Writes Kenneth L. Woodward, in "How I became a white Christian Nationalist."
That's in The Washington Post. I wouldn't click on something with a title like that if it weren't in mainstream media. And Woodward has mainstream credentials. He was once a religion editor at Newsweek. And he's got a mainstream-sounding book: "Getting Religion: Faith, Culture, and Politics From the Age of Eisenhower to the Ascent of Trump."
So, let's see what's going on here.
Ah! He's not a "white Christian nationalist" at all! He just took some on-line quiz that slotted him into that category because he gave "tempered support" for the proposition that the federal government should: 1. "Advocate Christian values," 2. "Enforce strict separation of church and state," 3. "Allow the display of religious symbols in public spaces," and 4. "Allow prayer in public schools."
The column rambles along:
My problem, though, is this: I don’t know any Christian nationalists. There was a time when I would have known numerous people who might have answered to the description “white Christian nationalist.” I’m sure my father, a White born-again Christian, was one. His generation lived through two world wars, an experience that made it very difficult to distinguish between nationalism and patriotism — or between religion and nationalism during the subsequent Cold War against atheistic communism....
Whoa! Is that fair to old man Woodward? Are you a "white Christian nationalist" just because you are white, Christian, and a nationalist? I'd say you have to believe the 3 characteristics fit together in some rational or spiritual way.
... Dwight D. Eisenhower... led America’s “crusade in Europe” as Supreme Allied Commander during World War II, added “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance as president, and in 1955 was declared (by the Republican National Committee) “not only the political leader, but the spiritual leader of our times.” Now there was a real white Christian nationalist....
Woodward is lowering the standard for what it means to be a white Christian nationalist — enlarging the category. But why? Surely, not just for laughs.
In its 2022 survey, Pew shrewdly asks respondents what Christian nationalism means to them. Among the 45 percent who responded favorably to the idea of the United States as a Christian nation, the phrase is commonly interpreted to mean a country guided by “Christian” values such as honesty and tolerance and/or by a general belief in God. In short, almost any definition other than “a government-imposed theocracy.”
Conversely, theocracy, or at least a governmental privileging of the nominally Christian U.S. majority, is exactly what the 51 percent who judge “Christian nationalism” unfavorably typically say it means....
In other words, the term "Christian nationalism" is terribly confusing and divisive. That's Woodward's point. It was the quiz he took that enlarged the category. I'd recommend skepticism when you hear the term "white Christian nationalism." It's not a good term, because different groups are using it very differently.
Posts
58 comments:
It's not a good term, because different groups are using it very differently.
Now do:
1)Woman
2)Racist
3)MAGA
Fair enough. The phrase handily contains the three most hated categories of the left. White. Christian. Nationalist. Yucky time three.
Fair enough. The phrase handily contains the three most hated categories of the left. White. Christian. Nationalist. Yucky time three.
I don't know any White Supremacists... (other than leftists)
White Supremacy is a major problem according to the mob-FBI and it's corrupt leader - Joe biden.
I'm a WCN.
And I'm not a Christian. I believe that if every one behaved as Christians, we would all be better off, so I support Christianity (at least in its current form).
I'm (currently) white, or at least white adjacent. Not remotely WASP.
Nationalist? Sounds pretty evil, but looking it up, it's at worst a belief that one's nation is superior to others, all things considered, and supports its interests over the interests of other nations.
Nothing in there about killing people, or stealing their stuff.
I have finally made it.
Another tiresome redefinition of language for no other purpose than to prop up the farago of falsehoods of our Prevaricator in Chief. Think of this article as the written version of the Patriot Front cosplay staged to complement Biden’s nut-rant at Howard.
I've noticed that most religion academics are self-described atheists.
Don't take fishing advice from someone who won't bait a hook.
I am white skin though I am Puerto Rican so am not certain I qualify as "white"
I a Christian
I am not sure what "nationalist" means but I am proud to be an American citizen and I do put America first.
