Last June, the Presbyterian Church in America’s General Assembly, under the leadership of moderator Kevin DeYoung, commissioned a denominational study and report on Christian nationalism.
This is really good, and I agree with pretty much everything stated here--and I think it's hilarious that the guys who wrote the WCF are less "based" than those who claim to be their successors.
The one quibble I have here is that I would also anathematize those who speak disparagingly of men. While this seems to have gone largely by the wayside in conservative circles in recent years (thankfully!) guys like Webbon played on the apparent double standards within the "commanding heights" of evangelical culture in their efforts to garner a following, and you still see this today.
And that's really the thing. No partiality means just that. I suspect, though I can't prove, that a lot of female exvangelicals come from churches where women were disparaged and a blind eye was turned to male sexual sin while the women were watched like hawks, and a lot of young men who went CN come from churches where men were treated as defective women and female sexual sin was excused while male sexual sin was treated with its due gravity.
I was at General Assembly in Chattanooga when this report was commissioned, and my fear was that it would either be bland to the point of irrelevance, or that it would exacerbate divisions within the PCA by coming down too hard on one side or the other. I'm really pleased with this outcome, and my main hope is that it acts as a final statement on this topic so we don't have to keep re-litigating it every time there's a presidential election.
I appreciate and agree with the spirit here. You can point to so many examples where the Discourse offers up a stark choice of two binary extremes which both miss in their own way the true and the good that Christians should be aiming at.
I do question your assertion that "Can boys be in girls' locker rooms?" has a more obvious Christian answer than "How much immigration is good for a society?" The Bible has things to say about gender and about immigrants, and Christians can, guided by the Church's tradition, make use of the principles and examples it provides to help determine how to follow God's Law in the decisions we are faced with today. But in neither case is there a straightforward answer to those questions as stated, or the myriad other questions lurking behind them. The principle of "love God and love your neighbor" may be simple enough, but the question of how that should work itself out in practice is something that in any field requires a good amount of prudential wisdom.
A very helpful article. You do make it clear with whom you think most of the blame lies, though. It’s not helpful that you mention the problems with hate directed toward women without acknowledging the misandry that is rampant in blaming the world’s ills on white men.
Good summation. I think the words of this report were very reasonable.
On the one hand, the left really would like to characterize as "Christian nationalist" anyone who would invoke Christian ethics in politics (as opposed to the self-evidently correct secular leftist ethics du jour.) Unless perhaps, like James Talarico, there is no daylight between their "Christian ethics" and the secular leftist ethics du jour. By their standard, I'm a Christian Nationalist, but so is David French, and so were even Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.
But as someone who is probably in the rightmost quartile or so among evangelicals, I listened for a while to those who call themselves Christian Nationalists, to see if there was any value in their words. Over time, I think they have consistently shown their nature to be Internet edgelords rather lacking in fruits of the Spirit. I have been continuously disheartened by them. I wonder if others have followed a similar path.
I only recently noticed that it is apparently an article of faith in that group that Bonhoeffer was a traitor for his resistance to the Nazis. I really can't find much daylight between this view and outright Nazi sympathizing.
To be sure, Bonhoeffer was at least a heretic, if not an apostate. But Hitler was much worse than Bonhoeffer. I feel like this shouldn't be controversial! But I don't think you can get into their club with that sort of talk.
The first part of your response is something I've seen as well. Defining "Christian Nationalism" seems to be pretty difficult among Christians. For some, like Al Mohler, it's as simple as taking a biblical stand on issues of life (abortion) and sexuality (LGBTQ issues). For others, it's as radical as what you described about Bonhoeffer. If the PCA can make progress in supplying an agreed-upon understanding of CN, then I think we're moving in a more productive direction. Otherwise it will be one big illustration of the "no true Scotsman" logical fallacy.
Honest question: could you see the SBC doing something similar? Honestly I can't, and it makes me wonder why the PCA seems so willing and able to produce something that, in theory, should be more Christian and less denominational. Regardless, it's a helpful exercise and resource even for us non-Presbyterians.
I appreciate the PCA taking this on, but I've always thought CN had sort of an underpants gnome quality about it. And I don't think many of the people on the CN train who think JD Vance is their future realize just how Catholic he is.
