Putin is certainly not any kind of Christian. Not all evils are alike.
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.
Despite the homoerotic undertones of much of Putin's propaganda material.
The great tragedy of Russian Christianity is the Caesaro-Papism it inherited from Byzantium.
I often wonder whether the nationalist thing wouldn't have emerged quite so virulently if the Greeks hadn't been so chauvinistic and kept all the bishoprics to themselves until the 1400s.
Once the Russians finally got their 'own' church it went to their heads.
Then you get Moscow seeing itself as the centre of gravity for the entire Christian world after Constantinople fell. A kind of 'New Rome' over against the wonky Rome in the West and a bulwark against the Tatars and the Ottomans.
@Martin54 it kind of underscores @Lamb Chopped 's point about the magnitude of "outreach".
No chance. White male supremacy rules even when it's in a minority half the time. All I can model with my alt. truth stepsons is unconditional positive regard.
@Martin54 it kind of underscores @Lamb Chopped 's point about the magnitude of "outreach".
No chance. White male supremacy rules even when it's in a minority half the time. All I can model with my alt. truth stepsons is unconditional positive regard.
I'm nowhere close to understanding "outreach" -- by which I meant "method" -- to apply. I was looking at the magnitude of the work to be done, if there were work that could be done effectively.
Unfortunately, unconditional positive regard is (I think) normally read as agreement. And disagreement is read as rejection, or worse, as confrontation.
On my way home from work I was listening to the second report I posted here. So utterly depressing from both Christian and secular sides.
Saturday I was doing a library trustee training webinar that spent a lot of time on First Amendment (U.S. Constitutional amendment that includes our legal right to free speech, which is also interpreted to include freedom to access information). I was so proud of my country and what this doctrine means to me as a citizen and to others here.
But this can change with a few judges and legislators, who find loopholes to exploit. All to the glory of God, of course.
Just had a what's all the fuss about senior moment. Isn't this normal for America? And, in fact, declining?
"It" is evolving. (And the situation is compllicated.)
If we only stick with these survey questions:
The U.S. government should declare America a Christian nation.
U.S. laws should be based on Christian values.
If the U.S. moves away from our Christian foundations, we will not have a country anymore.
Being Christian is an important part of being truly American.
God has called Christians to exercise dominion over all areas of American society.
then "christian nationalism" (CN) looks the same.
Some things that seem to me to have changed are:
- It's more overt today. I mentioned above, that I really hadn't been unmistakably aware of CN until I was an adult ( 25). I didn't mention that I grew up in suburban, theologically conservative, independent Baptist churches. The church I was sitting in that day was rural.
- The "rural" difference mentioned in the survey is spreading. The culture-shock difference I noticed when we moved to this rural area 24 years ago is the norm among our christian and non-christian family members, who are all in sub-urban churches.
- There are even christian, pseudo-intellectuals like David Barton, who act as apologists for CN, all cloaked in the language and fake history described in City on a Hill. He is a popular speaker at churches and parachurch events, and his videos are sometimes shown in churches here. (don't have stats for you here. His press kit might have it, though.)
- We have had Fox news for a long time. Now also Newsmax (Mom tells me that it seems mainstream, normal news to her.) and similar sources of propaganda. These come with typical cable and satellite TV packages, so if you have cable or satellite TV (don't have stats on this, but I bet my better half's office does; ah. He says in Michigan it has dropped from 90% to 75% of households because of streaming services about which I know nill.) you have direct access to Pravda, American style. These aren't christian, but they are strongly nationalistic.
- We also have "christian" tv networks. With cable and satellite tv, they are all over the place. A toxic cocktail of Pat Robertson, Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, Joel Osteen, Joyce Meyers, etc. are all available all day long. Prophetic prosperity gospel with CN. Fringe views are now widely available to
- It is more accepting of violence and revolution now. This probably the most significant change I am aware of. Years ago I knew few people who owned guns, really believing they might need to take on their government, or from marauders on the loose because of failed power and communication grids resulting from a number of government related actions and inactions.
- Frank Perretti's Illuminati nonsense used to be viewed as fantasy, or at least fiction. No longer.
- Did I mention the willingness to accept violence and insurrection? as well as the willingness to excuse it or ignore it? This used to be seen as the realm of the KKK! Now CNs think it's what good, christian patriots do!
Sorry. I know this is long.
In brief: Fringe views are moving to the center of CN; it's more violent; the mutation is spreading.
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?
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 was addressing what you call "the counter-argument." The Black americans and Indians I mentioned were NOT privileged, AND they were practicing enormous acts of self-denial. Many of them risked all of what little they had, and some lost that as well.
In the context of the topic, I'd want to avoid conflating self-denial and self-sacrifice, which Kierkegaard appeared to regard separately - inward self-denial, outward self-sacrifice.
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.
I don't know that it's worth addressing this, but I'll try.
1) So far Kierkegaard has not been part of this discussion, except in that his name appears in the titles of two books. I have focused on Millay's proposals in his book. Whether or not he accurately understands or represents Kierkegaard is beside the point; the proposals he makes are his own interpretation of Kierkegaard's life and work. They should be attributed to Millay.
2) Millay proposes what he calls Devotio Moderna, the components of which he lists are: 1) refusal of vows, 2) celibacy 3) poverty 4) renunciation of the worldly (bourgeois) comforts offered by one's society 5) reading as a spiritual practice 6) enduring 7) spiritual exercises 8) self-examination, and 9) urban life as a witness to the surrounding public.
(These are from my notes on the book, which I have returned to the library.)
3) I am not proposing this idea as a solution or even a good strategy but one that has been proposed that may be worth discussing. There may be merit to some or all components. Or to none. And some, all or none may be of use in countering christian nationalism in one's society. That is worth discussing, which is what @Lamb Chopped has started to do.
Yes, I understood your point, @kendel and would agree that those examples you gave are a counter-argument. I was wondering what 'self-denial' would - or should - look like in the case of those of us who don't belong to marginalised or oppressed groups.
I was wondering what 'self-denial' would - or should - look like in the case of those of us who don't belong to marginalised or oppressed groups.
Relinquishing privilege?
I don't think privilege, as commonly understood in this context, is a thing that can be relinquished.
"Privilege" is things like not being treated with suspicion when you're shopping with the wrong skin color, or driving a car that looks "too good" for someone that looks like you. It's having people assume that you're the person in charge, and not the help. It's being given extra credence because of the way you look or the way you sound. It's having a network of social contacts in useful places. And so on.
There isn't a way for an individual to ask to not have that.
(I'm personally not a fan of the term "privilege", because to me, that word implies something that shouldn't exist, whereas I think the way that people with "privilege" get treated is the way that everyone should be treated. I prefer to think of it as a negative thing that is being done to those without "privilege", and that we, as a society, should work to stop doing that.)
I was wondering what 'self-denial' would - or should - look like in the case of those of us who don't belong to marginalised or oppressed groups.
Relinquishing privilege?
I don't think privilege, as commonly understood in this context, is a thing that can be relinquished.
"Privilege" is things like not being treated with suspicion when you're shopping with the wrong skin color, or driving a car that looks "too good" for someone that looks like you. It's having people assume that you're the person in charge, and not the help. It's being given extra credence because of the way you look or the way you sound. It's having a network of social contacts in useful places. And so on.
There isn't a way for an individual to ask to not have that.
(I'm personally not a fan of the term "privilege", because to me, that word implies something that shouldn't exist, whereas I think the way that people with "privilege" get treated is the way that everyone should be treated. I prefer to think of it as a negative thing that is being done to those without "privilege", and that we, as a society, should work to stop doing that.)