So am I a "white Christian nationalist"?
Not sure but have no problem with it if I am one.
I don't see why anyone else should have a problem either.
John Henry
Good things happen in church. To look beyond our selves, even in the simply organized way of a worship service, elevates people.
Don't worry so much about the labels.
Before the rise of globalism and Communism, 90% of the USA could be called White Christian Nationalists. Nationalism was mostly seen as a good thing before WW2, but later considered to exacerbate between-group hostility and violence. Anti-nationalism underscores the rise of the UN, global business, diversity efforts, and more.
So today, nationalism is a negative word for half the population.
"Christian" has become a vague nothing for the culture as a whole. Do you mean Catholicism? Political Protestantism? Ideological Protestantism? Mormons? Eastern Orthodox? Recent reform churches with LGBTQA, social justice, and similar themes? Many who identify as "Christian" don't practice and don't remember much either -- they attend church on Easter and Christmas only.
Humans created a complex world they no longer understand.
It's a complete setup. Literally nobody* refers to him- or herself as a "white** Christian nationalist." It's strictly a pejorative term.
The reason it's a setup is because if someone (me, for instance) denies being a "white Christian nationalist," the pejorator can ask, "Well, you're white, aren't you? And Christian? And you're a believer in American exceptionalism, right? J'accuse!"
It's a stupid game designed to paint good and decent people as enemies of Our Democracy(tm). People who push this nonsense should be shamed from the public sphere.
*Ok there are 300,000,000 people in this country and somebody probably does.
**Shouldn't this be capitalized? We capitalize Black nowadays, don't we?
Is being a "Christian Nationalist" better or worse than committing immigration fraud by marrying your brother?
Asking for muslim legislator friend.
"White Christian nationalism", like " racist," "white supremacist," "transphobe," etc., describe a handful of outliers. The terms are broadened, without justification, to include any and all potential opponents of the Marxist cultural revolution. "Conservative" and "Republican" are well on the way.
It is language based on lies.
Ann Althouse said...
"Woodward is lowering the standard for what it means to be a white Christian nationalist — enlarging the category. But why? Surely, not just for laughs."
But also...
"It was THE QUIZ he took that enlarged the category."
So the who is the quiz rather than Woodward.
As to the WHY? Not just for laughs but because people will click on something with a title like that in mainstream media.
"I'd recommend skepticism when you hear the term 'white Christian nationalism.'"
Skepticism should be recommended when reading the Washington Post.
It's hard to be a proper propagandist without mainstream credentials. How is calling someone a Christian Nationalist not hate speech? Oh, right- it's a leftwing author, it can't be hate speech. The left is allowed to vilify anyone they want any way they want, because they mean well. God, your cruel neutrality is a joke.
"It's not a good term, because different groups are using it very differently."
Not really. Only one group uses it, woke prog leftists, and it simply means 'enemy'.
I was going to post something similar to Blogger West TX Intermediate Crude (10:02 AM), but he/she said it better than I could.
Woodward identifies as a Roman Catholic (or so Wikipedia would have us believe).
I'm W/white and pretty much a nationalist, but haven't claimed the label of Christian since I started thinking seriously.
For the left, the next door neighbor who attends church on Sundays and watches football when he gets home is their greatest enemy. Isolate marginalize, destroy.
Yes, I self-identify as a white Christian nationalist. I was born white, am a member of a Christian church, and I also believe in America first.
If the subject comes up in conversation I will admit it. It really irritates my son.
"I'd say you have to believe the 3 characteristics fit together in some rational or spiritual way."
A good-faith point about a bad-faith argument--here a tendentious effort to vilify, even throwing the old man under the bus to score points.
"But why? Surely, not just for laughs."
No. As part of an ideological crusade.
"In other words, the term "Christian nationalism" is terribly confusing and divisive. That's Woodward's point."
