"[G]overnments exist to preserve our inalienable human rights, not bestow them. They belong to us by birthright. They can be violated, but never taken away."
This is incredibly good writing about an event that, were I in attendance, would have turned me to dust from exhaustion, nostalgia (derogatory), and cringe. Despite this, however, the thought I feel most compelled to share is "Damn. At least we catholics had organ music and shit."
Thanks for stating this so eloquently- the "anti- Christ-ness " of this nationalist movement is so painfully obvious. Unfortunately the ones who need to hear your message are completely deaf to it. Keep preaching anyway, Laura!
Brilliant! The mindlessness and corruption in this government on so many levels is unbelievable. I only wish there was a better alternative. Thank you for enduring this ugly marriage of church and state, and analyzing it so well.
I'm a believer and I'm appalled at this event. Belief is great for motivating oneself to do better onself, and be kinder of and more supportive of others. What that event was about had nothing to do with any of that, and everything to do with male patriarchy and control -- views that are anathema both to democracy and to geniune belief in the divinity of all of us. Thank you for your excellent reporting from the battle lines where Christian nationalism is trying to advance, Laura.
To be fair, evangelical praise music exists not necessarily for God, but for people. The symphony that is pleasing to God is what the human will is oriented towards in the content, which is praise of him. Similar to how a parent would delight in a 4 year old singing about how they love their parent not because of the quality of the vocals but because of the pleasing expression. Difficulty engaging in the intention of the medium would become exhausting for anyone.
Though I think you are right to criticize many so called 'Christian Nationals'. I would say so called because I would estimate most would be better classified as 'Nationalist Christians' (sadly) due to the tepidity of their faith. A true Christian National would look like a zealous Christian who practices the virtue of patriotism.
The argument against chruch and state is confusing because you rightly identify the source of dignity as being intrinsic, but then the strength of the argument seems to conclude that dignity would be extrinsic in a religious state. This, I believe, is assumed in premise 2, but I dont see any reason to believe that since there is no popular Christian strain that views the source of dignity as extrinsic. If dignity can be presumed as intrinsic within a secular government, why is that less the case in a religious government? Christian dignity is an aspect of identity as children of God, not some arbitraration. Its logic of reality, not simply declaration of law.
Beside the point that proper Christanity does not advocate for active disengagement with society (except in certain forms of religious life), sonship is as much divine as fatherhood. Don't forget that a trinitarian theology identifies sonship as fully divine in the person of God the Son. Christ says "the son does nothing on his own, but only what the father shows him".
The experience of a child with a good father is not one free from adversity and suffering (look at the life of Christ himself) but instead a total confidence that no matter what happens, dad is there everything will be ok. This is something we are told to maintain "unless you become like this child you will not enter the kingdom of heaven"
There are certainly wolves among sheep and false Shepards, but there is also a final judgement. While not all evangelical music might convey this, but if there is anything good in it or in a rededication of the country to God, it is the above truth regarding childlike dependence.
It seems to me that "nationalist Christians" would mean Christians who are patriotic, but regardless, language is for communicating and Christian Nationalist is the agreed term. It's the term many of them use, it's the term people use when talking about them.
Merging Church and state gives the state the authority of the church. If human rights come from God, and the church had a state-backed monopoly on interpreting God's law, then the state gets to authoritatively proclaim God's law. Obviously this doesn't change the actual origin of human rights, but it empowers the church/state to violate those rights with less opposition
I notice that, in defending praise music, you compare it to a four-year-old's effort to please a father. My point is that we need to be adults, that God intended us to become adults, and that believing Dad will make everything ok is not an adult point of view. "I need to help Dad make everything OK" is an adult point of view. I'm arguing for works above faith here, I understand that's heretical, and I stand by it
Of course the idea that putting works above faith is heretical is fundamentally a Christian belief. The Jewish tradition is that creation is incomplete. Humanity's purpose is to "complete the work of creation/repair the world." This difference in outlook is one reason why anyone saying that America is based on Judaeo-Christian values probably believes in supersessionism rather than actually wanting to give Jews a seat at the table.
Sure, I dont think its unproductive to settle on the term Christian Nationalist. I understand that's the subject here. I only meant to nuance that there are degrees of unreasonable-reasonable integrations between church and state. The implication being that a popular evangelical view of how that integration might take place would be a strawman for the concept itself.
I would certainly say that all law is reduced to moral right, at least in the United States, whether it be secular humanism or Christian moral theology. Why exactly would moral theology be a more compelling force that something like secular humanism? Should laws be less moral because they dont presume to be God's law? Maybe you would say that secular laws may be more changeable according to the needs of the times, but how could it be that a more changeable law system be less likely to violate human rights? It is unintuitive at the very least.
However, if the root of the argument against union of Chruch and state is that Christianity is false, then that ceases to be a principled argument against the union of C and S.
At the end of the day, the most adult thing to do is accept truth. Christians operate under a framework that says all things will be held accountable and perfect justice will be laid out. The goal of child-likeness of innocence, trusting, and guillessness is not the same as childishness of immaturity, self deception, obstinancy and mischief.
Under this framework, it is possible to retain this good qualities that children naturally possess and also advocate, participate in civil society, and take direct action. Modern hospital systems are a prime example of this.
"[G]overnments exist to preserve our inalienable human rights, not bestow them. They belong to us by birthright. They can be violated, but never taken away."