I would agree with this. "Privilege" isn't a material commodity that can be traded or given away. Rather, it is a value benefit that an individual has within a specific social situation; so in that sense it's a bit like a nonmaterial good within a social economy. You can't relinquish the value of your dollar, no matter how hard you try. It seems to me the privilege is the same kind of thing. It's set by a broader context that is opaque and not, usually, consciously determined. (There are of course situations where context is highly malleable and so one can imagine ways in which privilege could be engineered. I'm thinking of social situations in prisons and the like.)
Just had a what's all the fuss about senior moment. Isn't this normal for America? And, in fact, declining?
"It" is evolving. (And the situation is compllicated.)
If we only stick with these survey questions:
The U.S. government should declare America a Christian nation.
U.S. laws should be based on Christian values.
If the U.S. moves away from our Christian foundations, we will not have a country anymore.
Being Christian is an important part of being truly American.
God has called Christians to exercise dominion over all areas of American society.
then "christian nationalism" (CN) looks the same.
Some things that seem to me to have changed are:
- It's more overt today. I mentioned above, that I really hadn't been unmistakably aware of CN until I was an adult ( 25). I didn't mention that I grew up in suburban, theologically conservative, independent Baptist churches. The church I was sitting in that day was rural.
- The "rural" difference mentioned in the survey is spreading. The culture-shock difference I noticed when we moved to this rural area 24 years ago is the norm among our christian and non-christian family members, who are all in sub-urban churches.
- There are even christian, pseudo-intellectuals like David Barton, who act as apologists for CN, all cloaked in the language and fake history described in City on a Hill. He is a popular speaker at churches and parachurch events, and his videos are sometimes shown in churches here. (don't have stats for you here. His press kit might have it, though.)
- We have had Fox news for a long time. Now also Newsmax (Mom tells me that it seems mainstream, normal news to her.) and similar sources of propaganda. These come with typical cable and satellite TV packages, so if you have cable or satellite TV (don't have stats on this, but I bet my better half's office does; ah. He says in Michigan it has dropped from 90% to 75% of households because of streaming services about which I know nill.) you have direct access to Pravda, American style. These aren't christian, but they are strongly nationalistic.
- We also have "christian" tv networks. With cable and satellite tv, they are all over the place. A toxic cocktail of Pat Robertson, Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, Joel Osteen, Joyce Meyers, etc. are all available all day long. Prophetic prosperity gospel with CN. Fringe views are now widely available to
- It is more accepting of violence and revolution now. This probably the most significant change I am aware of. Years ago I knew few people who owned guns, really believing they might need to take on their government, or from marauders on the loose because of failed power and communication grids resulting from a number of government related actions and inactions.
- Frank Perretti's Illuminati nonsense used to be viewed as fantasy, or at least fiction. No longer.
- Did I mention the willingness to accept violence and insurrection? as well as the willingness to excuse it or ignore it? This used to be seen as the realm of the KKK! Now CNs think it's what good, christian patriots do!
Sorry. I know this is long.
In brief: Fringe views are moving to the center of CN; it's more violent; the mutation is spreading.
Just had a what's all the fuss about senior moment. Isn't this normal for America? And, in fact, declining?
"It" is evolving. (And the situation is compllicated.)
If we only stick with these survey questions:
The U.S. government should declare America a Christian nation.
U.S. laws should be based on Christian values.
If the U.S. moves away from our Christian foundations, we will not have a country anymore.
Being Christian is an important part of being truly American.
God has called Christians to exercise dominion over all areas of American society.
then "christian nationalism" (CN) looks the same.
Some things that seem to me to have changed are:
- It's more overt today. I mentioned above, that I really hadn't been unmistakably aware of CN until I was an adult ( 25). I didn't mention that I grew up in suburban, theologically conservative, independent Baptist churches. The church I was sitting in that day was rural.
- The "rural" difference mentioned in the survey is spreading. The culture-shock difference I noticed when we moved to this rural area 24 years ago is the norm among our christian and non-christian family members, who are all in sub-urban churches.
- There are even christian, pseudo-intellectuals like David Barton, who act as apologists for CN, all cloaked in the language and fake history described in City on a Hill. He is a popular speaker at churches and parachurch events, and his videos are sometimes shown in churches here. (don't have stats for you here. His press kit might have it, though.)
- We have had Fox news for a long time. Now also Newsmax (Mom tells me that it seems mainstream, normal news to her.) and similar sources of propaganda. These come with typical cable and satellite TV packages, so if you have cable or satellite TV (don't have stats on this, but I bet my better half's office does; ah. He says in Michigan it has dropped from 90% to 75% of households because of streaming services about which I know nill.) you have direct access to Pravda, American style. These aren't christian, but they are strongly nationalistic.
- We also have "christian" tv networks. With cable and satellite tv, they are all over the place. A toxic cocktail of Pat Robertson, Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, Joel Osteen, Joyce Meyers, etc. are all available all day long. Prophetic prosperity gospel with CN. Fringe views are now widely available to
- It is more accepting of violence and revolution now. This probably the most significant change I am aware of. Years ago I knew few people who owned guns, really believing they might need to take on their government, or from marauders on the loose because of failed power and communication grids resulting from a number of government related actions and inactions.
- Frank Perretti's Illuminati nonsense used to be viewed as fantasy, or at least fiction. No longer.
- Did I mention the willingness to accept violence and insurrection? as well as the willingness to excuse it or ignore it? This used to be seen as the realm of the KKK! Now CNs think it's what good, christian patriots do!
Sorry. I know this is long.
In brief: Fringe views are moving to the center of CN; it's more violent; the mutation is spreading.
Reads like a war correspondent dispatch!
Feels a bit like one.
Signing off,
K
--embedded somewhere in rural Michigan
There is more to relinquishing privilege (or whatever you prefer to call it ) than hand wringing.
What constitutes the relevant factors in deterring privilege is an interesting question. I presume it would just be whatever characteristics are deemed valuable in any given situation.
I don’t know what it looks like to “relinquish privilege.”
There is more to relinquishing privilege (or whatever you prefer to call it ) than hand wringing.
What constitutes the relevant factors in deterring privilege is an interesting question. I presume it would just be whatever characteristics are deemed valuable in any given situation.
I don’t know what it looks like to “relinquish privilege.”
Well, I am of an age when it was unheard of for a man to work for a woman. I was disabused of that notion 35 years ago.
I was wondering what 'self-denial' would - or should - look like in the case of those of us who don't belong to marginalised or oppressed groups.
Relinquishing privilege?
I don't think privilege, as commonly understood in this context, is a thing that can be relinquished.
That’s a fair point, but I think it can be more complicated than that. As a person with privilege—and I tick almost every privilege box available in this parts—I can either work to dismantle or change the systems that support my privilege, which will cause me to lose that privilege, or I can work to maintain those systems (or simply turn my head, which has the same result).
"Privilege" is things like not being treated with suspicion when you're shopping with the wrong skin color, or driving a car that looks "too good" for someone that looks like you. It's having people assume that you're the person in charge, and not the help. It's being given extra credence because of the way you look or the way you sound. It's having a network of social contacts in useful places. And so on.
There isn't a way for an individual to ask to not have that.
I don’t know that I buy that. I can work for a society where I and those like me don’t get those advantages solely because I’m white, and specifically a white male. I can support political and economic policies that seek to diminish or eliminate advantages I and others like me (including my children) have by virtue of where we born and who we were born to.
It’s not easy or pain free, and I’m well aware of how historical attempts to accomplish it have gone off the rails. And I’m not saying I’m anywhere close to accomplishing it. But I don’t buy that it can’t be done.