Divisive. Controversial. Useful codewords. But no good prog--not sure Woodward fits, if I recall his prior work, and I'll give him the benefit of the doubt--finds it at all confusing.
Diversity of individuals, minority of one.
Judge a philosophy by its principles ("content"), not principals ("color").
Nationalism refers to a religious (i.e. moral, ethical, legal) jurisdiction.
Under Americans conservativism of Declaration and Constitution, the nation is defined with the first and second in letter and practice.
The WNC propaganda campaign seems hopelessly confused.
Lots of people are white and Judeo Christian through no fault of their own. So the hook has to be the word nationalist.
It must mean something awful, like swastikas and death camps. But the word nationalist has never meant that. Who comes up with these weird campaigns? Why do our purported betters jump on board?
Whilst the left is worshipping Satan and offering millions of sacrifices to their "God" a year.
Is Giorgia Meloni considered a white Christian nationalist or is that just an American thing?
Albinophobia is a progressive condition celebrated with pride in parades.
At this point, people should SHUN WAPO and the NYT's for the lies it spewed to thwart a Presidential election to let the potato steal it. Like this. HOW far up Soros ass do they stick their heads??
The Washington Post
@washingtonpost
·
Follow
Elon Musk, who has overseen a rise in antisemitism and other hate speech on Twitter, made a series of attacks on George Soros, tweeting the Jewish-born investor and liberal philanthropist hates humanity and “wants to erode the very fabric of civilization.”
As for nationalism:
...it's at worst a belief that one's nation is superior to others, all things considered, and supports its interests over the interests of other nations."
That offhand "at worst" can be pretty fucking bad. In these beliefs so much mischief and worse has been and continues being justified vis a vis our behavior toward other nations, (e.g., coercing other nations by force or other means to submit to our wishes, to allow us access to their resources, to act as subordinate puppets to us, etc.).
(Not that such "mischief and worse" is unique to the USA; all powerful nations throughout history have seen themselves as "superior to others...and" consequently pursued their "interests over the interests of other nations" without regard for the negative consequences for those other nations.)
Given that technology has shrunken our world tremendously, and given that the deleterious effects of that technology are now swiftly if not instantly global in their consequences, it is more than ever essential all nations (particularly the US) stop thinking in terms of "we" and all the rest, particularly that "we" are "better" than all other nations or that "we" deserve more than other nations, or have a right to be the global neighborhood bully/thug, coercing others to our will by economic pressure or physical violence. If the world does not soon begin acting in concert for the good of the populations of all nations, we will collectively reap the disastrous global consequences.
As for Christians: there a fuck lot more people in the world who think they're Christians than there are actual Christians.
"If the subject comes up in conversation I will admit it. It really irritates my son."
Sounds like you've got a good (and perspicasious) son there.
The definitions of terms like “white supremacy” and “white Christian nationalism have evolved over the years.
In simpler times they accurate descriptions of people who advocated the idea that the Caucasian race was superior to other races. Think KKK.
The terms have evolved to mean anybody who supports the idea that Western Civilization is better than other civilizations.
The game is given away when you ask an SJW to describe “whiteness”. It turns out that “whiteness” is a stand in for the societal norms and values honed over the centuries with input from the Greeks, the Romans, the Church, and the founders to create the most just and prosperous society in history. The SJW prefers a return to the tribalism that Western Culture has been trying to eliminate.
---As for Christians: there a fuck lot more people in the world who think they're Christians than there are actual Christians.
Noted. There are also a lot more people in the world who think they're experts in grammar than there are actual grammatically correct writers.
@cook
Yes, he loves us and I’m glad of that but he’s 38, college educated, $60,000 in student loan debt, no credit, can’t hold a job, and refuses to continue the mental health care he needs.
all nations ...[must] stop thinking in terms of "we" and all the rest, particularly that "we" are "better" than all other nations or that "we" deserve more than other nations
It seems to be argued that ONLY WHITE CHRISTIANS agree with the proposition that SOME ideas or cultures or nations-that-promote-and-protect a culture MUST, necessarily, be "better" than "other" ideas or cultures or nations. Former president Obama, for instance, claimed that he (only) believed in American exceptionalism in a fashion identical to how (I forget, but say) the Germans believed in German exceptionalism or the Saudis believed in Saudi exceptionalism. The global modernist argues that all ideas and cultures and nations are pretty much the same.
