An Answer to Christian Nationalism (In the United States)
I tried to determine where to place this. It touches on so many threads. I decided to post it separately to see where it goes.
This is a Letter to the Editor of our local paper that I wrote. We have a local church that claims to be a member of the New Apostolic Reformation. I refer to the movement, not necessarily to the faith community. I could have said more, but there was a 300 word limit to the letter. I had to pair it down.
This is a Letter to the Editor of our local paper that I wrote. We have a local church that claims to be a member of the New Apostolic Reformation. I refer to the movement, not necessarily to the faith community. I could have said more, but there was a 300 word limit to the letter. I had to pair it down.
No, God did not create the American Government. Our constitution clearly says, “We the People, in order to create a more perfect union.” Yes, the Declaration of Independence says the Creator wanted all men equal, but that is not a governing document. Rather, it states the one principle we hold to be self evident.
Still, there are millions of citizens who believe God made the United States of America a Christian nation. While they may accept there are other faith or non faith groups in America, Christians have a privileged place in our culture. Groups like the New Apostolic Reformation see there are seven mountains to ascend: Religion; Government; Family; Education; Economy; Media; and, Entertainment. Whoever controls the summits of these seven mountains wields significant influence over society. Advocates of the Seven Mountain Mandate believe that Christians should actively engage in these areas to shape culture and policy according to their religious beliefs.
They are seriously trying to accomplish this. Some think half the congress takes this approach. It can be said they are not above using flawed politicians to accomplish this. Reagan tried to appeal to these people. So did George W Bush. But Trump found a way to use them to put him into power. He hopes they will do it again.
But is this what the Creator really wanted? Aren't all persons, non-white, white female, male, nonbinary, rich, middle, poor, abled, challenged, young, old,resident, traveler, immigrant--documented or undocumented created equal? Our history has shown we are still living in that grand experiment.
In our experiment, no religious belief system is to have a privileged place at the top of any mountain. But our constitution does allow us to exercise our beliefs without government interference. And we have all thrived.
Let's keep it that way.
Comments
Without it I'm well-enough acquainted with Christian nationalism. How could we escape it here today? But has there been a time when it wasn't here? Really? Except for those bless'ed deist founders, some of whom still new how to exploit Christianity as needed.
I think if we polled non-white and/or non-christian citizens and residents of the U.S. we would find a different view -- that not all have thrived. That our laws do not extend equal protection to practitioners of non-christian religions or their free exercises of them.
Or if we looked at headlines, or things that don't make it to headlines.
So we have both christian nationalism AND white christian priviledge. And always have. This is the tyranny of majority in action.
It is true we have had white Chrisian privilege in the United States from the get go, But, recently, it has been diminishing and quite a few people are uncomfortable with it. That is why they have come with the Seven Mountain Mandate with the point of retaking control of the country--by the way there is also a strong presence of the NAR in Austrailia. Religiously, they want their schools to receive tax dollars.
Educationally, they want to control what teachers can teach students. They have been using the power of the purse to quash Diversity Education Initiatives at public universities.
Media, there is a group that is trying to buy the broadcasting rights of radio and television statements in major markets for the purpose of getting their brand on the air.
Entertainment--you see them making more and more movies supporting their doctrine.
Family--they want America return to the families of the 50s as their ideal
Government--the Republicans in the House of Representatives follow their lead.
They also want to control Science--sis day creation anyone. Climate Denial, refusing mask mandates, vaccination skepticism and the like.
Like I said at the end, we are a part of a grand experiment. Very few countries have given religious groups the freedom to exercise their belief system.
It is an experiment. We have learned by doing. We have well over 400 religious bodies in the US, more than any other country. The white Christianity is shrinking, not like it has in Europe, but you can sense it.
As I said, no religious group should control any of the seven or eight mountains they have targeted. I firmly believe we can all thrive if we treat each other as equals.
No, which is one of the reasons why I - a Brit - am no monarchist.
The nationalist hi-jacking of Christianity has a long and painful history. It’s always a power play, and always leads to the suffering of those it demeans.