(I'm personally not a fan of the term "privilege", because to me, that word implies something that shouldn't exist, whereas I think the way that people with "privilege" get treated is the way that everyone should be treated. I prefer to think of it as a negative thing that is being done to those without "privilege", and that we, as a society, should work to stop doing that.)
I’m not sure I see a difference. The “privilege” is that only some of us have what everyone should have. What we’re calling “privilege” shouldn’t exist, and if everyone were to be treated the way those with privilege are currently treated, it wouldn’t exist. An advantage that everyone has isn’t an advantage anymore.
Any further discussion of privilege would be more appropriate for Epiphanies. If you would like to continue on this topic, please start a new thread over there, with a suitable OP. Hosts can advise if you are uncertain what a suitable OP looks like. Thanks.
So far a few potential answers to the problem of "christian" nationalism nave been proposed:
Maintaining the status quo (keep the US's grand experiment going as a grand experiment)
Practicing self-denial
Building relationships with "christian" nationalists and modeling a different life
Implied by a number of us-read on the subject; more than one shipmate has mentioned specific books
Use Lent as a time to reflect on the evils of "christian" nationalism
Become informed about the damage "christian" nationalism has already done to various minority or under privileged groups in the US
Self denial
Relinquishing of privilege
Benedict Option
Serving people, making the world a better place
Anything here seem like an effective method of "answering" "christian" nationalism?
I’m confused. Does your last sentence mean “None of this stuff is going to work”?
If not, I’ve got no idea what you mean, though I do like the summary. Presumably everybody who posted one of your listed items considers it an effective“answer” to Christian nationalism—or at least one with potential to be that.
Thanks, @Lamb Chopped . I hoped a summary would help revive the discussion -- bringing back to mind things that have been proposed that we might be allowed to continue to discuss in this thread. I am also interested in it soliciting more ideas.
Sorry to have been unclear. My question is:
Does anything proposed so far seem like an effective method of "answering" (to use Gramps49's terminology) "christian" nationalism?
While I think some of the proposals have potential merit for the practitioner, I think most don't reach beyond the practitioner. I certainly don't think that self-denial will be effective on its own. It might be a useful component of something larger, though. My interest is to get people talking and thinking, together, maybe coming up with new ideas by knocking around a variety of or own and those from writers.
Self-denial in the context of relinquishing privilege is one area that I think has potential merit, but has been deemed unsuitable for discussion here.
I think your proposal regarding how one lives and regarding building relationships with "christian" nationalists has potential as well, but is complicated by the way the message is received by the nationalist(s). I think there is a lot worth exploring in your proposal. I am interested in reading you flesh it out more and in picking your brain. I hope I am not alone in this.
For christians involved in this thread, I would think that prayer is also an important consideration. @Simon Toad 's Novena for Peace thread is a creative example.
@Gramps49 brought up a topic that is very important to me. The results of this particular discussion could actually be useful to me, not merely "interesting."
I suppose the short answer would be a combination of various aspects and strategies on your list tailored to whatever circumstances US Christians who are concerned about these things find themselves in.
A bit like a menu, I suppose.
I don't think any of them are easy and some - Benedict Option - are undesirable or counter-productive.
It's interesting that the author has ended up in self-imposed 'exile' from the US in a society he seems to regard as closer to his ideal. The irony that he has had to emigrate to get there seems lost on him. A kind of Pilgrim Fathers thing in reverse.
What's he going to do when Orban is finally replaced by someone else? Move again?
But to return to your question. I'm not in the US so it's hard for me to comment but FWIW the list seems to include a range of strategies ranging from informing oneself to taking various forms of action.
Any one of these is going to take time and effort. Rather like a fitness or dietary or exercise regime.
You'll be the fitter for it. Hopefully others will be too.
One other option: vote them out or vote to keep them out. It is not all that hard to see through their veneer. Once you see what their goals are, it is pretty easy to identify them.
Almost everything on Kendel's list is something for an individual to do. Much of it will not affect anyone else, or not readily. I am reminded of those who claim they are fighting racism within themselves even while racism flourishes all around them.
What can institutions do to resist Christian Nationalism? If your local church is not already contaminated by it, what can the church do to help?
I believe that there is a significant distinction between self-denial and self-sacrifice - they are not the same thing - and that this matters in the context of resistance. But the precise distinction is elusive.
Starting with a variation of wikipedia's definition: "Self-denial (related to but different from self-sacrifice) is the letting go of the self - the willingness to forgo personal benefits or undergo personal trials in the pursuit of the increased good of others." The distinction here being between the willingness to forgo these things - a conscious decision to be less self-centred and more altruistic, and the actions themselves. In contrast, self-sacrifice involves tangible cost - time, energy and potentially much more.
From a common (if not universal) Christian perspective, the denial of self (self-denial) is often seen as a fundamental aspect of Christian life - that one should put God "first" and self "last" in one's internal life. (And others in-between: JOY anyone?) Correspondingly, in one's external life, one should engage in selfless acts of love (self-sacrifice), to the benefit of others.
You could also see the distinction as self-sacrifice being about moral acts, and self-denial being about principle. According to George Kateb (I think), "at the limit of self-sacrifice is the willingness to die for the sake of acting morally; at the limit of self-denial is the willingness to die for the sake of principle. I'm not sure how much that helps - but it's more to show the different ways of conceptualising the distinction.
In relation to possible responses to christian nationalism, both self-denial - a renouncing or disowning of power, and self-sacrifice - active resistance (eg through protest) would be distinct items.
Speaking as a missionary who’s seen some results—humanly speaking, if you want to convert people to follow what you believe is best, or to prevent them following a thing you think is horrendous, you only have one useful option: a) get into personal, ongoing contact with the people you are hoping will listen (friends, family and neighbors, then) and b) live in such a way that they themselves want to know more about what you follow (and ask you, or simply imitate). That’s it. There might be other ways for the rich and famous, but for people like most of us on the Ship, this is the only way that produces results (and obviously not in all cases).
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.
As you say, on a human level, I know this can be quite effective. I think (and have done for some years) that it introduces a dilemma - is friendship pursued for undeclared purposes, with a hidden agenda, morally justified? Or do the ends justify the means?
Saturday I was doing a library trustee training webinar that spent a lot of time on First Amendment (U.S. Constitutional amendment that includes our legal right to free speech, which is also interpreted to include freedom to access information). I was so proud of my country and what this doctrine means to me as a citizen and to others here.
This struck me. As another way of conceptualising the challenge of christian nationalism, how do you (that is, all of you who disagree with what they're doing) tell them that the country of which you're so proud is not the same as the country of which they're so proud?
I would never recommend fake friendship with an agenda behind it, I don't see how in the world God would bless that (if you'll excuse my dip into my own viewpoint there). I know cultists have success with that sort of thing, but humanly speaking, I would expect it to come back and bite you in the butt.
No, what I was recommending was what Jesus speaks of--deny yourself, pick up your cross and follow me. I'm focusing on the costliness right there, because there are some situations in which nothing less will do. It's a commonplace among certain mission thinkers that Asians, particularly Vietnamese etc. are resistant to the Gospel in a way that most groups are not. I haven't found it so, but after thirty/forty years, I think the reason is that very few people are willing to pay the price of reaching such people. And Christian Nationalism might turn out to be much the same thing.
So what would this mean in practice? It might mean, for example, picking up and moving to a retirement community in Florida, or to Texas or Idaho, to a community known to be heavily infested with this sort of thinking. And then, making friends with your neighbors as you would at any time. Join a church where they tend toward this kind of viewpoint--or alternately, find a church of your own persuasion to help keep you going as you run into hardship in the rest of your life. Get onto local social media and find out what's happening locally, where the centers of this sort of thing (informally!) are--and go join up or participate in activities there, so as to get to know people.