So Hitler's Germany or Obama's US are more or less the same as Ghandi's India or Tito's Yugoslavia or Quaddify's Libya or Castro's Cuba... It's sort of a White Christian perspective that "our" methods and systems are somehow and by some measure (of our own choosing, of course) are "better" than theirs.
If, on the other hand, "we" reject the idea that Hitler and Tito and Quaddify are no worse than Obama or Bush or Trump or Biden -- if "we" even suggest perhaps that Biden's policies are better than Trump's -- "we" admit the postulate that some standard exists and some systems approach that standard more closely than others.
What standard, then? A Christian standard and tradition reaching back to Egypt and Babylon, through the Romans, to all of Europe, North Africa, and West Asia for 20 centuries and counting? The "Arc of Moral History" -- where history is written by the winners? The GDP according to the CIA and WEF? A new standard based on industrial output of Greenhouse Gases?
If "we" of the 21st Century enjoy the benefits and the traditions of the 20th, passed along these centuries numbered by the European Chriistian Churches, we should own the source of that inheritance.
Misinforminimalism said..
"It's a complete setup. Literally nobody refers to him- or herself as a 'white Christian nationalist'. It's strictly a pejorative term."
Yup. And notice the word 'patriotism' is never to be found in these conversations. There are other ways to love one's country other than 'nationalism'. Patriotism being one.
"The reason it's a setup is because if someone (me, for instance) denies being a 'white Christian nationalist,' the pejorator can ask, 'Well, you're white, aren't you? And Christian? And you're a believer in American exceptionalism, right? J'accuse!'"
Notice the rhetorical slight of hand here (and I believe you've captured the general conversation quite clearly and accurately). A belief in American Exceptionalism is presented as the core of American Nationalism. And nationalism has some issues. But there are other ideals that believe in American Exceptionalism that don't necessarily share nationalism's flaws. Patriotism is just one.
"It's a stupid game designed to paint good and decent people as enemies of Our Democracy(tm)."
Now let's talk about different political systems other than Democracy where the people get to decide things - like Republicanism, for instance.
It's odd to connect a 2000 year old religion, with roots going back a thousand years earlier, with any modern nation. The only identifiable national groups that have been around that long aren't Christians.
Nationalism is a religion unto itself, and not a very nice one. We're better off without it. Anything that emphasizes our common humanity is a good thing, while ideas that unnecessarily divide people are bad, and there aren't a lot of necessary reasons to divide people.
its
Notice what you get when you google Marjorie Taylor Green Christian nationalism?
All but one of the links go to liberal news sites. There seems to be no Christian conservative sites out there who self-identify as "Christian Nationalists" and who responded to Green's call. This seems to be a term of opprobrium that the Left applies to some on the Christian Right and little more.
Are you thinking that maybe Google is censoring the right-wing sites? Here's the DuckDuckGo search, and it shows basically the same thing.
"It's not a good term, because different groups are using it very differently."
I'm a professional Evangelical in at least 2 distinct ways, as well as being an Evangelical in my private life as well, and I say a hearty yes! to this summary.
It's all mixed in with the socio-political propaganda out there. It is not only used differently by different groups, it is intentionally misused and misapplied to make one group seem synonymous with each other. There are genuine theocratic folks out there, but they are pretty small. Mostly, it is folks who are Christians and who have equal voting rights who think that their ethics and views should be represented in US government. Which is exactly what every other demographic thinks too.
Lots, lots more to say on this as I've been interconnected with these conversations, and have research in a lot of relevant areas.
