, and so concluded that I 'just didn't know that I had given the wrong answer'. But in the mean time we had a genuine conversation, and I also had an opportunity to eventually say that I am neither Protestant nor Catholic. This in itself often opened up another avenue of interaction.)

[HondurasKeiser]

You may be interested in this from Scott Alexander

Are you saying we should e-mail you first if we want it?

Ooops sorry. https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/fascis ... dium=email

[HondurasKeiser]

Doug Wilson in an interview with Ross Douthat.

I'm quite curious how you feel about these definitions. This looks like a textbook example of what I am concerned is coming our way.

In so far as one is willing to take these sentences purely at face value, I say, I affirm all of the above.

The pivotal distinction is, what is a Christian nation/state? That is, what is a Christian Kingdom where Christ reigns? I'd warrant it is nothing like the USA, with the key distinction being, the lever of the Christian state and redemption is the way of the cross and not the way of the sword. The way of love and not the way of hate. The way of giving and not receiving.

Additionally it has nothing to do with a geopolitical area marked by artificial "borders."

Wilson's natinoalism, means, using "anti-Christ" levers to usher in a puritanical (literally) regime premised on bloodshed and violence as supposed levers of salvation. His ilk literally joke about bringing back the methodologies of the worst sorts of Protestant and Catholic abuses. That version of a nation-state (is not Christian for one) and has been tried and been horrible for all, including Christians.

To be a Christian nation, the said nation must actually act and look like Christ.

I have similar thoughts as JBG. I agree with his diagnosis of the failure of secularism. I disagree with the prescription of the re-instantiation of a Calvinist theocracy. This part of the interview did in fact stick out to me:

This is a horse-and-cart thing. Because there’s no way that we’re going to get a Christian republic and Congress affirming the Ten Commandments and confessing — if the Senate and House released a statement saying, “We believe Jesus rose from the dead,” and the president signed it — there’s no way we’re going to get to that end result without a massive reformation revival among the people already.

Basically, if I just tried to superimpose that Christian theocracy on the United States as it is now, then I’ve got a monster problem in Dearborn, Mich., with all the Muslims. I’ve got a monster problem there. And it would be a problem that I could not solve. Because you can’t jam these things down in a top-down way. It’s got to be church planting, evangelism, persuasion.

I think that's true - even if I don't care for the idea of a Senate resolution declaring Jesus as Lord.

[HondurasKeiser]

In so far as one is willing to take these sentences purely at face value, I say, I affirm all of the above.

The pivotal distinction is, what is a Christian nation/state? That is, what is a Christian Kingdom where Christ reigns? I'd warrant it is nothing like the USA, with the key distinction being, the lever of the Christian state and redemption is the way of the cross and not the way of the sword. The way of love and not the way of hate. The way of giving and not receiving.

Additionally it has nothing to do with a geopolitical area marked by artificial "borders."

Wilson's natinoalism, means, using "anti-Christ" levers to usher in a puritanical (literally) regime premised on bloodshed and violence as supposed levers of salvation. His ilk literally joke about bringing back the methodologies of the worst sorts of Protestant and Catholic abuses. That version of a nation-state (is not Christian for one) and has been tried and been horrible for all, including Christians.

To be a Christian nation, the said nation must actually act and look like Christ.

I've been thinking along similar lines. To the extent that Wilson's "transcendent ground" cannot be identified with the living God revealed in Jesus, it, too, is an idol.

By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have symbolic dominance over others.

So is it safe to say that Wilson and other Christian Nationalists are going way beyond HK’s appreciation of a civic acknowledgement that God exists?

I don't think they've gone anywhere yet but they would certainly love to take us somewhere close to Massachusetts Bay Colony which is a far cry from Lancaster/Franconia.

[temporal1]

^^i have to catch up on posts following P.1.

HK,
i appreciate everything you’re saying.

