Christian Nationalism

[barnhart]

I am not as worried about the "drive out those who don't belong because it's God's will" element of puritanical Christian Nationalism, although it is a real and present danger, as the "Jesus has ordained that we are the rightful heirs of power and control" element. If Satan himself were designing a movement/philosophy to discredit or misrepresent Jesus in the minds of the world for the next 500 years, I'm not sure he could do more than what Mr. Wilson and Sec. Hegseth have in mind. Truth mixed with motives of power and control seem like the worst possible foundation to build on.

[joshuabgood]

I am not as worried about the "drive out those who don't belong because it's God's will" element of puritanical Christian Nationalism, although it is a real and present danger, as the "Jesus has ordained that we are the rightful heirs of power and control" element. If Satan himself were designing a movement/philosophy to discredit or misrepresent Jesus in the minds of the world for the next 500 years, I'm not sure he could do more than what Mr. Wilson and Sec. Hegseth have in mind. Truth mixed with motives of power and control seem like the worst possible foundation to build on.

Yeah. It is pretty much acquiescing to the final temptation of Christ. Come rule the worldly kingdom without the way of the cross.

[barnhart]

It's easier to pick apart someone else's definition than to state your own to be sure. I look to the ways nations have always built their authority and legitimacy on their gods and find those roots mixed into the American experiment from the beginning. There were secular influences like Jefferson and Franklin but they were eager to utilize the "Christian God" and the motivational power that provided over a religious public. The nation has always been pitched as the expression of God's will from Winthrop's city on a hill to Reagan's light on a hill.

To be free from this type of authority claim I think there needs to be a literal air gap of authority like the French revolution where the King and agents of the church are killed, thrown out or exiled and new gods like Reason are installed. Without this, the old authority claims of using Jesus to justify rule will continually bubble up. It easier to see in a parallel socio- religious structure like Islam. A national like Turkey or Iran may embrace secularity for a generation but the old God will resurface in times of internal stress. In the case of the US I consider this Christian Nationalism, using Christian themes or values to justify rule and suppression of alternative authority.

A good Mennonite analysis of the situation though I'm not sure that gets us any closer to defining the essence of 'Christian Nationalism'. A conclusion one could draw from that analysis though, might be something like: "Unless the State kills the power of the Church, people will invariably become Christian Nationalists". Nevertheless, having spent some goodly time in France; I think I prefer the American experiment to the French one when it comes to our 'Separation of Church & State' vs. their 'Laïcité'. I think it's telling too that long before we were tempted by the American siren to power, wealth and influence, we as a people preferred to settle in America as opposed to France. 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.

I've been thinking about this. I would suggest the American experiment built in the air gap between church and state from the beginning, that is why the outcome is preferable. It seems as if you defending are those who think that was a mistake that needs to be corrected. I think it was blessing still bearing good fruit.

[Neto]

....
I was ... uncomfortable about Charlie Kirk’s funeral .... 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 ... questions about how Christianity and Republican political identity are intertwined.
....

Perhaps this is not your meaning, but your comment clarified something in my own thinking. I would say that the current government's actions and ideology may not be 'Religious Nationalism', but what I see in the Right-leaning public sentiment, the swell of enthusiasm of individual citizens of the politically active Americans, THAT appears to me to meet the definition of Religious Nationalism.

[NOTE: I am avoiding the use of the word 'Christian' here in recognition of the valid push-back expressed by JoshuaBGood. That is, the religious expression I see is not what can be considered valid 'Christianity', at least certainly not from our perspective as 'anabaptists'. Perhaps a term like Judeo-Christian Morality more accurately describes that 'political ethos' I am seeing. It is, in a sense, devoid of the central 'doctrines' of Christianity, something being used to bind people together in a less than pure expression of Christianity as true religion (see the book of James).]

[HondurasKeiser]

It's easier to pick apart someone else's definition than to state your own to be sure. I look to the ways nations have always built their authority and legitimacy on their gods and find those roots mixed into the American experiment from the beginning. There were secular influences like Jefferson and Franklin but they were eager to utilize the "Christian God" and the motivational power that provided over a religious public. The nation has always been pitched as the expression of God's will from Winthrop's city on a hill to Reagan's light on a hill.