But I mostly want to say Kenneth L. Woodward wasn't just a past religion editor at Newsweek, he was among those that helped Newsweek be so good back in the 90s and earlier. He was outstanding at his job and I have long respected his perspectives and insights on the topic I'm professionally and academically connected with.
He was pushed out by the pseudo-historian hack Jon Meacham, who along with Jeff Zucker, helped contribute more to the massive collapse of news media respect and quality over the last couple decades than anyone. They are the Thomas Midgleys of 21st century American Press.
It's odd to connect a 2000 year old religion, with roots going back a thousand years earlier, with any modern nation. The only identifiable national groups that have been around that long aren't Christians.
What is a national group? "Native" in the sense of connections of birth and blood? Or in the sense of "the social compact" that spawns a system of rules and enforcers and judges for the group?
Seems to me the social compact idea: that individuals can accept the rules and join the group and expect to be and in fact do get treated more or less equals of the other members of the group is an idea more promoted in works like Paul's Epistle to Philomon than ideas other true-bloods and birthrights and visible traits of skin tone and nose shape and hair textures... though I'd undertake to accept arguments about Ruth joining the family (tribe? nation?) of her mother-in-law Naomi.
Aside from nations with roots in Biblical teaching, what modern nations are connected to the ideas of recruiting new members?
(Later we can come back to "connections" the fruit to the root and all...)
What standard, then? "The 'Arc of Moral History' -- where history is written by the winners?"
This seems to be the standard that prevails over time. This standard is one reason so much of history is false, and so much barbarous savagery is enshrined as the acme of human honor and duty, as evidence (the) god(s) blessed the methods and goals of the barbarians.
All dominant nations/empires--"winners"--eventually lose, however, and other winners arise. However, presently, the battle(s) over who will win and who will lose may well lead to global devastation, with no winners standing at the end. This is why the dominant nations today must cast aside the eons-old self-serving lies and recognize we are all in this world together, and only global cooperation and mutual concern will save us.
Alas...such recognition will not happen. "Humans are stupid...stupid, stupid, stupid!!" (To quote, I believe, from PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE.)
I think that this may turn into an own goal for the Democrats. They are, I believe, forgetting one thing - that they have built their plans for continued domination in this country on Hispanics, who mostly consider themselves White, are typically much more devout Christians that many Anglos, and are often fairly patriotic and nationalistic. They left Mexico, etc, because our culture, our system of Govt, etc is better, and esp when Democrats are not in control. Many seem very receptive to what some white Christian nationalists, like Trump, DeSantis, etc, are saying. The Dems seem determined to drive them into the Republicans’ arms.
"white Christian nationalist" because calling somebody "racist" wore out.
"what modern nations are connected to the ideas of recruiting new members?"
Good heavens, no.
Modern Nations are all about outsiders forcing their way in and obtaining the benefits without the obligations.
Or something like that...
In reading through Peter's epistles in recent days I am struck by the task before Peter late in his life. He realizes as a born Jew that this new thing, this "Christianity" is decidedly NOT nationalistic. Judaism was. Zionism is the natural outcome of Judaism. But the Christianity of Peter's day was neither a religion nor a nation. It was a collection of believers. The word church -- ekklesia -- means "meeting" or "congregation" or more literally "assembly of called out ones." Called out of what? Nations. Ethnicities. Religious backgrounds.
Peter, the man with the most cred of any apostle, was approaching a death he knew was coming as he penned his last letter. He now realized he and the others misunderstood: Jesus would NOT return in their lifetimes. He is now looking into the murky future: this assembly must be preserved. But how? Without a national core, or an ethnic/tribal core what could hold the parts together?
And he found the answer: Scripture. And further he did something heroic: he once again, as he did in Acts, handed the baton to the Apostle Paul. Four verses from the end he writes: "[Paul] writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."