It’s a subject quite well explored in Jim Wallis’s book “God’s Politics”. The subtitle of that book is an informative summary.
“Why the Right gets it Wrong and the Left doesn’t Get It”.
Unfortunately, we seem to be living in an age of resurgent neo-nationalism. The hi-jacking of Christianity is a sign of that. During this season of Lent it may be worth reflecting on the temptations of Jesus, particularly the second. The lust for power is very dangerous.
I cannot imagine that many Brits believe that to be the case.
On the subject of the thread, @Barnabas62 has got it right. Other arguments such as about rights of minorities are a distraction from the fundamental principle. They merely distract from it.
Nationalism of any kind that goes any further than a claim to subsidiarity or the desire to resist somebody else's nationalism, is contrary to the Christian faith. In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female. Enlisting Jesus in support of nationalism is a particularly wicked form of idolatry. It is subverting the gospel in support of something else, and lesser. It is neither excused nor mitigated by the frequency with which people have done that nor their inability to see what should be obvious.
End of!
Within Christian Nationalism as it exists at present, the NAR are very much a side show and while there's some overlap of membership the centre of gravity is elsewhere.
But in many ways even this doesn't matter (except rather narrowly to Christianity itself), the real problem is the radicalisation on the American right, of which Christian Nationalism is just a small part.
The problem isn't that Mike Johnson may be an active member of the NAR, the problem is the extent to which he resembles the centre of gravity in the Republican party.
A lot easier for this Antipodean,( no longer) Roman to give the bird to such a pronouncement
The "loss" of white christian priviledge is a spectre, lustily worshiped by those who can't but equate their christianity with power and wealth, which has always been the status quo in the U.S. We still have the wealth and the majority representation where it counts -- where power makes the decisions. We control the system that controls us.
Ask the original citizens of the land.
We don't need NAR to cement our power, but they add hysteria to the status quo's project and thus the energy of the christianly apathetic, many whose grandparents joined the movement during the World Wars period, when American church-based religiosity went through the roof. Those whose "roots were shallow" have become distracted by bourgeois pursuits, but recently have had their heart strings plucked afresh by fear of loss of political power now tied to the deminishment of the ATM Jesus they imagine protects their wealth.
@Enoch
Rights of minorities and the use of power are not a distraction here. Christian nationalism is not theologically or ethically christian and shouldn't be treated as such, particularly in a letter to the editor of a local newspaper.
Writing for a christian audience is a different matter. Warn them away from Christian Nationalism in a letter to the denominational newsletter or Christinity Today or Relevant or some other christian publication. Show it's theological problems and inconsistencies. Prepare yourself to be shocked by the responses you get.
Quite some time ago, @Martin54 talked about nationalism (or was it fascism) swelling among the (working?) class all over. This thing called "christian nationalism" is part of it, branded for legitimacy as "Team Jesus."
And you can ask the descendants of those who were enslaved to work the land, too.
All things come of thee, oh Lord! But I can ascribe my skills and talents to the Lord without thinking that He personally and directly assigned me to my current job, or that I have a personal divine right to my current employment.
Umm, not Lutheran, I take it. Lutherans believe we all have a holy vocation. Oops, I just could not resist.
You have a holy vocation, in the sense that there is one specific task that is assigned to you by God, and it is that, and that alone, that you are supposed to be doing?
Not exactly. This is the Lutheran response to the Divine Right of Kings and the Holy Orders. At the time of its formulation it was assumed people will have a single vocation and it is just as important to society as the right of the king or the priest.
Now a days people move from one occupation to another based on economic realities and changing interests and skills. I once was a pastor, then I became a counselor, after that I have been a driver. Did I lose my vocation? No, my deeper calling is to help people. I have been able to use different occupations to fulfill that vocation.
Seems apt to me.
For real.
Yes, we have made mistakes in the past. There is some movement towards admitting the truth and making reparations where possible.
The New Apostolic Movement admits no wrong. They want to restrict many of the freedoms we the people have achieved. They feel they have God on their side, and to hell with any counter beliefs.