As you get to know people, work on loving them. This is probably going to be the most costly bit, as it means learning to value people who hold views abhorrent to you. It means spending time with them, praying for them, and doing whatever the usual acts of friendship and neighborliness are (the things we do in the Vietnamese community won't transfer well to a same-language/culture relationship, so I'm not naming specifics here.) I'm sorry to say that pain makes a pretty good indicator here--as in, if you don't end up brokenhearted some of the time, you probably don't have a real friendship there.
And then live your own spiritually healthy life. If you've succeeded in building those real relationships, things are going to come up naturally--you don't have to force anything. For example, you have some random conversation about what you're doing this weekend, and they discover you're planning to tutor immigrant children, or what have you. Or you're having coffee together, and the subject of the American border comes up. Your goal is to be yourself--your healthy, non-corrupted-by-nationalism self--not to be pushy, but to be THERE, in their mental landscape, and visible.
There will be raised eyebrows, and probably explosions from some people. Some will cut off your friendship and that will hurt, because these are real relationships I'm talking about, not something you faked up for the purpose of conversion. You will go on loving the people who cut you off, and if at any point they change their mind and come back, you accept those overtures. You will continue to treat them kindly even when they gossip about you and backbite and possibly begin a smear campaign about you in the community (yes, this has happened to us many times). You will keep on living as you've been living, in the heart of their little community, a quiet but living witness to a different way.
You may face real dangers of the physical sort, depending on how extremist the locals are. That's why nobody should go into something like this with their eyes shut. Jesus said to count the cost beforehand, and that's wise--because it can cost you a lot to live this way.
This approach is the only thing I've found that is deeply effective. But it does mean giving your life to it. Maybe a lesser commitment might work, but I suspect it's often a case of you get what you put in.
I agree with pease about manipulative behaviour. It shows a massive lack of respect. I think it’s in the nature of incarnational living that that such behaviour is a denial of the essential humanity of the people in the community you have joined.
I would never recommend fake friendship with an agenda behind it, I don't see how in the world God would bless that (if you'll excuse my dip into my own viewpoint there). I know cultists have success with that sort of thing, but humanly speaking, I would expect it to come back and bite you in the butt.
No, what I was recommending was what Jesus speaks of--deny yourself, pick up your cross and follow me. I'm focusing on the costliness right there, because there are some situations in which nothing less will do. It's a commonplace among certain mission thinkers that Asians, particularly Vietnamese etc. are resistant to the Gospel in a way that most groups are not. I haven't found it so, but after thirty/forty years, I think the reason is that very few people are willing to pay the price of reaching such people. And Christian Nationalism might turn out to be much the same thing.
...
You may face real dangers of the physical sort, depending on how extremist the locals are. That's why nobody should go into something like this with their eyes shut. Jesus said to count the cost beforehand, and that's wise--because it can cost you a lot to live this way.
This approach is the only thing I've found that is deeply effective. But it does mean giving your life to it. Maybe a lesser commitment might work, but I suspect it's often a case of you get what you put in.
Many thanks for your response @Lamb Chopped - and thanks for spelling out what it involves. I also appreciate what it takes to do what you describe, and the people who make these kind of long-term commitments and sacrifices.
Looking at this (from a missional perspective), I note the significance of the qualifier you make of denying oneself, and possibly also of "sacrificing" the friendships you make to God, although that might depend on a particular theology or way of expressing this concept.
On a more pragmatic level, given the context, I can see problems with the church-joining question - the extent to which church membership might, in itself, distinguish between "them" and "us", and the extent to which people in churches might be assumed to agree with the ideological positions that are expounded.
I'd be fine with saying "join various organizations so you can meet people" and also "join at least one group that can be a support to you as you spend a lot of time in relationships that are just the opposite." That's all I was after there.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by sacrificing a friendship to God?
Self-denial IMHO is only useful if it serves another purpose--I mean, I don't think it's a virtue in itself. But unfortunately it does seem to be unavoidable if you want to make changes for the good in the world around you. Ugh.
One other option: vote them out or vote to keep them out. It is not all that hard to see through their veneer. Once you see what their goals are, it is pretty easy to identify them.
Yes, but as posts from @Lamb Chopped and @Kendel and others indicate, this stuff isn't limited to the corridors of power.
It's there in the retirement communities. It's there in the pews of certain churches.
It isn't just about who's sitting in the Oval Office or who's in charge down at your local city hall.
Saturday I was doing a library trustee training webinar that spent a lot of time on First Amendment (U.S. Constitutional amendment that includes our legal right to free speech, which is also interpreted to include freedom to access information). I was so proud of my country and what this doctrine means to me as a citizen and to others here.
This struck me. As another way of conceptualising the challenge of christian nationalism, how do you (that is, all of you who disagree with what they're doing) tell them that the country of which you're so proud is not the same as the country of which they're so proud?
Yes. That's an interesting question and problem. I have tried in many contexts. No one wants to read my list of remembered failures. In brief, I’ve been talking about this with people in various contexts for decades. I have convinced no one. I don’t have a strategy. I don’t have a clue.
My husband and I spent 21 years at a local, rural Baptist church after we moved here. This was our main group of people and friends. I often felt like an accidental missionary. I failed. We didn’t scratch the surface. We didn’t move the needle.
Maybe Millay’s strongest point from my notes is this:
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.
I can argue or reason or proof-text until the cows come home. It doesn’t matter, because "christian" nationalism here really has nothing more to do with America than to maintain control of it.
Every so often America gets into some sort of revivalist kick. Remember Falwell's Moral Majority? Well, they were not exactly a majority, let alone being moral in my opinion. There have been the Promise Keepers. In my youth, there was the Jesus Movement. Billy Graham in the 50s, the Temperance movement. On and on.
They often burn themselves out. Up until now, they have not had much impact on the government. This one is different. Since they are trying to seize the government, it is an existential threat. Since they are trying to gain control through the ballot box, it is at the ballot box they have to be met.
I agree churches do need to speak up. But there is a lot of risk here when key members of congregations are already hooked into Christian Nationalism.
Over the last year, I have been supplying the pulpit at a rural church. The previous full time pastor was quite conservative. I am very careful about what I have been preaching there, but members have seen letters I have written to local papers. When they speak about concerns they have regards the political stance of the larger community, I always preface my comments that I am speaking from a liberal perspective. So far they have not thrown me out. One person told me it is like having a breath of fresh air.
Every so often America gets into some sort of revivalist kick. Remember Falwell's Moral Majority? Well, they were not exactly a majority, let alone being moral in my opinion. There have been the Promise Keepers. In my youth, there was the Jesus Movement. Billy Graham in the 50s, the Temperance movement. On and on.
They often burn themselves out. Up until now, they have not had much impact on the government. This one is different. Since they are trying to seize the government, it is an existential threat. Since they are trying to gain control through the ballot box, it is at the ballot box they have to be met.
I agree churches do need to speak up. But there is a lot of risk here when key members of congregations are already hooked into Christian Nationalism.
Over the last year, I have been supplying the pulpit at a rural church. The previous full time pastor was quite conservative. I am very careful about what I have been preaching there, but members have seen letters I have written to local papers. When they speak about concerns they have regards the political stance of the larger community, I always preface my comments that I am speaking from a liberal perspective. So far they have not thrown me out. One person told me it is like having a breath of fresh air.
I agree that the ballot box is important, but how does one beat them there? Like really, how? Will more campaign money do the trick? Do we pay voters for going?