What he did here was to canonize Paul, another Jewish believer but one who was never fully embraced by many fellow Jewish believers. Peter wrote this to save this nascent new thing, this non-nation, non-religion collection of humans. Peter thus saved Christianity for without Paul it would have surely collapsed.
I'm an American and, until recently, was very proud of my country. I've taught overseas (Lithuania) and taught students from over 30 nations. One student once told me in class, "You're TOO AMERICAN." We all laughed because, as the Simpson taught us, "It's funny cause it's true."
But I am NOT a Christian nationalist. And neither is any other true believer in Jesus Christ.
"That's in The Washington Post. I wouldn't click on something with a title like that if it weren't in mainstream media."
Mainstream Media? Oh, you mean the SSM.
His generation lived through two world wars, an experience that made it very difficult to distinguish between nationalism and patriotism
https://www.britannica.com/topic/nationalism
nationalism, ideology based on the premise that the individual’s loyalty and devotion to the nation-state surpass other individual or group interests
https://www.britannica.com/topic/patriotism-sociology
patriotism
patriotism, feeling of attachment and commitment to a country, nation, or political community. Patriotism (love of country) and nationalism (loyalty to one’s nation) are often taken to be synonymous, yet patriotism has its origins some 2,000 years prior to the rise of nationalism in the 19th century.
So:
1: To the extent that their first definition is correct, and that "nationalism" means "devotion to nation above all else", one can not be a "Christian nationalist", because God is "above all else" for Christians, not the State.
2: To the extent that "loyalty to one’s nation" defines nationalism, you can not, today, be a patriot and not a nationalist.
You are love to that which you actually love. The reverse is not true, you do not have to love all that you are loyal to.
But to claim "I'm a patriot but not a nationalist" is to display your stupidity and / or dishonesty
One characteristic of Christian nationalism, I am told, is when conservative churches prominently display American flags. But I don't see a difference between this practice and progressive churches that prominently display a rainbow pride flag or a BLM flag. It's all the same to me--an uncomfortable mixture of faith and ideology.
David53... You're Cookie's father? DUDE!
M Jordan,
Who died and made you Pope, that you get to pronounce who isn't and who isn't a true Christian? ;-)
Seriously, it's hardly arguing in good faith to take the most extreme definition of a term and insist that everyone who uses it intends that definition. There are plenty of Christians in the US who don't consider nationalism to require that one's supreme loyalty is to the nation, but only that you owe more loyalty in civic matters to your nation, than you do to others.
Some of my left-neoliberal friends equate "Conservative Christian" with "Theocrat" and sometimes "Anti-Semite." I generally don't argue--they're too ignorant of the history of faiths, ideas, and countries to be quickly corrected.
This thread reminds me (as often happens here) of the old Political Declensions contest in NY Magazine back in the day (!980s?):
I'm a liberal; you're a pinko; he's a Commie.
I'm a conservative; you're a reactionary; she's a Fascist.
A variant of the Narcissism of Small Differences.
But to claim "I'm a patriot but not a nationalist" is to display your stupidity and / or dishonesty
The primary difference between a fascist and a communist is that a fascist is a nationalist and a communist in an internationalist. The hatred for fascism by modern Leftists and the reason the Left refuses to accept that fascism is Leftwing is explained by this difference.
This is why the dominant nations today must cast aside the eons-old self-serving lies and recognize we are all in this world together, and only global cooperation and mutual concern will save us.
You cannot co-exist with those who refuse to co-exist with you.
Not that such "mischief and worse" is unique to the USA; all powerful nations throughout history have seen themselves as "superior to others...and" consequently pursued their "interests over the interests of other nations" without regard for the negative consequences for those other nations.
So you're saying that institutions created by humans to serve the interests of humans behave like...humans?
"You cannot co-exist with those who refuse to co-exist with you."
Bumper stickers on the neighbor's car:
1. COEXIST
2. No justice, no peace.
Is it superior to hold these truths as self evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights? What is better?
Gahrie: Nailed it, repeatedly
Post a Comment