To be free from this type of authority claim I think there needs to be a literal air gap of authority like the French revolution where the King and agents of the church are killed, thrown out or exiled and new gods like Reason are installed. Without this, the old authority claims of using Jesus to justify rule will continually bubble up. It easier to see in a parallel socio- religious structure like Islam. A national like Turkey or Iran may embrace secularity for a generation but the old God will resurface in times of internal stress. In the case of the US I consider this Christian Nationalism, using Christian themes or values to justify rule and suppression of alternative authority.

A good Mennonite analysis of the situation though I'm not sure that gets us any closer to defining the essence of 'Christian Nationalism'. A conclusion one could draw from that analysis though, might be something like: "Unless the State kills the power of the Church, people will invariably become Christian Nationalists". Nevertheless, having spent some goodly time in France; I think I prefer the American experiment to the French one when it comes to our 'Separation of Church & State' vs. their 'Laïcité'. I think it's telling too that long before we were tempted by the American siren to power, wealth and influence, we as a people preferred to settle in America as opposed to France. 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.

I've been thinking about this. I would suggest the American experiment built in the air gap between church and state from the beginning, that is why the outcome is preferable. It seems as if you defending are those who think that was a mistake that needs to be corrected. I think it was blessing still bearing good fruit.

I think I said that the American experiment, while imperfect, is certainly preferable to the French version of official secularism. That said, I think I’ve been pretty explicit for quite a few years now, that the American Experiment and Liberalism more broadly are failing. In that I think the Wilson, dominionist crowd and the Catholic post liberals à la Deneen and Reno are correct in their diagnosis. As a Mennonite I feel neither a pollyannish impulse to defend the American system/Liberalism nor do I feel the Dominionist responsibility to usher in a successor system.

[barnhart]

I think I said that the American experiment, while imperfect, is certainly preferable to the French version of official secularism. That said, I think I’ve been pretty explicit for quite a few years now, that the American Experiment and Liberalism more broadly are failing. In that I think the Wilson, dominionist crowd and the Catholic post liberals à la Deneen and Reno are correct in their diagnosis. As a Mennonite I feel neither a pollyannish impulse to defend the American system/Liberalism nor do I feel the Dominionist responsibility to usher in a successor system.

I understand the ambivalence but I still see a lot of good in the American experiment and if the cost of religious freedom is a head to head struggle with secularity or neopaganism, I'll take it. The viewpoint do not resonate with is the post- liberal conservative who wants to blow it up and return to Puritanism.

[HondurasKeiser]

I think I said that the American experiment, while imperfect, is certainly preferable to the French version of official secularism. That said, I think I’ve been pretty explicit for quite a few years now, that the American Experiment and Liberalism more broadly are failing. In that I think the Wilson, dominionist crowd and the Catholic post liberals à la Deneen and Reno are correct in their diagnosis. As a Mennonite I feel neither a pollyannish impulse to defend the American system/Liberalism nor do I feel the Dominionist responsibility to usher in a successor system.

I understand the ambivalence but I still see a lot of good in the American experiment and if the cost of religious freedom is a head to head struggle with secularity or neopaganism, I'll take it. The viewpoint do not resonate with is the post- liberal conservative who wants to blow it up and return to Puritanism.

Well yes, Puritanism would be pretty awful for people like us which is why I said:

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.

[barnhart]

To my eye the Dominionist dreamers are admitting a lack of faith in the capacity of Jesus and his church to meet this challenges of the real world. They truly believe Jesus will loose without them seizing control.

[HondurasKeiser]

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

I don’t think that’s happening nor do I think I’ve implied that it’s happened. What I’ve suggested is that AW (thanks OJ) and David French have made Christian Nationalism their newest favorite hobby horse. Mr. French, could find Christian Nationalism in the instruction manual of a toaster oven. It gets tiresome and absurd.

[HondurasKeiser]

To my eye the Dominionist dreamers are admitting a lack of faith in the capacity of Jesus and his church to meet this challenges of the real world. They truly believe Jesus will loose without them seizing control.

No I don’t think that’s right. Inasmuch as they’re Calvinists, they think everything that happens, good or bad, is ordained by God. They just think their mission is to usher in a truly Christian government.