The area I live in is genetically Republican (American-style, Grand old Party). There is no thinking involved.
The freudian slips of my new church fellows sometimes show below their hemlines, and often shine like a city on a hill.
It seems to be everywhere I am, except at work.
What strategy do you have, @Gramps49 for beating them at the ballot box?
Here is one thing that is being done in Idaho. Idaho has long been controlled by the Freedom Caucus. No one gets in an office in Idaho without the imprimatur of the Freedom Caucus. This November Idahoans will be voting on an entitative of the people to make all future state primaries open and with rank choice, meaning you can vote up to three people for an office. This will destroy the power of the Freedom Caucus.
The people pausing referendums insuring the freedom of choice when it comes to reproductive rights.
Challenging laws the ban books from local libraries. Writing letters expressing your thoughts concerning some of the issues raised by Nationalists, offering counter proposals.
Refuse to allow Christian nationalists get on local boards. Challenging their restrictions where possible.
The Democratic Party needs to offer viable candidates in every state office.
I'd be fine with saying "join various organizations so you can meet people" and also "join at least one group that can be a support to you as you spend a lot of time in relationships that are just the opposite." That's all I was after there.
That seems fair. I find it concerning when people in "full-time ministry" seem to regard the latter point as optional.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by sacrificing a friendship to God?
It's the idea of consciously giving up "ownership" of the friendship, that it doesn't belong to you, but to God, to do with as He sees fit - whether it should develop and grow, whether you will derive support, fulfillment or pleasure from it, whether it will endure or come to an end.
Self-denial IMHO is only useful if it serves another purpose--I mean, I don't think it's a virtue in itself. But unfortunately it does seem to be unavoidable if you want to make changes for the good in the world around you. Ugh.
Well... I believe there's a long tradition of Christian asceticism - self-denial without a specific goal; rather the general purpose of spiritual development. Intriguingly, Millay locates self-denial in the context of what he sees as Kierkegaard's ascetic theology.
And another way of describing the distinction occurs to me: self-denial is about changing yourself, self-sacrifice is about changing the world.
[1)] Here is one thing that is being done in Idaho. Idaho has long been controlled by the Freedom Caucus. No one gets in an office in Idaho without the imprimatur of the Freedom Caucus. This November Idahoans will be voting on an entitative of the people to make all future state primaries open and with rank choice, meaning you can vote up to three people for an office. This will destroy the power of the Freedom Caucus.
[2)]The people pausing referendums insuring the freedom of choice when it comes to reproductive rights.
[3.1)]Challenging laws the ban books from local libraries. [3.2)]Writing letters expressing your thoughts concerning some of the issues raised by Nationalists, offering counter proposals.
[4)]Refuse to allow Christian nationalists get on local boards. Challenging their restrictions where possible.
[5)]The Democratic Party needs to offer viable candidates in every state office.
1) Great idea! But this isn't even a component of a strategy until it is law. How to get it passed?
2) Again, how to get this done? Your voice/vote/signature and mine are not adequate for this job.
3.1) Book bans are already illegal and it takes money - lots - to take things to court. The bans are usually occuring because of (illegal) pressure from community members , and/or because ban-sympathizers are on library boards.
3.2) If it's to a newspaper, this is cathartic, rather than strategic. "The CN (might) read it and think, "Another immoral, anti-christian nutjob wants to corrupt our children and take over society."
4.1) How?
4.2) See 3.1.a
5) Again this is an idea, not a strategy.
How to effect change that extends beyond one's circle of self or small like-minded group?
I started a thread a while back about Christian asceticism and self-denial and the purpose it might serve.
I don't think the Desert Fathers and Mothers practised such things for the sake of it. Extreme ascetics as some of these people were - loopy even - they believed they were doing something of benefit both for themselves and the world in general.
Ok, in the context of the current discussion forgoing Dunkin Donuts or Super-Sized Big Macs isn't going to slow or stem the advance of the Religious Right in the US or parallels and equivalents elsewhere.
But some kind of counter-cultural behaviour allied to positive social action of some kind - and yes, I believe there is a place for protest - has to be worthy of consideration.
Exactly what form that should take or what it should look like in a US context I'm not qualified to comment.
How do you stop Christian Nationalists getting on local boards? You run against them if you can or you support people who are able to. We had a Christian Nationalist who was on city council. When someone proposed a mural with an anti racist theme, he raised all sorts of cain. Finally, a young college graduate ran against him. The college graduate had strong backing a number of organizations. He won.
I think Christian Nationalism is a bigger problem than a lot of people want to admit, and by a lot of people, I mostly mean mainline Christians who aren't fundamentalist/evangelical. The sirens on the left have been sounding for a while. Consider this worrying manifesto from Project2025 released last May.
Sorry for the double post -- missed the edit window. Unsurprisingly, among the crimes civil magistrates have authority to punish (assault, murder, rape, theft...) is "man-stealing."
They want zero public safety nets, and zero public education, claiming that the state debauches children.
And it goes downhill from there.
If you're on Twitter, a couple of very good follows for very deep reporting on this and other far-right groups/activities are: @jennycohn1 and @BucksCoBeacon .
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by sacrificing a friendship to God?
It's the idea of consciously giving up "ownership" of the friendship, that it doesn't belong to you, but to God, to do with as He sees fit - whether it should develop and grow, whether you will derive support, fulfillment or pleasure from it, whether it will endure or come to an end.
Oh, okay, I see now. But that's not a thing that ever occurred to me, because if you're going to live this way, you've already long since given up ownership of basically everything, including yourself, to God, to do with as he sees fit. Friendships are just one more thing in the mass.
(And frankly, I find living this way a lot less stressful than it used to be. God seems to be a helluva lot better manager than I am, and things go on better. )
Self-denial IMHO is only useful if it serves another purpose--I mean, I don't think it's a virtue in itself. But unfortunately it does seem to be unavoidable if you want to make changes for the good in the world around you. Ugh.
Well... I believe there's a long tradition of Christian asceticism - self-denial without a specific goal; rather the general purpose of spiritual development. Intriguingly, Millay locates self-denial in the context of what he sees as Kierkegaard's ascetic theology.
And another way of describing the distinction occurs to me: self-denial is about changing yourself, self-sacrifice is about changing the world.
It might make a good thread, the question of whether self-denial is worthwhile if it's not got an external end in view. I tend to think not. But then, I'm not a John the Baptist type, more the kind of person who feels comfortable with the man who was accused of being a "glutton and a wine-bibber." If I don't have an actual reason for turning down that glass of wine (such as not offending the traditional Vietnamese community), well, pour it out, I say. IMHO there's sufficient suffering in living "surrendered" (what you call self-sacrifice") that I don't need to create any extra for myself. Plenty of roughage in this diet!
How to effect change that extends beyond one's circle of self or small like-minded group?
The traditional answer is to organise and network, and be prepared to sacrifice as much time and energy as the other side puts into it.
How does the butterfly effect a typhoon?
Unpredictably, being an integral aspect of chaos theory.
Looking online for alternative approaches, you could also consider the more prosaic analysis (especially among Christian groups opposed to it, it seems to me) that Christian Nationalism is based in fear and anxiety. (Or more particularly, from my perspective, the exploitation of people's fear and anxiety for political and personal gain.)
So, rather than trying to oppose the carefully conceived campaigns of those in control of the "movement" head on, or trying to convince those caught up in it that they're simply wrong, there might be some mileage in considering how to assuage their fear and anxiety.
How to effect change that extends beyond one's circle of self or small like-minded group?
