Christian Nationalism

[Neto]

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.

As far as 'preferable forms of government under which to live' is concerned, what about a true monarchy? The 'more spiritual' of my people, the so-called "Russian Mennonites", were very hesitant to emigrate to the US, because they were a rebellious people, with a government based on rebellion against their king. (This was perhaps especially true of the Mennonite Brethren, the Mennonite conference of my up-bringing. It is also true, at least it is my opinion, that they also fawned way too much over the Czar. Regarding the US of A, it is also my opinion that the Secession of the Confederate States was the 'spiritual child' of the Revolution - it was 'in the American Blood' to rebel when things didn't go their way. The "apple not falling far from the tree', so to speak.)

[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.

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.

Maybe I have been grouping several flavors together. I don't naturally understand the viewpoint of Calvinists so that helps me understand why they have low interest in winning the battle of persuasion and jump straight to winning through dominance.

[barnhart]

As far as 'preferable forms of government under which to live' is concerned, what about a true monarchy? The 'more spiritual' of my people, the so-called "Russian Mennonites", were very hesitant to emigrate to the US, because they were a rebellious people, with a government based on rebellion against their king. (This was perhaps especially true of the Mennonite Brethren, the Mennonite conference of my up-bringing. It is also true, at least it is my opinion, that they also fawned way too much over the Czar. Regarding the US of A, it is also my opinion that the Secession of the Confederate States was the 'spiritual child' of the Revolution - it was 'in the American Blood' to rebel when things didn't go their way. The "apple not falling far from the tree', so to speak.)

This was also a question faced by American Mennonites, many of whom emigrated under a promise to live faithfully under the King. After the Rebellion/Revolution of 1776 some moved to Canada to honor that commitment. Others took a more progressive view of scripture and decided "the powers that be" were now the colonial governments.

[Szdfan]

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.

So what I’m getting from this is that you believe that Christian nationalism exists and you agree that its aims have troubling implications, but you’re also irritated that people are talking about it.

I suppose that’s a position someone can have. It might be easier for you, however, to stop reading Anabaptist World and skip the writers you find obnoxious instead of faulting them for writing about something they find urgent.

[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.

So what I’m getting from this is that you believe that Christian nationalism exists and you agree that its aims have troubling implications, but you’re also irritated that people are talking about it.

I suppose that’s a position someone can have. It might be easier for you, however, to stop reading Anabaptist World and skip the writers you find obnoxious instead of faulting them for writing about something they find urgent.

Probably as irritated as you are to hear described everything the Right dislikes as ‘woke’. I enjoy reading people I disagree with. I simply grow weary of bad writing and bad thinking.

[barnhart]

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.

I am continually surprised by strength of your distaste for David French. His conservative credentials could hardly be stronger right up to the point of not voting for President Trump or supporting MAGA. He has spent years arguing all the way to the supreme court for religious rights and free speech, spoke out as conservative at Harvard decades before Charlie Kirk, started the first prolife club at Harvard... I find him lucid, logical and persuasive. It's hard for me to imagine how he gets under your skin. I mostly listen to his podcasts and you mostly read him, maybe that's the difference.

[Szdfan]

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.

I am continually surprised by strength of your distaste for David French. His conservative credentials could hardly be stronger right up to the point of not voting for President Trump or supporting MAGA. He has spent years arguing all the way to the supreme court for religious rights and free speech, spoke out as conservative at Harvard decades before Charlie Kirk, started the first prolife club at Harvard... I find him lucid, logical and persuasive. It's hard for me to imagine how he gets under your skin. I mostly listen to his podcasts and you mostly read him, maybe that's the difference.

I agree with Barnhart. French is a conservative I appreciate even when I don’t agree with him. I think that if you care about the future of conservative Christian civic engagement, it’s entirely rational to push back at the ideological extremes of your own side in order to protect that space. I don’t think French’s writing is sloppy, I think he’s trying to prevent Christian nationalism from being normalized.

[JohnH]

I agree with Barnhart. French is a conservative I appreciate even when I don’t agree with him. I think that if you care about the future of conservative Christian civic engagement, it’s entirely rational to push back at the ideological extremes of your own side in order to protect that space. I don’t think French’s writing is sloppy, I think he’s trying to prevent Christian nationalism from being normalized.

Somehow, I think there are bigger things to worry about than some Reformed pastor with some unusual ideas at a church of a few hundred people in Idaho.

I also really question when certain people seem very animated about how terrible it would be for Christian nationalism (whatever that is - it seems to be defined primarily by its critics) to be “normalized”, but then turn around and tell us every other culture war issue is no big deal, we need to accept change, etc., etc.

[temporal1]

I agree with Barnhart. French is a conservative I appreciate even when I don’t agree with him. I think that if you care about the future of conservative Christian civic engagement, it’s entirely rational to push back at the ideological extremes of your own side in order to protect that space. I don’t think French’s writing is sloppy, I think he’s trying to prevent Christian nationalism from being normalized.

Somehow, I think there are bigger things to worry about than some Reformed pastor with some unusual ideas at a church of a few hundred people in Idaho.

I also really question when certain people seem very animated about how terrible it would be for Christian nationalism (whatever that is - it seems to be defined primarily by its critics) to be “normalized”, but then turn around and tell us every other culture war issue is no big deal, we need to accept change, etc., etc.

This is one of the worst problems of the internet. No distinction between what is most worthwhile versus least.
i’m not sure how this will work out as users (hopefully) become more sophisticated with use.

To date, it’s rough.

[Szdfan]

I agree with Barnhart. French is a conservative I appreciate even when I don’t agree with him. I think that if you care about the future of conservative Christian civic engagement, it’s entirely rational to push back at the ideological extremes of your own side in order to protect that space. I don’t think French’s writing is sloppy, I think he’s trying to prevent Christian nationalism from being normalized.

Somehow, I think there are bigger things to worry about than some Reformed pastor with some unusual ideas at a church of a few hundred people in Idaho.

I also really question when certain people seem very animated about how terrible it would be for Christian nationalism (whatever that is - it seems to be defined primarily by its critics) to be “normalized”, but then turn around and tell us every other culture war issue is no big deal, we need to accept change, etc., etc.

I wasn’t talking about myself. I was referring to David French and why he wants to protect the space of conservative Christian civic engagement from Christian nationalists. As you are aware, I’m not a conservative.

Christian nationalism isn’t just Doug Wilson or a small church in Idaho. Dominionist groups are growing in influence (through publishing, media, think tanks and politics) while many conservatives minimize it. That’s why French and others feel the need to push back.