Amen
This is incredibly good writing about an event that, were I in attendance, would have turned me to dust from exhaustion, nostalgia (derogatory), and cringe. Despite this, however, the thought I feel most compelled to share is "Damn. At least we catholics had organ music and shit."
Excellent writing and sentiment. And I salute your having endured nine hours of pseudo-Christian hell.
Thanks for stating this so eloquently- the "anti- Christ-ness " of this nationalist movement is so painfully obvious. Unfortunately the ones who need to hear your message are completely deaf to it. Keep preaching anyway, Laura!
Brilliant! The mindlessness and corruption in this government on so many levels is unbelievable. I only wish there was a better alternative. Thank you for enduring this ugly marriage of church and state, and analyzing it so well.
Thank you for your suffering to provide us with this report. It sounds like it was a lot like how I imagine hell to be, should it exist.
I'm a believer and I'm appalled at this event. Belief is great for motivating oneself to do better onself, and be kinder of and more supportive of others. What that event was about had nothing to do with any of that, and everything to do with male patriarchy and control -- views that are anathema both to democracy and to geniune belief in the divinity of all of us. Thank you for your excellent reporting from the battle lines where Christian nationalism is trying to advance, Laura.
To be fair, evangelical praise music exists not necessarily for God, but for people. The symphony that is pleasing to God is what the human will is oriented towards in the content, which is praise of him. Similar to how a parent would delight in a 4 year old singing about how they love their parent not because of the quality of the vocals but because of the pleasing expression. Difficulty engaging in the intention of the medium would become exhausting for anyone.
Though I think you are right to criticize many so called 'Christian Nationals'. I would say so called because I would estimate most would be better classified as 'Nationalist Christians' (sadly) due to the tepidity of their faith. A true Christian National would look like a zealous Christian who practices the virtue of patriotism.
The argument against chruch and state is confusing because you rightly identify the source of dignity as being intrinsic, but then the strength of the argument seems to conclude that dignity would be extrinsic in a religious state. This, I believe, is assumed in premise 2, but I dont see any reason to believe that since there is no popular Christian strain that views the source of dignity as extrinsic. If dignity can be presumed as intrinsic within a secular government, why is that less the case in a religious government? Christian dignity is an aspect of identity as children of God, not some arbitraration. Its logic of reality, not simply declaration of law.
Beside the point that proper Christanity does not advocate for active disengagement with society (except in certain forms of religious life), sonship is as much divine as fatherhood. Don't forget that a trinitarian theology identifies sonship as fully divine in the person of God the Son. Christ says "the son does nothing on his own, but only what the father shows him".
The experience of a child with a good father is not one free from adversity and suffering (look at the life of Christ himself) but instead a total confidence that no matter what happens, dad is there everything will be ok. This is something we are told to maintain "unless you become like this child you will not enter the kingdom of heaven"
There are certainly wolves among sheep and false Shepards, but there is also a final judgement. While not all evangelical music might convey this, but if there is anything good in it or in a rededication of the country to God, it is the above truth regarding childlike dependence.
It seems to me that "nationalist Christians" would mean Christians who are patriotic, but regardless, language is for communicating and Christian Nationalist is the agreed term. It's the term many of them use, it's the term people use when talking about them.
Merging Church and state gives the state the authority of the church. If human rights come from God, and the church had a state-backed monopoly on interpreting God's law, then the state gets to authoritatively proclaim God's law. Obviously this doesn't change the actual origin of human rights, but it empowers the church/state to violate those rights with less opposition
I notice that, in defending praise music, you compare it to a four-year-old's effort to please a father. My point is that we need to be adults, that God intended us to become adults, and that believing Dad will make everything ok is not an adult point of view. "I need to help Dad make everything OK" is an adult point of view. I'm arguing for works above faith here, I understand that's heretical, and I stand by it
Of course the idea that putting works above faith is heretical is fundamentally a Christian belief. The Jewish tradition is that creation is incomplete. Humanity's purpose is to "complete the work of creation/repair the world." This difference in outlook is one reason why anyone saying that America is based on Judaeo-Christian values probably believes in supersessionism rather than actually wanting to give Jews a seat at the table.
Sure, I dont think its unproductive to settle on the term Christian Nationalist. I understand that's the subject here. I only meant to nuance that there are degrees of unreasonable-reasonable integrations between church and state. The implication being that a popular evangelical view of how that integration might take place would be a strawman for the concept itself.
I would certainly say that all law is reduced to moral right, at least in the United States, whether it be secular humanism or Christian moral theology. Why exactly would moral theology be a more compelling force that something like secular humanism? Should laws be less moral because they dont presume to be God's law? Maybe you would say that secular laws may be more changeable according to the needs of the times, but how could it be that a more changeable law system be less likely to violate human rights? It is unintuitive at the very least.
However, if the root of the argument against union of Chruch and state is that Christianity is false, then that ceases to be a principled argument against the union of C and S.
At the end of the day, the most adult thing to do is accept truth. Christians operate under a framework that says all things will be held accountable and perfect justice will be laid out. The goal of child-likeness of innocence, trusting, and guillessness is not the same as childishness of immaturity, self deception, obstinancy and mischief.
Under this framework, it is possible to retain this good qualities that children naturally possess and also advocate, participate in civil society, and take direct action. Modern hospital systems are a prime example of this.