The traditional answer is to organise and network, and be prepared to sacrifice as much time and energy as the other side puts into it.
How does the butterfly effect a typhoon?
Unpredictably, being an integral aspect of chaos theory.
Looking online for alternative approaches, you could also consider the more prosaic analysis (especially among Christian groups opposed to it, it seems to me) that Christian Nationalism is based in fear and anxiety. (Or more particularly, from my perspective, the exploitation of people's fear and anxiety for political and personal gain.)
So, rather than trying to oppose the carefully conceived campaigns of those in control of the "movement" head on, or trying to convince those caught up in it that they're simply wrong, there might be some mileage in considering how to assuage their fear and anxiety.
Like what? The conservative masses cannot have their fear and anxiety assuaged by the opposition.
Much of that iceberg @Kendal's talking about is white supremacism. Any further discussion of this would take us into Epiphanies territory, so I'm not posting further on the topic but there's an overview here in the New Yorker. Analyses from the Pew Research Center also show growing distrust in the U.S. of the term 'Christian nationalism' as racist and anti-democratic.
In fact, religious commitment—as measured by church attendance, prayer, and Scripture reading—tends to improve attitudes on race, serving as a progressive influence.
Comments
Despite the homoerotic undertones of much of Putin's propaganda material.
Which isn't necessarily the same thing ...
The great tragedy of Russian Christianity is the Caesaro-Papism it inherited from Byzantium.
I often wonder whether the nationalist thing wouldn't have emerged quite so virulently if the Greeks hadn't been so chauvinistic and kept all the bishoprics to themselves until the 1400s.
Once the Russians finally got their 'own' church it went to their heads.
Then you get Moscow seeing itself as the centre of gravity for the entire Christian world after Constantinople fell. A kind of 'New Rome' over against the wonky Rome in the West and a bulwark against the Tatars and the Ottomans.
And on and on it goes ...
No chance. White male supremacy rules even when it's in a minority half the time. All I can model with my alt. truth stepsons is unconditional positive regard.
I'm nowhere close to understanding "outreach" -- by which I meant "method" -- to apply. I was looking at the magnitude of the work to be done, if there were work that could be done effectively.
Unfortunately, unconditional positive regard is (I think) normally read as agreement. And disagreement is read as rejection, or worse, as confrontation.
On my way home from work I was listening to the second report I posted here. So utterly depressing from both Christian and secular sides.
Saturday I was doing a library trustee training webinar that spent a lot of time on First Amendment (U.S. Constitutional amendment that includes our legal right to free speech, which is also interpreted to include freedom to access information). I was so proud of my country and what this doctrine means to me as a citizen and to others here.
But this can change with a few judges and legislators, who find loopholes to exploit. All to the glory of God, of course.
"It" is evolving. (And the situation is compllicated.)
If we only stick with these survey questions:
- The U.S. government should declare America a Christian nation.
- U.S. laws should be based on Christian values.
- If the U.S. moves away from our Christian foundations, we will not have a country anymore.
- Being Christian is an important part of being truly American.
- God has called Christians to exercise dominion over all areas of American society.
then "christian nationalism" (CN) looks the same.Some things that seem to me to have changed are:
- It's more overt today. I mentioned above, that I really hadn't been unmistakably aware of CN until I was an adult ( 25). I didn't mention that I grew up in suburban, theologically conservative, independent Baptist churches. The church I was sitting in that day was rural.
- The "rural" difference mentioned in the survey is spreading. The culture-shock difference I noticed when we moved to this rural area 24 years ago is the norm among our christian and non-christian family members, who are all in sub-urban churches.
- There are even christian, pseudo-intellectuals like David Barton, who act as apologists for CN, all cloaked in the language and fake history described in City on a Hill. He is a popular speaker at churches and parachurch events, and his videos are sometimes shown in churches here. (don't have stats for you here. His press kit might have it, though.)
- We have had Fox news for a long time. Now also Newsmax (Mom tells me that it seems mainstream, normal news to her.) and similar sources of propaganda. These come with typical cable and satellite TV packages, so if you have cable or satellite TV (don't have stats on this, but I bet my better half's office does; ah. He says in Michigan it has dropped from 90% to 75% of households because of streaming services about which I know nill.) you have direct access to Pravda, American style. These aren't christian, but they are strongly nationalistic.
- We also have "christian" tv networks. With cable and satellite tv, they are all over the place. A toxic cocktail of Pat Robertson, Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland, Joel Osteen, Joyce Meyers, etc. are all available all day long. Prophetic prosperity gospel with CN. Fringe views are now widely available to
- It is more accepting of violence and revolution now. This probably the most significant change I am aware of. Years ago I knew few people who owned guns, really believing they might need to take on their government, or from marauders on the loose because of failed power and communication grids resulting from a number of government related actions and inactions.
- Frank Perretti's Illuminati nonsense used to be viewed as fantasy, or at least fiction. No longer.
- Did I mention the willingness to accept violence and insurrection? as well as the willingness to excuse it or ignore it? This used to be seen as the realm of the KKK! Now CNs think it's what good, christian patriots do!
Sorry. I know this is long.
In brief: Fringe views are moving to the center of CN; it's more violent; the mutation is spreading.
I don't know that it's worth addressing this, but I'll try.
1) So far Kierkegaard has not been part of this discussion, except in that his name appears in the titles of two books. I have focused on Millay's proposals in his book. Whether or not he accurately understands or represents Kierkegaard is beside the point; the proposals he makes are his own interpretation of Kierkegaard's life and work. They should be attributed to Millay.
2) Millay proposes what he calls Devotio Moderna, the components of which he lists are: 1) refusal of vows, 2) celibacy 3) poverty 4) renunciation of the worldly (bourgeois) comforts offered by one's society 5) reading as a spiritual practice 6) enduring 7) spiritual exercises 8) self-examination, and 9) urban life as a witness to the surrounding public.
(These are from my notes on the book, which I have returned to the library.)
3) I am not proposing this idea as a solution or even a good strategy but one that has been proposed that may be worth discussing. There may be merit to some or all components. Or to none. And some, all or none may be of use in countering christian nationalism in one's society. That is worth discussing, which is what @Lamb Chopped has started to do.
For real.
Maybe good to think about ways we privileged could do that, beyond how we vote, which may still be too "in the box" to be of much value....
I don't think privilege, as commonly understood in this context, is a thing that can be relinquished.
"Privilege" is things like not being treated with suspicion when you're shopping with the wrong skin color, or driving a car that looks "too good" for someone that looks like you. It's having people assume that you're the person in charge, and not the help. It's being given extra credence because of the way you look or the way you sound. It's having a network of social contacts in useful places. And so on.
There isn't a way for an individual to ask to not have that.
(I'm personally not a fan of the term "privilege", because to me, that word implies something that shouldn't exist, whereas I think the way that people with "privilege" get treated is the way that everyone should be treated. I prefer to think of it as a negative thing that is being done to those without "privilege", and that we, as a society, should work to stop doing that.)
I would agree with this. "Privilege" isn't a material commodity that can be traded or given away. Rather, it is a value benefit that an individual has within a specific social situation; so in that sense it's a bit like a nonmaterial good within a social economy. You can't relinquish the value of your dollar, no matter how hard you try. It seems to me the privilege is the same kind of thing. It's set by a broader context that is opaque and not, usually, consciously determined. (There are of course situations where context is highly malleable and so one can imagine ways in which privilege could be engineered. I'm thinking of social situations in prisons and the like.)
Reads like a war correspondent dispatch!
Feels a bit like one.
Signing off,
K
--embedded somewhere in rural Michigan
What facets are there to the concept?