Thinking about it, the Orthodox don't technically have a concept of a 'calling' to the priesthood either. But that's another issue.
Anyhow, the idea of a personal vocation is common within Reformed circles too and not just Lutheran ones.
Also, looking at 17th century Scandinavia and some of the German Lutheran princedoms it's hard to argue that they had a more egalitarian approach to monarchy or government in general than the Stuarts on these islands or dynasties in other parts of Europe at that time.
Christian Nationalism isn't a purely North American thing either. Look at Hungary. Look at Poland. Look at Putin.
Why not?
That is, he's using a Christian label for his own ends. The only substantial difference is that he has considerably more power than most of the others.
It's Caesaro-Papism, something that has bedevilled Orthodoxy since Byzantine times. Moscow got it from there.
As for the ridiculous contention that the Lutherans eschewed all that, Lutheran rulers imposed their own brand of Christianity on the territories they ruled just as much as Roman Catholics did in their territories or Anglicans in theirs or Orthodox rulers in their domains.
If you look at the history of Denmark you'll find them coming out with stuff as full of 'Manifest Destiny' style guff as any Puritan in New England or in Old England during the Commonwealth period for that matter.
Ok, Putin is in a different league to nationalists in Hungary, Poland and elsewhere in terms of poisoning and eliminating his enemies but given the right circumstances nationalists and reactionary movements of all kinds are capable of much evil.
There may not be an equivalence but these tendencies are something all Christian traditions have to be aware of. Heck, some Orthodox jurisdictions in the US have been infiltrated by white-supremacist types and 'Confederate' style crazies.
We mustn't get paranoid but we must all be on our guard.
Lightening bolt in 1993. An older woman next to me in church muttered with reverance, "This IS a Christian nation." She had clearly long cherished the belief.
These folks are something quite different from the fundamentalists with whom I've spent my life worshiping. However, I think the point is not if we want what they "offer," but what those who don't want their offer are going to do to prevent them from delivering it.
Aside from these fringey Mountaineers, christian- as well as non-christian nationalism comes in many flavors but all have similarities. I pulled out notes I took recently on Thomas Millay's book (see below). He included some valuable points from other books:
From Whitehead and Perry (see below)
- Christian nationalism is all about power.
- This seizure of power entails the suppression of minority groups.
- The religion of white christian nationalists has little to do with the content of Christianity but has to do with allegiance
- Nationalism is all about the self-assertive embrace of power which exercises itself via suppression of minority groups in abstraction from the content of the religion whose name it commandeered.
(Millay, Chapter 5)Millay's highlight's from Backhouse (see below):
A definition of (christian) nationalism: "the family or set of ideas and assumptions by which one's belief in the development and uniqueness of one's national group (usually accompanied by claims of superiority) is combined with or underwritten by Christian theology and practice."
In discussion and critiquing Backhouse's thesis, Millay points out that white nationalism as well as christian nationalism have changed since Backhouse's book was published and no longer attempts to explain itself rationally:
- Nationalism is about the accruing of power; any constructions that support it (such as fictive historical narratives) are incidental to the essence of the phenomenon. Criticizing the fallacious support claims is useless, because the "support" is decorative to the claim of power.
(see Millay pg. 113).Millay quoted De Mez (see below) as well:
"White evangelicals have pieced together this patchwork of issues, and a nostalgic commitment to rugged, aggressive, militant white masculinity serves as the thread binding them together against a coherent whole." (Millay, pg. 114)
Millay wrapped up the chapter of the book with this depressing point:
Millay proposes self denial as the most effective form or resistence to christian nationalism. At an individual level, I think his case is sound. But it doesn't seem likely to catch on as the lust for more power snowballs.
Recent books I have read on the matter:
Kierkegaard and the New Nationalism: A Contemporary Reinterpretation of the Attack upon Christendom by Thomas J. Millay, 2023
Worth borrowing from the library to read, if one is interested in Kierkegaard as well.
City on a Hill: A History of American Exceptionalism by Abram C. Van Engen, 2020.
Outstanding. Buy it. Read it.
Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation by Kristen Kobes du Mez, 2020
Outstanding. Angering. Buy it. Read it.
"Older" books I have read (or read part of) on the matter:
Culture Wars by James Davison Hunter, 1992
Outstanding. Prophetic. Buy it. Read it.
Jesus Made in America: a Cultural History from the Puritans to "The Passion of the Christ" by Stephen J. Nichols, 2009
If you have time.
The Myth of a Christian Nation: How the Quest for Political Power is Destroying the Church by Greg Boyd, 2009
Worth your time
Books I have yet to read on the matter:
Kirkegaard's Critique of Christian Nationalism by Stephen Backhouse, 2011.
If I have time
Taking America Back for God: Christian Nationalism in the United States by Andrew Whitehead and Samuel Perry, 2020
I plan to read this
I'm no expert on the NAR but earlier forms of 'Reconstructionism' in the US - and I'm thinking of hyper-Calvinists like Rushdoony here - tended to downplay Israel in favour of a form of 'replacement theology.'
Some 'restorationist' groups did the same. Forms of very naive Zionism or highly selective pick'n'mix views of Judaism can be found across the Protestant fundagelical spectrum but they aren't the only views or voices within that constituency.
My late and lovely mother in law entertained all sorts of whacky 'Israel and the End Times' views imbibed from magazines and itinerant preachers back in the 60s and 70s even though they weren't de rigeur in the Anglican charismatic/evangelical scene which she inhabited. They did, however, tend to leak in from parachurch organisations and from Pentecostalism.
The outfit I was involved with had its faults, like any group, but we tended to steer clear of all that malarkey.
I'm guessing, but I suspect the NAR wouldn't put the same emphasis on Israel as some evangelical and fundamentalist groups, but would see the Church (as they'd define it) taking on that 'role' and eventually taking over and running things in a theocratic kind of way.
We have to eschew this nonsense as well as the anti-Semitism that so often crops up in other forms of Christian Nationalism - as in Russia, Poland and other parts of Eastern Europe.
@Kendel, I think forms of 'self-denial' are part of the antidote to all this - and much else besides. To materialism and rampant no-holds barred capitalism too. To the jurisdictional spats that bedevil my own Christian tradition (Tradition) truth be told.
There's been a lot of talk about a 'Benedict Option' - a kind of principled withdrawal from the world. I'm as wary of that as I am of NAR style 'let's take over the world' rhetoric.
I can see the logic but what seems to me to be missing from all this sort of talk - from wherever it comes - is a 'let's work for the good of Babylon' thing such as the Exiles had when they sat down and wept.
Or a 'let's make the world a better place by serving people and helping them rather than by avoiding them entirely or trying to take over and run things our way.'
The late - great - Protestant missiologist Lesslie Newbiggin used to say, 'any attempt to bring down Heaven from above inevitably ends up bringing Hell up from below.'
I have some thoughts, @Martin54, but my gut is not an accurate gauge. I'll dig around.
Also, are you asking "state level" as in federal, or "state level" as in individual states in the Union?
(Sorry. Everything ends up sounding like a reference interview. Worse than asking a lawyer.)
Speaking christianly, I think "christian nation" is an oxymoron. Speaking secularly, iI think it's dangerous.
Down a bit is the section on "Partisanship", where it mentions that more than half of republicans are either sympathizers or adherents to "christian" nationalism. I am not sure how "Republican" is defined in this report. That would affect the results.
Also, this report only interests itself with the "christian" form of nationalism, which is bad enough. We also have other forms of nationalism to add to the toxic mix.
I will look for more information.
I've read a tiny bit on the "Benedict Option," @Gamma Gamaliel . From what I understand of that little, I don't support it. I don't believe that, or see evidence that, Christians are called to enclaves. I'll follow that thought up more in your thread on that topic.
Right now, in my corner of American Evangelicalism, I already see an increasing level of "separatism" that is just as disturbing as "christian" nationalism, and to a great degree, fosters it. (I don't have statistics. They are really hard to get without survey data, because of the organization of education in the U.S. by state and under various state laws.) There is a growing trend among evangelical Christians to educate their children at home or in so-called "classical academies" or more traditional Christian schools. There are many reasons for this, which are a topic of a different thread.
