This is just my opinion as an outsider to the discussion (as a Roman Catholic), but "Christian Nationalism" seems (in the popular discourse) to be deliberately vague and to largely serve the same purpose as "theocracy" did in the Bush Years.
There are probably some genuine theocrats out there (or exponents of Christian Nationalism), but in both cases, the term seems largely to stigmatize Evangelicals who vote for one of the two major parties. When journalists use it, I don't think they are being disingenuous, I just think that the current "Christian Nationalism-scare" is largely shadowboxing, and there isn't even a good definition about what Christian Nationalism allegedly is (I have seen it said that it is both un-American/anti-American and also too American/patriotic in the same article), and only conservative political activity seems to be covered by the term.
Sorry for my tremors interrupting my post. I wanted to say Christian Nationalism seems like a return to the Puritan glue that bounded the first wave of European settlers to start the foundation of a new land. In my view, Christianity should be a continuous "movement" that recognizes true humanity as inviting all to join and share.
John, I think you need to provide a little more explanation about the threat(s) of Christian nationalism. You state that belief in Christian nationalism is "not compatible with a pluralistic democracy," but you don't provide any support for that statement. I could imagine some supporters of the Christian nationalism position as Douthat defines it disagreeing that the two are incompatible, or possibly arguing that theocratic state would be superior to a pluralistic democracy.
Perhaps French & Douthat provide the necessary context, but their thoughts are hiding behind a paywall. I wouldn't mind at least a brief synopsis to help me understand why I should join coalitions to fight this threat and why I should draw lines against it.
Hi Dan, check on the links provided in one of the comments above for non-paywalled versions of the French and Douthat articles.
On your substantive point, time commitments prevent from fully engaging with every argument I come across, and I sometimes have to make judgment calls about assertions that I don't think merit a defense or elaboration. In the context of the United States in 2024, two of those are: (1) Douthat's "Definition one" Christian nationalism is incompatible with a pluralistic democracy; and (2) a pluralistic democracy is preferable to a theocratic state.
The former is a descriptive claim that could perhaps be disproven by an empirical example, but I have yet to come across one. The second is a normative claim that draws on certain theological commitments and some political theory. There are some commentators who think otherwise, but I have not encountered a compelling argument along these lines. Happy to read anything you might recommend.
Thanks. I was able to read the articles using the link, and they provided adequate context to understand your post better. As you pointed out, Douthat's definitions help clarify my questions considerably, and I don't think further explanation is necessary.
Agreed—-I wrote some similar thoughts here, would be honored if you took a look. https://open.substack.com/pub/atberg/p/what-critics-often-get-wrong-about-christian-nationalism?r=6mggd&utm_medium=ios
Great reflections, and consonant with some themes I explore in my new book on the relationship between religion and patriotism. See also this interview I did with Stanley Hauerwas: https://johninazu.substack.com/p/my-q-and-a-with-theologian-stanley
Oh neat thanks! I’ll check it out
For those, like Dan Mazzucco, without direct access to the NY Times, here's a paywall free link to the Douthat column. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/01/opinion/christian-nationalism.html?unlocked_article_code=1.bU0.--Fx.UU0_FvOkrihR&smid=url-share
And here's David French's: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/25/opinion/christian-nationalism.html?unlocked_article_code=1.bU0.9O1f.qJs866dLK87D&smid=url-share
This is just my opinion as an outsider to the discussion (as a Roman Catholic), but "Christian Nationalism" seems (in the popular discourse) to be deliberately vague and to largely serve the same purpose as "theocracy" did in the Bush Years.
There are probably some genuine theocrats out there (or exponents of Christian Nationalism), but in both cases, the term seems largely to stigmatize Evangelicals who vote for one of the two major parties. When journalists use it, I don't think they are being disingenuous, I just think that the current "Christian Nationalism-scare" is largely shadowboxing, and there isn't even a good definition about what Christian Nationalism allegedly is (I have seen it said that it is both un-American/anti-American and also too American/patriotic in the same article), and only conservative political activity seems to be covered by the term.
Sorry for my tremors interrupting my post. I wanted to say Christian Nationalism seems like a return to the Puritan glue that bounded the first wave of European settlers to start the foundation of a new land. In my view, Christianity should be a continuous "movement" that recognizes true humanity as inviting all to join and share.
This "movement" seems to be a retro reinstating
John, I think you need to provide a little more explanation about the threat(s) of Christian nationalism. You state that belief in Christian nationalism is "not compatible with a pluralistic democracy," but you don't provide any support for that statement. I could imagine some supporters of the Christian nationalism position as Douthat defines it disagreeing that the two are incompatible, or possibly arguing that theocratic state would be superior to a pluralistic democracy.
Perhaps French & Douthat provide the necessary context, but their thoughts are hiding behind a paywall. I wouldn't mind at least a brief synopsis to help me understand why I should join coalitions to fight this threat and why I should draw lines against it.
Hi Dan, check on the links provided in one of the comments above for non-paywalled versions of the French and Douthat articles.
On your substantive point, time commitments prevent from fully engaging with every argument I come across, and I sometimes have to make judgment calls about assertions that I don't think merit a defense or elaboration. In the context of the United States in 2024, two of those are: (1) Douthat's "Definition one" Christian nationalism is incompatible with a pluralistic democracy; and (2) a pluralistic democracy is preferable to a theocratic state.
The former is a descriptive claim that could perhaps be disproven by an empirical example, but I have yet to come across one. The second is a normative claim that draws on certain theological commitments and some political theory. There are some commentators who think otherwise, but I have not encountered a compelling argument along these lines. Happy to read anything you might recommend.
Thanks. I was able to read the articles using the link, and they provided adequate context to understand your post better. As you pointed out, Douthat's definitions help clarify my questions considerably, and I don't think further explanation is necessary.