“God has spoken. We have His word. We cannot twist it to serve our own purposes regardless of our political persuasion.”
“We must not conflate biblical Christianity and political conservativism. They are not the same thing. However, we also cannot deny biblical Christianity because of some overlap that it might have with many biblical morals that political conservatism also espouses.” - P&D
- 421 views
A lot to agree with in Kevin’s post.
I can’t stomach the title though: “Be Careful When Defending or Opposing Christian Nationalism”
There is not much to be careful about when opposing CN. If we can be “anti-woke,” as sloppy as the term “woke” is, we can certainly be anti-“Christian nationalism”… which is nowhere near as vague. Same goes for the recklessly bandied about terms “CRT” and “gender ideology.”
Bible believing Christians should be unequivocal in rejecting all forms of “Christian Nationalism.” At best it’s political pandering by candidates trying to gain votes by making evangelical religious noises. At worst, it’s a flavor of idolatry. In between, you have various flavors of post-millennial dominionism with its profound misunderstanding of the role of the church in the world.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
There are many definitions of Christian Nationalism. The article points out that Massingale defines it as such:
- Advocating Christian symbols on public property.
- Calling on voters to Make America Great Again.
- Advocating any connection between being a patriotic American and being a good Christian.
- Using biblical language to oppose LGBTQ+ bills and legislation.
- Opposing legislation in favor of gender-conforming treatment for trans young people.
Aaron, when you oppose Christian nationalism do you mean that you are opposing all the things on the above list. Most recently when I hear Christians opposing Christian nationalism I think of opposition to dominion theology and I join their opposition, but in context of commentary on this article I just wanted clear clarification on where you were coming from.
For me, I would not promote #1 because I do not think that the state should endorse any religion. I think they should not display the pride flag or rainbow for the same reason. As far as #2, for years that was the basic political goal of most candidates. I would hate to think that only one candidate should have that goal and be able to co-opt that slogan only for himself. As far as #3- as long as we are promoting Roman 13, then I see nothing wrong with that either, but it must also be balanced with Acts 5:29. #4 & 5 involve a long discussion on whether or not we should allow morality and justice from God to influence legislation. I believe we should.
The point that I am making is that definitions like Massingale's have made it much more difficult to have agreement amongst Christians about the subject of Christian Nationalism. If everyone were simply using the positions of 7 Mountains, Dominion Theology, or Theonomy, to describe Christian Nationalism, then it would be much easier for us to reach a consensus.
My wife is a part of a fairly conservative book forum and they have ended up banning the term "woke" because it was so vague that it did not give readers a clear picture about the commentator's concerns about the book they were reviewing. By banning the term, they were forcing them to actually talk about the real issues instead of just throwing out a charged word. I am not suggesting we ban words here, I am simply pointing out how a lack of clarity can be quite unhelpful at times.
We sometimes all we need is to add one or two words to our statements to give clarity so that people know where we are coming from. Other times a longer discussion is necessary.
Before I answer that, I’ll rephrase my argument as a question.
When you oppose “the left” and “woke” and “CRT,” and “gender ideology,” do you reject all the things everyone includes in those terms?
There is not enough in any version of “Christian nationalism” to redeem the term in our present social/political climate. Having one or two good ingredients does not unpoison the soup.
But hey, I can compromise. If conservatives want to nuance “Christian nationalism,” go right ahead—but also nuance “woke,” “CRT” etc. etc.
That’s a deal I would happily make in our mostly nuance-free political discourse.
But I have yet to meet anyone who thinks “Christian nationalism” is useful who also thinks we can carve out the good parts of CRT, “woke,” or “gender ideology.”
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
When you oppose “the left” and “woke” and “CRT,” and “gender ideology,” do you reject all the things everyone includes in those terms?
But I have yet to meet anyone who thinks “Christian nationalism” is useful who also thinks we can carve out the good parts of CRT, “woke,” or “gender ideology.”
Well, we have not met in person, so that might be true.
When we speak of CRT, we also need be more specific. There is the legal theory that is the technical definition and then there is how it is typically used at school board meetings to express opposition to racism. We all need to recognize that there are people on both sides of the CRT debate that are opposed to racism and there are people on both sides that are racist. CRT has brought some very important racial discussions out that were too often swept under the rug.
The first definition I ever heard of woke was to be socially aware. I think we should all be aware of what is going on socially- we should especially be aware of positions that differ from what we have traditionally held. So based on the first definition I ever heard of woke, we should be aware. When the term first started to be used, I commented that we should be socially aware without being condescending.
As far as "gender ideology" the whole discussion has reminded us that as Christians we need to be compassionate toward people that are confused about their gender. I consider that a very important benefit from the whole discussion.
No doubt there are people on the right who need to have more compassion toward those on the left and I have said so many times in my personal conversations, but I have also told those who are extremely critical of the right that they too need to extend a bit of grace as well. We all need to listen to each other and give each other the benefit of the doubt and we need to speak clearly and not get upset when we intentionally use confusing terms because we are upset that others have not yet been socially aware enough to adapt the new vocabulary.