Altho i’m a worrier, maybe by trait, definitely by my worrying parents, who so feared any of us coming to harm (before vaccines and other modern medical miracles) Doubting Thomas/Didymus, may be my fav apostle, he’s so human and real, i love him so,
i simultaneously believe doubt is a poor witness. Humans wrestle with faith.

HK:
.. That is to say, as problematic as our system may be, a system that at the very least acknowledges the existence of God, bears fruit that is far superior to a system that pretends to an unattainable value-neutrality.

After much formal dedicated experimenting over decades, i believe “results are in”.

i can’t figure out why HK’s (blue) words aren’t sufficient.

in my understanding, this was the point (and genius/maybe inspiration) of U.S. founders, a government recognizing+respecting God, full stop. earthly government, not church. scriptures provide for earthly life, understanding the need for earthly order, knowing it will all fade in eternity.

an earthly gov nicely hedged against rule by atheists, secularists, and pagans.

[temporal1]

.. To be a Christian nation, the said nation must actually act and look like Christ.

I hear you, but I think that what you understand as the meaning of "Christian" is quite different from what those who engage in "Christian Nationalism" mean by the same word. Their basic premise is contrary to the teaching of Christ, so it cannot really be "Christian", can it?

(A fellow worker once asked me if I was a 'Christian', 'born again', or a 'believe'. I asked her what those terms meant. She explained that
- a Christian is someone who grew up in the church and never left.
- A born again person is one who grew up in the church, left, then returned.
- A believer is someone who did not grow up in any church, but joined as an adult.
It is very important to know what people mean when they use certain terms. In Brazil, 'believer" is a term used by Protestants to slam Catholics as 'not real Christians". The term Christian means Catholic. After I became aware of this, I always ignored the 'Christian equals Catholic' idea, and told people I was a 'Christian'. This avoided the offense which always just shut down all conversation about Jesus. They eventually found out I was American, and so concluded that I 'just didn't know that I had given the wrong answer'. But in the mean time we had a genuine conversation, and I also had an opportunity to eventually say that I am neither Protestant nor Catholic. This in itself often opened up another avenue of interaction.)

Being a God-fearing nation, or God-respecting nation, is different from saying, Christian, Catholic, Puritan, Quaker, or other nation. Maybe i’m not understanding, but, it seems (to me) the founders were wise to employ ample reference to God, without going further. God’s name is referenced frequently in U.S. government, Jesus’ name is not. i believe that’s for the best for earthly gov.

Those who choose to radically follow Jesus Christ are free to do so. Romans 14:2-4 https://biblehub.com/romans/14-3.htm

References to a Christian nation (to me) simply means the majority religion is Christian, meaning, the combination of Christian denoms, regardless of differences/divisions. For as long as that may be true. The combination of “no religion” and non-Christian religions threaten those statistics.

Maybe that will change. There now seems to be active interest in remaining Christian-dominant.

The internet is still new. It has the ability to skew perceptions. Results are largely unknown.

[Szdfan]

I've been thinking along similar lines. To the extent that Wilson's "transcendent ground" cannot be identified with the living God revealed in Jesus, it, too, is an idol.

By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have symbolic dominance over others.

So is it safe to say that Wilson and other Christian Nationalists are going way beyond HK’s appreciation of a civic acknowledgement that God exists?

I don't think they've gone anywhere yet but they would certainly love to take us somewhere close to Massachusetts Bay Colony which is a far cry from Lancaster/Franconia.

You mean the repressive Puritan theocracy Massachusetts Bay Colony, which banished and executed dissenters (including Quakers) and waged genocidal war against native tribes as part of a "holy war" to cleanse the land?

If that’s what you think Wilson and his followers would like to recreate, then we’re talking about something very real and historically recognizable. How does that square with your earlier claim that “Christian nationalism” isn’t a distinct or meaningful category?

[HondurasKeiser]

So is it safe to say that Wilson and other Christian Nationalists are going way beyond HK’s appreciation of a civic acknowledgement that God exists?

I don't think they've gone anywhere yet but they would certainly love to take us somewhere close to Massachusetts Bay Colony which is a far cry from Lancaster/Franconia.

