Love it or hate it, Christian nationalism is with us. It is associated with the Trump wing of the Republican Party (a wing that is currently bigger than the rest of the bird). It is the factor that may motivate the base of the Republican Party in the coming midterms to come out and vote, despite all the disappointments of 2016-20. Alternatively, it is also the factor that may repel the "mushy middle" floating voters and thus bolster the Democrats and their record-breakingly unpopular leader.
It is not exactly clear what Christian nationalism stands for, nor what the admixture of Christianity in it is, or the percentage of nationalism either.
Questions clearly remain, but one of the biggest critiques of Christian Nationalism is that it is contradictory.
This is an idea recently trotted out by the "Founder of Apolloism" Richard Spencer and his chief acolyte Mark Brahmin. In short, according to Spencer, Christianity is inherently universalist and thus globalist, while nationalism is inherently anti-globalist.
Simple, huh?
Luke Ford counters with the idea that Christianity, as the religion of two billion people, could not possibly be so monolithic, and includes myriads within itself. By quoting different chapters of the Bible, a case could be made for Christianity being nationalist just as much as it being globalist.
Are either of these arguments valid?
First Luke Ford's counter-critique:
This sounds rather like a cop out. Sure there are lots of different elements in Christianity, so much so that Christianity by itself could be said to be contradictory all on its own ("an eye for an eye" vs. "turn the other cheek"). But, viewed in a macro empirical way, it is quite clear that Christianity has some tendencies towards universalism, which certainly could be read as globalist in its nature. Afterall, it was only after Christianity went into a rapid decline that Europe entered a phase of vigorous nationalism.
Secondly Spencer's take on Christian nationalism:
This seems overly reductive, so Luke Ford has a point. But also there is an assumption in Spencer's critique that different ideological essences cannot be mixed; in short, that all ideologies are, so to speak, akin to the noble gases, helium (He), neon (Ne), argon (Ar), krypton (Kr), xenon (Xe), and radon (Rn), which are famous for their inability to mix and form compounds.
Historically this does not appear to be the case with ideologies. There are many examples of hybrid ideologies: National Socialism, Liberal Fascism, Tory Anarchism, Islamic Socialism, National Bolshevism, and, yes, even Liberal Democracy, to name a few that spring readily to mind.
Even where there are apparent contradictions in ideological essences, it seems reasonable to suppose that they are capable of modifying each other in various ways that may actually result in a stable compound.
Indeed, individual "unmixed" ideologies might, in fact, be quite unstable with plenty of contradictions, even on their own.
Nationalism, just like Christianity, is quite capable of having "myriads within it" and all sorts of contradictions, especially in the modern world that has been bequeathed to us, one in which almost every state that feels stirrings towards nationalism is far from ethnically "pure" and homogeneous.
In fact it could even be pointed out that a lack of ethnic homogeneity is one of the preconditions of nationalism arising in the world today, and Nationalism, under such conditions, is inherently contradictory and deeply problematic.
Just take America as a prime example. A USA going into nationalism is immediately fraught with serious conflicts and contradictions due to its racial diversity and its lack of a unifying identity. Such an identity could be based purely upon the so-called "core population," but the core population, in the case of America, raises serious difficulties. Is it just White people, broadly defined, which only gives you around 2/3rds of the population (and falling) and forces the remaining alienated 1/3rd to serve as a fifth column for America's enemies? Or is it just the "real national core" of the WASPS, a much smaller and weaker group?
America seems more like a country that should avoid nationalism at all costs, in case it starts falling apart at the seams. However, by alloying its nationalist urges with the tolerance and wider acceptance inherent in Christianity's universalist message, the unstable "gas" of nationalism can be tempered and, in a sense, fixed into a more stable compound.
Viewed in this way, Christian Nationalism, at least in an American context, may not be such a contradiction after all. Rather it might very well represent a resolution of the contradictions.
Luke Ford counters with the idea that Christianity, as the religion of two billion people, could not possibly be so monolithic, and includes myriads within itself. By quoting different chapters of the Bible, a case could be made for Christianity being nationalist just as much as it being globalist.
Are either of these arguments valid?
First Luke Ford's counter-critique:
This sounds rather like a cop out. Sure there are lots of different elements in Christianity, so much so that Christianity by itself could be said to be contradictory all on its own ("an eye for an eye" vs. "turn the other cheek"). But, viewed in a macro empirical way, it is quite clear that Christianity has some tendencies towards universalism, which certainly could be read as globalist in its nature. Afterall, it was only after Christianity went into a rapid decline that Europe entered a phase of vigorous nationalism.
Secondly Spencer's take on Christian nationalism:
This seems overly reductive, so Luke Ford has a point. But also there is an assumption in Spencer's critique that different ideological essences cannot be mixed; in short, that all ideologies are, so to speak, akin to the noble gases, helium (He), neon (Ne), argon (Ar), krypton (Kr), xenon (Xe), and radon (Rn), which are famous for their inability to mix and form compounds.
Historically this does not appear to be the case with ideologies. There are many examples of hybrid ideologies: National Socialism, Liberal Fascism, Tory Anarchism, Islamic Socialism, National Bolshevism, and, yes, even Liberal Democracy, to name a few that spring readily to mind.
Even where there are apparent contradictions in ideological essences, it seems reasonable to suppose that they are capable of modifying each other in various ways that may actually result in a stable compound.
Indeed, individual "unmixed" ideologies might, in fact, be quite unstable with plenty of contradictions, even on their own.
Nationalism, just like Christianity, is quite capable of having "myriads within it" and all sorts of contradictions, especially in the modern world that has been bequeathed to us, one in which almost every state that feels stirrings towards nationalism is far from ethnically "pure" and homogeneous.
In fact it could even be pointed out that a lack of ethnic homogeneity is one of the preconditions of nationalism arising in the world today, and Nationalism, under such conditions, is inherently contradictory and deeply problematic.
Just take America as a prime example. A USA going into nationalism is immediately fraught with serious conflicts and contradictions due to its racial diversity and its lack of a unifying identity. Such an identity could be based purely upon the so-called "core population," but the core population, in the case of America, raises serious difficulties. Is it just White people, broadly defined, which only gives you around 2/3rds of the population (and falling) and forces the remaining alienated 1/3rd to serve as a fifth column for America's enemies? Or is it just the "real national core" of the WASPS, a much smaller and weaker group?
America seems more like a country that should avoid nationalism at all costs, in case it starts falling apart at the seams. However, by alloying its nationalist urges with the tolerance and wider acceptance inherent in Christianity's universalist message, the unstable "gas" of nationalism can be tempered and, in a sense, fixed into a more stable compound.
Viewed in this way, Christian Nationalism, at least in an American context, may not be such a contradiction after all. Rather it might very well represent a resolution of the contradictions.
___________________________________
Colin Liddell is the Chief Editor of Neokrat and the author of Interviews & Obituaries, a collection of encounters with the dead and the famous. Support his work by buying it here (USA), here (UK), and here (Australia).
When I hear "Christian Nationalism", I just hear a rebranding of old paleoconservative tropes; old timey Christan values crossed with a strong America first fervor. I don't see how this is contradictory in any way.
ReplyDelete“an eye for an eye” isn’t Christian, it’s Jewish
ReplyDelete