This is really good, and I agree with pretty much everything stated here--and I think it's hilarious that the guys who wrote the WCF are less "based" than those who claim to be their successors.
The one quibble I have here is that I would also anathematize those who speak disparagingly of men. While this seems to have gone largely by the wayside in conservative circles in recent years (thankfully!) guys like Webbon played on the apparent double standards within the "commanding heights" of evangelical culture in their efforts to garner a following, and you still see this today.
And that's really the thing. No partiality means just that. I suspect, though I can't prove, that a lot of female exvangelicals come from churches where women were disparaged and a blind eye was turned to male sexual sin while the women were watched like hawks, and a lot of young men who went CN come from churches where men were treated as defective women and female sexual sin was excused while male sexual sin was treated with its due gravity.
I was at General Assembly in Chattanooga when this report was commissioned, and my fear was that it would either be bland to the point of irrelevance, or that it would exacerbate divisions within the PCA by coming down too hard on one side or the other. I'm really pleased with this outcome, and my main hope is that it acts as a final statement on this topic so we don't have to keep re-litigating it every time there's a presidential election.
I appreciate and agree with the spirit here. You can point to so many examples where the Discourse offers up a stark choice of two binary extremes which both miss in their own way the true and the good that Christians should be aiming at.
I do question your assertion that "Can boys be in girls' locker rooms?" has a more obvious Christian answer than "How much immigration is good for a society?" The Bible has things to say about gender and about immigrants, and Christians can, guided by the Church's tradition, make use of the principles and examples it provides to help determine how to follow God's Law in the decisions we are faced with today. But in neither case is there a straightforward answer to those questions as stated, or the myriad other questions lurking behind them. The principle of "love God and love your neighbor" may be simple enough, but the question of how that should work itself out in practice is something that in any field requires a good amount of prudential wisdom.
A very helpful article. You do make it clear with whom you think most of the blame lies, though. It’s not helpful that you mention the problems with hate directed toward women without acknowledging the misandry that is rampant in blaming the world’s ills on white men.
Good summation. I think the words of this report were very reasonable.
On the one hand, the left really would like to characterize as "Christian nationalist" anyone who would invoke Christian ethics in politics (as opposed to the self-evidently correct secular leftist ethics du jour.) Unless perhaps, like James Talarico, there is no daylight between their "Christian ethics" and the secular leftist ethics du jour. By their standard, I'm a Christian Nationalist, but so is David French, and so were even Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.
But as someone who is probably in the rightmost quartile or so among evangelicals, I listened for a while to those who call themselves Christian Nationalists, to see if there was any value in their words. Over time, I think they have consistently shown their nature to be Internet edgelords rather lacking in fruits of the Spirit. I have been continuously disheartened by them. I wonder if others have followed a similar path.
I only recently noticed that it is apparently an article of faith in that group that Bonhoeffer was a traitor for his resistance to the Nazis. I really can't find much daylight between this view and outright Nazi sympathizing.
To be sure, Bonhoeffer was at least a heretic, if not an apostate. But Hitler was much worse than Bonhoeffer. I feel like this shouldn't be controversial! But I don't think you can get into their club with that sort of talk.
The first part of your response is something I've seen as well. Defining "Christian Nationalism" seems to be pretty difficult among Christians. For some, like Al Mohler, it's as simple as taking a biblical stand on issues of life (abortion) and sexuality (LGBTQ issues). For others, it's as radical as what you described about Bonhoeffer. If the PCA can make progress in supplying an agreed-upon understanding of CN, then I think we're moving in a more productive direction. Otherwise it will be one big illustration of the "no true Scotsman" logical fallacy.
Honest question: could you see the SBC doing something similar? Honestly I can't, and it makes me wonder why the PCA seems so willing and able to produce something that, in theory, should be more Christian and less denominational. Regardless, it's a helpful exercise and resource even for us non-Presbyterians.
Standing ovation! Really tremendous. Alright, folks, no more to see here. Let's get back to work.
I appreciate the PCA taking this on, but I've always thought CN had sort of an underpants gnome quality about it. And I don't think many of the people on the CN train who think JD Vance is their future realize just how Catholic he is.
Step 1: Post a lot
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Christendom!