You mean the repressive Puritan theocracy Massachusetts Bay Colony, which banished and executed dissenters (including Quakers) and waged genocidal war against native tribes as part of a "holy war" to cleanse the land?

If that’s what you think Wilson and his followers would like to recreate, then we’re talking about something very real and historically recognizable. How does that square with your earlier claim that “Christian nationalism” isn’t a distinct or meaningful category?

Yes, Wilson admits as much in the interview though he concedes the Puritans weren’t perfect.

I don’t recall saying it wasn’t a meaningful category.

I’d forgotten about the term White Nationalism. It seems like such a quaint debate. Lately the 5-alarm fire has been about Christian Nationalism. Some really edgey folks at Anabaptist World Review sometimes worry about White Christian Nationalism which is I guess is extra scary.

HK, is it your conviction that CN doesn't really exist, it's a strawman erected by radicals, or that it's a fringe movement with no real impact on Anabaptists.

Oh I think it exists. I think White Nationalism exists. Fascism and authoritarianism exist as well. Just like woke-ism, Marxism and DEI exist. It may take some effort and real intellectual honesty but they're terms that really do apply to ideas and groups of people really are animated by them. I just get so tired of reading people that unthinkingly lob those labels at everything they dislike or fret over, essentially as epithets. I also get tired of people of casually dismissing real instantiations of of those ideas e.g. "Marxism" or "Critical Theory" are just useful lenses. Charlie Kirk's memorial service was not Christian Nationalism. It made me uncomfortable, sure but as a Mennonite, I am deeply averse to both patriotic fervor and emotionalism in worship. My aversion to those things though does not ipso facto mean that they are instantiations of "Christian Nationalism". Allowing one's Christianity to inform their policymaking is not Christian Nationalism but attempting to dominate the public space with Christian symbology is.

[Szdfan]

I don't think they've gone anywhere yet but they would certainly love to take us somewhere close to Massachusetts Bay Colony which is a far cry from Lancaster/Franconia.

You mean the repressive Puritan theocracy Massachusetts Bay Colony, which banished and executed dissenters (including Quakers) and waged genocidal war against native tribes as part of a "holy war" to cleanse the land?

If that’s what you think Wilson and his followers would like to recreate, then we’re talking about something very real and historically recognizable. How does that square with your earlier claim that “Christian nationalism” isn’t a distinct or meaningful category?

Yes, Wilson admits as much in the interview though he concedes the Puritans weren’t perfect.

I don’t recall saying it wasn’t a meaningful category.

HK, is it your conviction that CN doesn't really exist, it's a strawman erected by radicals, or that it's a fringe movement with no real impact on Anabaptists.

Oh I think it exists. I think White Nationalism exists. Fascism and authoritarianism exist as well. Just like woke-ism, Marxism and DEI exist. It may take some effort and real intellectual honesty but they're terms that really do apply to ideas and groups of people really are animated by them. I just get so tired of reading people that unthinkingly lob those labels at everything they dislike or fret over, essentially as epithets. I also get tired of people of casually dismissing real instantiations of of those ideas e.g. "Marxism" or "Critical Theory" are just useful lenses. Charlie Kirk's memorial service was not Christian Nationalism. It made me uncomfortable, sure but as a Mennonite, I am deeply averse to both patriotic fervor and emotionalism in worship. My aversion to those things though does not ipso facto mean that they are instantiations of "Christian Nationalism". Allowing one's Christianity to inform their policymaking is not Christian Nationalism but attempting to dominate the public space with Christian symbology is.

I appreciate the clarification. I was also uncomfortable about Charlie Kirk’s funeral (though mostly from Steven Miller’s demagoguery). While I also don’t think the funeral itself was Christian nationalism, I am troubled by the hagiography that’s grown about him and I think it raises to be questions about how Christianity and Republican political identity are intertwined.

Where do you see David French or Anabaptist World’s criticism of Christian nationalism veer into blanket criticism of Christian civic participation?