October 7
To Heidelblog and Mark David Hall for the portion of Hall's article that is quoted in a Heidelblog post. The blog title asks if Christian Nationalists are the same as Christians who invest in their country. The title of Hall's article asks if Christian Nationalism poses and existential threat to the nation. Hall's article is a review of a book by Paul D. Miller titled The Religion Of American Greatness.' Hall says that Miller fails to prove that Christian Nationalism poses an 'existential threat' to America.
Mark David Hall's full article can be found at:
https://lawliberty.org/book-review/christian-nationalism-an-existential-threat/
There are two problems with the religiously conservative Christian response to reports on Christian Nationalism. The first problem is that many religiously conservative Christians wish to minimize the existence of and threat posed by Christian Nationalism. They do that by denying its existence, relativizing the efforts made by and goals held by Christian Nationalists, or equating Christian Nationalism with part of being Christian.
The second problem is that Christian Nationalism is merely one threat that many religiously conservative Christians pose to our nation and its democracy. That is because many, if not promoting Christian Nationalism, promote some level of a Christian Ethnocracy in America. The concept of Christian Ethnocracy is mentioned in the article cited though not by name. A religious ethnocracy is when, in a multi-religious society, one particular religion seizes a privileged place in government where it has a significant degree of control over the government's making of laws and uses that control to secure its privileged place in society.
Regarding the first problem, Mark David Hall, the writer of the article quoted from above, tries to minimize the reports of Christian Nationalism by discrediting with a generalized accusation about motives of the sources that report on it. Never mind that many of those sources are Christian sources of which some are for Christian Nationalism and others are opposed. But with a wave of his hand, he simply tells us to pay no attention to the reporters of Christian Nationalism.
But Hall does not deny its existence. And so what he does with the rest of his article that reviews Miller's book is to minimize the influence that real Christian Nationalists have. But the problem here is that there is an increasing number of politicians who either identify themselves as Christian Nationalists or promote Christian Nationalists themes is a bit larger than Hall acknowledged. These politicians include Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert, Mary Miller, Kris Kobach, Ron DeSantis, and Doug Mastriano. Former Attorney General, William Barr, has been identified as a Christian Nationalist by some. Prominent theologian Albert Mohler has identified himself as a Christian Nationalist. If I read Franklin Graham correctly, we could classify him as a Christian Nationalists. And there are those who are following in the footsteps of Rousas Rushdoony, such as Doug Wilson, who carry, in varying ways, the flag of Dominionism which promotes a kind of Christian Nationalism. There is David Barton and his organization, WallBuilders. And the above listing doesn't include past promoters of Christian Nationalism themes like D. James Kennedy, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, all of whom were mentioned in Hall's book. We should note that Liberty University and the ACLJ have survived their founders though we need to add that not every student attending Liberty University subscribes to the ideas promoted by Christian Nationalism.
But what has really sounded the alarm of Christian Nationalism's threat to America was January 6th. The significant presence of Christians with Christian symbols and their support for Donald Trump and Trump's political favoring of certain popular Evangelical people, popular in some Evangelical circles, provided additional evidence of the significance of the presence of Christian Nationalism. I would hasten to add here that Trump was not a supporter of Christian Nationalism as much as he was an exploiter of Christian Nationalists.
But even with the above list, there are many Christian Nationalists whom were not mentioned by either myself or Hall's article. But we should note that there is a battle in the Republican Party over whether that Party should should identify itself as a promoter of Christian Nationalism. And so do we need to urgently respond with drastic measures to mitigate the efforts of Christian Nationalists here? The answer is 'No.' But does Christian Nationalism pose significant presence in various sectors of our society? The answer has to be 'CERTAINLY.' That is despite the fact that Hall uses some issues promoted by Christian Nationalists to say that support for those issues does not imply that one is a Christian Nationalist. But implication is not the same as indication. Does support for those issues indicate that one could be a Christian Nationalist is a question not addressed by Hall.
Now outside of Christian Nationalism, which merges America's Identity with a Christian Identity and wants its government to pass laws that reflect that merging, there exists another Christian threat to our nation. That threat is posed by those who want America to become a Christian Ethnocracy. A religious ethnocracy is when, in a multireligous nation, one religion seizes a privileged place in government so that the laws reflect what values of that religious group as well as secure a privilege place in government for that religious group
Those favoring a religious ethnocracy would include all Christian Nationalists. But it would also include Christians who do not fit the definition of Christian Nationalists but want such a privileged position for Christianity in American government and society. An objection to that definition has been to say that don't all groups, including the Republicans and Democrats, want a privileged position that would allow them to determine the laws of our nation? The answer to that for Republicans and Democrats would be to say 'No.'
Here we should note that Republicans, with the exception of MAGA followers, and Democrats are not looking to legally establish a permanent privilege position. Rather, Republicans and Democrats rely on elections to establish their position and power in government. So that if either party has a dominant influence, that influence is subject to change at any election rather than be secured for a foreseeable future by laws.
Among those who are looking to establish a Christian Ethnocracy are those who want to base our laws on the Judeo-Christian Heritage. Others proponents of an American Christian Ethnocracy want to base our laws on the 2nd Table of the Ten Commandments, which consists of Commandments from the Fifth Commandment to the Tenth Commandment according to how the Reformed Faith regards the Commandments.
Finally, to answer the question posed by the title of this blogpost, the answer is 'No.' Why? Because Christians can be invested in America without the trappings of Christian Nationalism or other forms of Christian Ethnocracy. And what determines whether we Christians are invested in our nation without promoting any kind of Christian Ethnocracy includes supporting democracy including the egalitarianism that is so much a part of democracy. Martin Luther King Jr and the SCLC provide a wonderful example of how to use Christianity to promote equality rather than some religious privilege.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct 11
To José Maria J. Yulo and his article that uses a book by Eva Brann about how the quest for equality has led to the committing of atrocities. The example of the uprising by the democrats in Corcyra was used as an example. This appeared in the Imaginative Conservative blog.
Some who comment on revolutions that are meant to be liberating sometimes attribute the abuses committed in that struggle on the quest for liberation. That was done with the French Revolution when the atrocities committed during that revolution were attributed to the quest for liberty, equality, and fraternity.
It was done with the October 1917 Revolution in Russia. Those who opposed the socialism blamed the tyranny that followed on the quest for socialism. We should note that not even socialism was pursued after that revolution.
And so the same goes with the example cited from the book referred to. What is hardly ever considered in this matter are the effects that the previous oppression had on the the people rebelling. There is no consideration of the possibility that the oppression by tyrants and the suffering of those who rebelled led to atrocities committed in the struggle for liberation.
On an individual basis, it is often acknowledged that abuse leads to abuse. That the abuse suffered by an individual, especially when they were young, contributed to them abusing others. So why didn't the author of the book referred to consider that what led to the atrocities by the democrats of Corcyra against the cities oligarchs was in large part a response to the abuse that the oligarchs had been visiting on those democrats. In fact, not only was the abuse by the oligarchs not considered to be a reason for the atrocities committed by the democrats there, the old status quo is hardly ever considered to be unjust. The same goes for the conditions that preceded the French and Russian Revolutions. The conditions of the old status quos are normalized when they are not commented on and/or not considered to be a major factor in atrocities committed during rebellions.
Such shows a bias in those reporting on those atrocities.
No comments:
Post a Comment