The end result, however, is that it's possible for families, some (I know personally) now in the third generation, to maintain and strengthen the mythologies described in City on a Hill: Puritans involved in the founding...., Christian morality governing the U.S. ....., the 10 commandments, Judeo-christian ethic....., Manifest Destiny..... We're Number One..... God made America more special than any other place.... God gave America a special role in history...... and so on. In this microculture, where these people really believe they are doing the best thing for their children and nation and world, parents who believe these myths can "protect" their kids from the "revisionist" views of history they would be exposed to at school, never questioning the revisionism practiced by the text-book writers that first wove the myths into the history over a hundred years ago. To be clear, they are doing these things, because they believe they are true, right, and honoring to God.
I mention this, because I think enclaves are dangerous. They allow any group of people to maintain (world) views, and back fill around them to "strengthen" them, without ever being exposed to other ideas that might help them understand the world better. Being out in the thick of it, exposes us constantly to all sorts of dialectical collisions, which make it much harder to maintain enclave mentalities.
Sorry that was so long. I've been thinking about this stuff for a long time.
I'm surrounded by it as well as horrified.
I'll start looking. It might take a bit of time.
So if self-denial is actually a form of self-indulgence by those in a position to practice it, what is the solution?
@Kendel - I'm not proposing Dreher's escapist enclave model either - but do believe that 'intentional' communities of one form or other - be it the 'gathered church' model of 'sectarian' (in the sociological sense) Protestantism or RC 'base-communities' or neo-monastic or traditional monasticism have value as 'plausibility structures.'
The downsides and dangers are as you have outlined.
I suppose what I'm asking is how we can be engaged and fully-rounded members of our societies with a distinctively Christian ethos in the way we conduct ourselves without becoming strident 'culture warriors' or expecting everyone else to dance to our tune.
So, Black americans who participated in non-violent protests were not practicing self-denial? Urban black american women, who make themselves known to local drug dealers by spending as much time being present on the streets as neighborhood watch teams are not practicing self denial? And Indians who extracted salt from sea water themselves? Or members of any other oppressed group who deliberately step out of rhe frying pan and into the fire by peacefully subjecting themselves to whatever wrath the oppressors decide to mete out?
But this is all beside the point. The proposal is not for the oppressed to practice self-denial, but those who could be tempted to involve themselves with christian nationalism, that is, the would-be (or to-be-reformed) oppressors.
Does this suit your needs?
https://www.prri.org/research/support-for-christian-nationalism-in-all-50-states
Yes.
But I suppose the counter-argument would be that they can only practice self-denial because they are in a privileged position to be able to do so.
In the same way that you or I might be prepared to miss a meal when those on the breadline aren't in a position to do so.
I don't know what the answer is but it would be great if the rest of us could somehow 'model' alternatives that encourage the less intransigent and deluded Christian Nationalists, Dominionists, Reconstructionists, Putinistas and so on to 'reform' themselves.
If only everyone else could be as sane and balanced as we are, eh?
So if you want to convert Christian Nationalists, you must build some sort of ongoing relationship with them (yeah, i know, this is a tough one) and then model what you’d rather see them doing.
Good luck. This is a painful but worthwhile road to walk down. But it’s a massive commitment.
And given that Millay sees self-denial as the answer, it seems worth examining what he means by it, which presumably relates to what Kierkegaard had in mind. My understanding is that he means it in the sense of renouncing or disowning.
And speculating further, maybe this self-denial leads to and is allied with self-sacrifice, the giving up of all the benefits in which we share by *not* being outwardly identified with the groups from which they're taking power. That when the nationalists claim that they are fighting for our "rights" too, we make it clear they are not, that they are only fighting for their own selfish grab for power.
That seems a big ask!
My God!
That doesn't stop him and Patriarch Kirill from climbing in to bed together. Metaphorically, or course - both men are rather violently opposed to the other sort.