I don't know what people mean when they say Christian Nationalism. I don't even know what Nationalism is. I remember an episode of Madam Secretary where they had several former and real US Secretaries of State respond to what they thought was the thing they were most worried about (or something like that) and they all replied -- Nationalism. It was clearly a moralizing scene against this phenomenon, whatever it is. My thought was that is was another word for patriotism and didn't understand why any Secretary of State would be against that.
So what is Christian Nationalism? To me it is a desire to be patriotic and to promote godliness and righteousness within our land. Righteousness exalts a nation but sin is a reproach to any people.
So, I am all for people being more specific when they are condemning things.
Sure. Let’s the same with “Critical Race Theory,” “wokeism,” “gender ideology” and all the other buzzwords.
Meanwhile, there is plenty of good analysis of what nationalism is and what Christian Nationalism is.
A few to start with:
- https://sharperiron.org/filing/43182
- https://sharperiron.org/filing/42973
- https://sharperiron.org/filing/42931
- https://sharperiron.org/filings/122122/42308
- https://sharperiron.org/filings/112922/42212
- https://sharperiron.org/filings/121222/42270
Super simple buzzword level definition: Christian nationalism is the idea that we need to make America great again by making it Christian again through political power. (Note that several terms there are freighted: “Christian” and “again” especially, but not overlooking “political power.”) (There is a far less popular version of CN that is more like: “we need to make the America that never was great or Christian great by making it Christian through political power.” It ends the same way… Christianity = ‘conservative’ politics = Christianity.)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Sure. Let’s the same with “Critical Race Theory,” “wokeism,” “gender ideology” and all the other buzzwords.
Absolutely
I would just add that Christian nationalism confuses / mixes gospel transformation with political power. Christian nationalism believes moral and spiritual revival can be effected by the ballot box. The answer to our current moral dilemma is voting conservative republicans into office who will roll back and oppose the progressive agenda.
Point of clarification quick, as Jerry is not entirely familiar with the ins and outs of my book group- The book group that I am part of is not politically aligned one way or another. Many in it are fairly conservative in viewpoint, but there is a pretty decent number of liberals as well. Same thing religiously-Some in it are Christian, some of other faiths entirely, or even of no faith.
People are asked to be very specific as to what they are looking for, or avoiding in the books they are asking for recommendations. We prize civil discourse, and scrolling by if a post isn't for you. Drama is to be avoided. Thankfully, this is almost always the case, and admin quickly step in and take care of issues that arise.
If someone uses the term "woke" they will be asked to remove it, and replace it with very clear language as to what exactly they mean by using it, as it means different things to different people.
Likewise, the term "inexpensive" has been "banned". Everyone's budget is different, so asking for help finding an "inexpensive" copy of such and such a book will be quickly addressed if admin sees it and the person will be instructed to replace the word "inexpensive" with an acceptable (to them) price range. LOL
It seems that there are people on both sides of the political spectrum that want to divide us- divide as a nation and divide the body of Christ. If being more precise in our language can prevent some of that divide, why would anyone be opposed to that?
Well, confusion over the term “Christian nationalism” is precisely why we need to be exact in what we state or write. If Christian nationalism is defined as believing “moral and spiritual revival can be [e]ffected by the ballot box”, then that is clearly different from it being defined as “a desire to be patriotic and to promote godliness and righteousness within our land.” I’m firmly in line with the latter, while opposing the former, though I personally think of the former when hearing the term “Christian nationalism.”
I think the conflation of those two definitions is intentional though, by those who want to lump type 2s above with type 1s, so they can all be dismissed as their views not being worthy of consideration.
Dave Barnhart
“moral and spiritual revival can be [e]ffected by the ballot box”
Always thought the verb was affect and the noun was effect. Then I read https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/affect
I just edited my post.
Sorry if that “[]”came across as grammar-nazi-ish. That wasn’t my intent. I just wanted to be honest about the change I made to the line I quoted from you.
Dave Barnhart
Christian nationalism is not patriotism. Christian nationalism is the belief that the American nation is defined by Christianity, and that the government should take active steps to keep it that way. The proponents of this believe that the country should be defined as a Christian country in the Constitution and that Christianity should have a privileged status in both legal and cultural aspects. Both the legal laws and the culture of the country should be defined by Christian characteristics. That is what they believe. Characteristics about them is that they are predominately white conservative evangelicals, they hold to conspiracy theories at greater rates than the general population, the support many far right principles.....
If being more precise in our language can prevent some of that divide, why would anyone be opposed to that?
I think there are several reasons
- It takes more work. Humans think in categories. We have to much of the time. But this built-in habit means it’s always easier to lump things together (and reject them as a lump) than it is to see important distinctions and appreciate what has value.
- Tribalism is huge right now. Lots of people are preoccupied with identity over truth and solving problems (despite frequent verbal homage to “the truth”). So ideas, strategies, values, etc., take a back seat to “What are the perceived marks of authenticity for belonging my group at the moment”? Everybody seems to be virtue and loyalty signaling.
- Ostracism. This is just an extension of the first two: if you say anything supportive of a particular point held by “the left” or “the woke crowd,” etc., you often get immediately dismissed as a RINO or CINO or just plain woke. It hasn’t happened to me personally much, but I’ve watched it happen to a lot of other people.
Valuing truth over tribe is just not the in thing right now. (<sarcasm>I wonder why</sarcasm>)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Discussion