Social? Economic? Geographic? Educational? Stability? Legislative? Judicial? Opportunity? Gender?
I know there are more.
There is more to relinquishing privilege (or whatever you prefer to call it ) than hand wringing.
What constitutes the relevant factors in deterring privilege is an interesting question. I presume it would just be whatever characteristics are deemed valuable in any given situation.
I don’t know what it looks like to “relinquish privilege.”
Well, I am of an age when it was unheard of for a man to work for a woman. I was disabused of that notion 35 years ago.
I don’t know that I buy that. I can work for a society where I and those like me don’t get those advantages solely because I’m white, and specifically a white male. I can support political and economic policies that seek to diminish or eliminate advantages I and others like me (including my children) have by virtue of where we born and who we were born to.
It’s not easy or pain free, and I’m well aware of how historical attempts to accomplish it have gone off the rails. And I’m not saying I’m anywhere close to accomplishing it. But I don’t buy that it can’t be done.
I’m not sure I see a difference. The “privilege” is that only some of us have what everyone should have. What we’re calling “privilege” shouldn’t exist, and if everyone were to be treated the way those with privilege are currently treated, it wouldn’t exist. An advantage that everyone has isn’t an advantage anymore.
Any further discussion of privilege would be more appropriate for Epiphanies. If you would like to continue on this topic, please start a new thread over there, with a suitable OP. Hosts can advise if you are uncertain what a suitable OP looks like. Thanks.
Hostly beret off
la vie en rouge, Purgatory host
Maintaining the status quo (keep the US's grand experiment going as a grand experiment)
Practicing self-denial
Building relationships with "christian" nationalists and modeling a different life
Implied by a number of us-read on the subject; more than one shipmate has mentioned specific books
Use Lent as a time to reflect on the evils of "christian" nationalism
Become informed about the damage "christian" nationalism has already done to various minority or under privileged groups in the US
Self denial
Relinquishing of privilege
Benedict Option
Serving people, making the world a better place
Anything here seem like an effective method of "answering" "christian" nationalism?
If not, I’ve got no idea what you mean, though I do like the summary. Presumably everybody who posted one of your listed items considers it an effective“answer” to Christian nationalism—or at least one with potential to be that.
Sorry to have been unclear. My question is:
While I think some of the proposals have potential merit for the practitioner, I think most don't reach beyond the practitioner. I certainly don't think that self-denial will be effective on its own. It might be a useful component of something larger, though. My interest is to get people talking and thinking, together, maybe coming up with new ideas by knocking around a variety of or own and those from writers.
Self-denial in the context of relinquishing privilege is one area that I think has potential merit, but has been deemed unsuitable for discussion here.
I think your proposal regarding how one lives and regarding building relationships with "christian" nationalists has potential as well, but is complicated by the way the message is received by the nationalist(s). I think there is a lot worth exploring in your proposal. I am interested in reading you flesh it out more and in picking your brain. I hope I am not alone in this.
For christians involved in this thread, I would think that prayer is also an important consideration. @Simon Toad 's Novena for Peace thread is a creative example.
@Gramps49 brought up a topic that is very important to me. The results of this particular discussion could actually be useful to me, not merely "interesting."
A bit like a menu, I suppose.
I don't think any of them are easy and some - Benedict Option - are undesirable or counter-productive.
It's interesting that the author has ended up in self-imposed 'exile' from the US in a society he seems to regard as closer to his ideal. The irony that he has had to emigrate to get there seems lost on him. A kind of Pilgrim Fathers thing in reverse.
What's he going to do when Orban is finally replaced by someone else? Move again?
But to return to your question. I'm not in the US so it's hard for me to comment but FWIW the list seems to include a range of strategies ranging from informing oneself to taking various forms of action.
Any one of these is going to take time and effort. Rather like a fitness or dietary or exercise regime.
You'll be the fitter for it. Hopefully others will be too.
What can institutions do to resist Christian Nationalism? If your local church is not already contaminated by it, what can the church do to help?
Starting with a variation of wikipedia's definition: "Self-denial (related to but different from self-sacrifice) is the letting go of the self - the willingness to forgo personal benefits or undergo personal trials in the pursuit of the increased good of others." The distinction here being between the willingness to forgo these things - a conscious decision to be less self-centred and more altruistic, and the actions themselves. In contrast, self-sacrifice involves tangible cost - time, energy and potentially much more.
From a common (if not universal) Christian perspective, the denial of self (self-denial) is often seen as a fundamental aspect of Christian life - that one should put God "first" and self "last" in one's internal life. (And others in-between: JOY anyone?) Correspondingly, in one's external life, one should engage in selfless acts of love (self-sacrifice), to the benefit of others.
You could also see the distinction as self-sacrifice being about moral acts, and self-denial being about principle. According to George Kateb (I think), "at the limit of self-sacrifice is the willingness to die for the sake of acting morally; at the limit of self-denial is the willingness to die for the sake of principle. I'm not sure how much that helps - but it's more to show the different ways of conceptualising the distinction.
In relation to possible responses to christian nationalism, both self-denial - a renouncing or disowning of power, and self-sacrifice - active resistance (eg through protest) would be distinct items.
This struck me. As another way of conceptualising the challenge of christian nationalism, how do you (that is, all of you who disagree with what they're doing) tell them that the country of which you're so proud is not the same as the country of which they're so proud?
No, what I was recommending was what Jesus speaks of--deny yourself, pick up your cross and follow me. I'm focusing on the costliness right there, because there are some situations in which nothing less will do. It's a commonplace among certain mission thinkers that Asians, particularly Vietnamese etc. are resistant to the Gospel in a way that most groups are not. I haven't found it so, but after thirty/forty years, I think the reason is that very few people are willing to pay the price of reaching such people. And Christian Nationalism might turn out to be much the same thing.
So what would this mean in practice? It might mean, for example, picking up and moving to a retirement community in Florida, or to Texas or Idaho, to a community known to be heavily infested with this sort of thinking. And then, making friends with your neighbors as you would at any time. Join a church where they tend toward this kind of viewpoint--or alternately, find a church of your own persuasion to help keep you going as you run into hardship in the rest of your life. Get onto local social media and find out what's happening locally, where the centers of this sort of thing (informally!) are--and go join up or participate in activities there, so as to get to know people.
As you get to know people, work on loving them. This is probably going to be the most costly bit, as it means learning to value people who hold views abhorrent to you. It means spending time with them, praying for them, and doing whatever the usual acts of friendship and neighborliness are (the things we do in the Vietnamese community won't transfer well to a same-language/culture relationship, so I'm not naming specifics here.) I'm sorry to say that pain makes a pretty good indicator here--as in, if you don't end up brokenhearted some of the time, you probably don't have a real friendship there.
And then live your own spiritually healthy life. If you've succeeded in building those real relationships, things are going to come up naturally--you don't have to force anything. For example, you have some random conversation about what you're doing this weekend, and they discover you're planning to tutor immigrant children, or what have you. Or you're having coffee together, and the subject of the American border comes up. Your goal is to be yourself--your healthy, non-corrupted-by-nationalism self--not to be pushy, but to be THERE, in their mental landscape, and visible.
There will be raised eyebrows, and probably explosions from some people. Some will cut off your friendship and that will hurt, because these are real relationships I'm talking about, not something you faked up for the purpose of conversion. You will go on loving the people who cut you off, and if at any point they change their mind and come back, you accept those overtures. You will continue to treat them kindly even when they gossip about you and backbite and possibly begin a smear campaign about you in the community (yes, this has happened to us many times). You will keep on living as you've been living, in the heart of their little community, a quiet but living witness to a different way.
You may face real dangers of the physical sort, depending on how extremist the locals are. That's why nobody should go into something like this with their eyes shut. Jesus said to count the cost beforehand, and that's wise--because it can cost you a lot to live this way.
This approach is the only thing I've found that is deeply effective. But it does mean giving your life to it. Maybe a lesser commitment might work, but I suspect it's often a case of you get what you put in.
Looking at this (from a missional perspective), I note the significance of the qualifier you make of denying oneself, and possibly also of "sacrificing" the friendships you make to God, although that might depend on a particular theology or way of expressing this concept.
On a more pragmatic level, given the context, I can see problems with the church-joining question - the extent to which church membership might, in itself, distinguish between "them" and "us", and the extent to which people in churches might be assumed to agree with the ideological positions that are expounded.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by sacrificing a friendship to God?
Self-denial IMHO is only useful if it serves another purpose--I mean, I don't think it's a virtue in itself. But unfortunately it does seem to be unavoidable if you want to make changes for the good in the world around you. Ugh.
Yes, but as posts from @Lamb Chopped and @Kendel and others indicate, this stuff isn't limited to the corridors of power.
It's there in the retirement communities. It's there in the pews of certain churches.
It isn't just about who's sitting in the Oval Office or who's in charge down at your local city hall.
Yes. That's an interesting question and problem. I have tried in many contexts. No one wants to read my list of remembered failures. In brief, I’ve been talking about this with people in various contexts for decades. I have convinced no one. I don’t have a strategy. I don’t have a clue.
My husband and I spent 21 years at a local, rural Baptist church after we moved here. This was our main group of people and friends. I often felt like an accidental missionary. I failed. We didn’t scratch the surface. We didn’t move the needle.
Maybe Millay’s strongest point from my notes is this:
I can argue or reason or proof-text until the cows come home. It doesn’t matter, because "christian" nationalism here really has nothing more to do with America than to maintain control of it.
They often burn themselves out. Up until now, they have not had much impact on the government. This one is different. Since they are trying to seize the government, it is an existential threat. Since they are trying to gain control through the ballot box, it is at the ballot box they have to be met.
I agree churches do need to speak up. But there is a lot of risk here when key members of congregations are already hooked into Christian Nationalism.
Over the last year, I have been supplying the pulpit at a rural church. The previous full time pastor was quite conservative. I am very careful about what I have been preaching there, but members have seen letters I have written to local papers. When they speak about concerns they have regards the political stance of the larger community, I always preface my comments that I am speaking from a liberal perspective. So far they have not thrown me out. One person told me it is like having a breath of fresh air.
I agree that the ballot box is important, but how does one beat them there? Like really, how? Will more campaign money do the trick? Do we pay voters for going?
The area I live in is genetically Republican (American-style, Grand old Party). There is no thinking involved.
The freudian slips of my new church fellows sometimes show below their hemlines, and often shine like a city on a hill.
It seems to be everywhere I am, except at work.
What strategy do you have, @Gramps49 for beating them at the ballot box?
Here is one thing that is being done in Idaho. Idaho has long been controlled by the Freedom Caucus. No one gets in an office in Idaho without the imprimatur of the Freedom Caucus. This November Idahoans will be voting on an entitative of the people to make all future state primaries open and with rank choice, meaning you can vote up to three people for an office. This will destroy the power of the Freedom Caucus.
The people pausing referendums insuring the freedom of choice when it comes to reproductive rights.
Challenging laws the ban books from local libraries. Writing letters expressing your thoughts concerning some of the issues raised by Nationalists, offering counter proposals.
Refuse to allow Christian nationalists get on local boards. Challenging their restrictions where possible.
The Democratic Party needs to offer viable candidates in every state office.
It's the idea of consciously giving up "ownership" of the friendship, that it doesn't belong to you, but to God, to do with as He sees fit - whether it should develop and grow, whether you will derive support, fulfillment or pleasure from it, whether it will endure or come to an end.
Well... I believe there's a long tradition of Christian asceticism - self-denial without a specific goal; rather the general purpose of spiritual development. Intriguingly, Millay locates self-denial in the context of what he sees as Kierkegaard's ascetic theology.
And another way of describing the distinction occurs to me: self-denial is about changing yourself, self-sacrifice is about changing the world.
2) Again, how to get this done? Your voice/vote/signature and mine are not adequate for this job.
3.1) Book bans are already illegal and it takes money - lots - to take things to court. The bans are usually occuring because of (illegal) pressure from community members , and/or because ban-sympathizers are on library boards.
3.2) If it's to a newspaper, this is cathartic, rather than strategic. "The CN (might) read it and think, "Another immoral, anti-christian nutjob wants to corrupt our children and take over society."
4.1) How?
4.2) See 3.1.a
5) Again this is an idea, not a strategy.
How to effect change that extends beyond one's circle of self or small like-minded group?
How does the butterfly effect a typhoon?
I don't think the Desert Fathers and Mothers practised such things for the sake of it. Extreme ascetics as some of these people were - loopy even - they believed they were doing something of benefit both for themselves and the world in general.
Ok, in the context of the current discussion forgoing Dunkin Donuts or Super-Sized Big Macs isn't going to slow or stem the advance of the Religious Right in the US or parallels and equivalents elsewhere.
But some kind of counter-cultural behaviour allied to positive social action of some kind - and yes, I believe there is a place for protest - has to be worthy of consideration.
Exactly what form that should take or what it should look like in a US context I'm not qualified to comment.
They want zero public safety nets, and zero public education, claiming that the state debauches children.
And it goes downhill from there.
If you're on Twitter, a couple of very good follows for very deep reporting on this and other far-right groups/activities are: @jennycohn1 and @BucksCoBeacon .
But you get 1000 gold stars for using the Wayback Machine.
Oh, okay, I see now. But that's not a thing that ever occurred to me, because if you're going to live this way, you've already long since given up ownership of basically everything, including yourself, to God, to do with as he sees fit. Friendships are just one more thing in the mass.
(And frankly, I find living this way a lot less stressful than it used to be. God seems to be a helluva lot better manager than I am, and things go on better.
It might make a good thread, the question of whether self-denial is worthwhile if it's not got an external end in view. I tend to think not. But then, I'm not a John the Baptist type, more the kind of person who feels comfortable with the man who was accused of being a "glutton and a wine-bibber." If I don't have an actual reason for turning down that glass of wine (such as not offending the traditional Vietnamese community), well, pour it out, I say. IMHO there's sufficient suffering in living "surrendered" (what you call self-sacrifice") that I don't need to create any extra for myself. Plenty of roughage in this diet!
Unpredictably, being an integral aspect of chaos theory.
Looking online for alternative approaches, you could also consider the more prosaic analysis (especially among Christian groups opposed to it, it seems to me) that Christian Nationalism is based in fear and anxiety. (Or more particularly, from my perspective, the exploitation of people's fear and anxiety for political and personal gain.)
So, rather than trying to oppose the carefully conceived campaigns of those in control of the "movement" head on, or trying to convince those caught up in it that they're simply wrong, there might be some mileage in considering how to assuage their fear and anxiety.
Like what? The conservative masses cannot have their fear and anxiety assuaged by the opposition.
Tip of the ice berg. Here’s an article describing public funded Seven Mountains indoctrination in a private, so-called ‘christian’ school:
https://notesfromthechalkboard.com/2024/03/09/north-carolinas-public-voucher-dollars-are-funding-christian-nationalist-indoctrination-in-schools/
Apologies — can’t find the hyperlink tool on my phone.
I see a good deal of other parts of the ice berg. It's crushing.