Your article suggests to me that you believe Christians should be passive in the face of what they perceive as evil, because non of it matters in Gods wider plan.
Does it not matter that a nation loses its Christian identity with all the freedoms and benefits which that brings?
….. Is this passivity what you would have recommended to Churchill when he declared war on Hitler?
It would also be helpful if you had defined at the outset who you consider to be far right….
I’m sorry if my essay came across as calling for Christians to be passive. I think Christians ought to be deeply involved in political discourse, offering not only our perspective on what it means to live together as a nation but also demonstrating it through how we argue, debate, and love our enemies.
While I don’t believe any nation has ever been Christian, I do lament the loss of the Christian underpinnings that upheld so much of our common life together. But the only way to recover that is through evangelism.
Finally, I’m a great admirer of Churchill, but by his own admission his Christian faith wasn’t very deep.
I follow and agree. Literally this morning I'm reading about the early settlers in what I call "Riveria," which is the rich agricultural region on both sides of the Mississippi River from Vicksburg to New Orleans. (Part of my big fiction project.) It's interesting how keen the early settlers were to keep things communitarian. What changed things? Human appetite (is what I'd say). Wanting more (and more). That's an old, old story! Thanks for getting back. And I thought your "Genealogy" article was at once morally beautiful and a brilliant finger-put on how we must allow the complexity of History to intervene in our judgment of the present and its dramatis personae.
Your use of St. Austin is very powerful and to me compelling. Who can disagree with your basic thesis? The Christian Right is standing on a very slippery slope. On the other hand, I found I needed a definition of 'nation' and of 'nationalism.' And I needed to know if "nationalism" is a bad thing in every case? While from your perspective (and I agree with you) every nation or self-conscious people falls short of the City of God yet to come, and our citizenship is in Heaven, and we must act like we believe this, I'm curious about the relationship of the Church, the Kingdom, and the "type" of the People of God we find in the Hebrew Bible: Israel. Also: I am loath to see C.S. Lewis as advocating socialism. His point in Mere Christianity about the apostolic communion can be well taken (the Christian Socialists in England were a pretty inspiring group!), but later in his life Lewis appears to be quite anti-socialist. First, the overarching theme of "Men Without Chests" is that the individual must stand on his feet and, in the end, stand before God. This requirement assumes that our souls are in the making - and we should not want the State taking care of us in most cases. Second, pretty close to the end of his life Lewis wrote "Willing Slaves of the Welfare State," which leaves little room for the interpretation that Lewis favored, even as a Christian, socialism. I submit that he used the word to startle the reader in that Mere Christianity chapter. I'm sure his Christianity did not allow him to be satisfied with "late capitalism," but neither was he ever really comfortable with socialism as we have come to know it. I don't know but perhaps Lewis appreciated that clever but profound quip Winston Churchill made as a young man in Parliament (about 1905?): "The early Christians taught that What is mine is yours, while the Labour Party wants us to believe that What is yours is mine."
Hi Chip, I'm away from my laptop and find writing on a phone a pain, so this will have to be brief. First, I'd be hard pressed to think of a context in which nationalism might be good. Patriotism, if a fidelity to one's neighbours, pla ce, and heritage, is fine, as a kind of love, though made contingent by thr Gospel. I agree with you about Lewis being cheeky, though I think a Christian economics (if such a thing exists) would be communitarian. Personally, I think Christianity challenges all forms of economics, which invariably become an instantiation of Revelation's empire.
Thank you for your perspective, and for putting words to what we’re seeing. “Grievance dressed up as piety”, “the flag is not a cross” —exactly.
I keep thinking of what Stanley Hauerwas said many years ago about how American Christianity has become “more American than Christian.” It feels now like it’s more MAGA than Republican, more Republican than American, and more American than Christian. [And I say this, not as some radical lefty but as a former Republican who couldn’t endorse what was happening in the party. Now I like to call myself a “screaming moderate” ;) ]. Thank you, too, for reminding us where our true identity is. There’s a feeling of displacement here, even though we haven’t left… but as “home” becomes less and less recognizable. I appreciate the reminder that as Christians, we only have one true Home.
I didn't read mark's piece quite like that. It seemed to me that he did give due weight to the significance of earthly loyalties - we have to do that in the light of the incarnation itself. But our ultimate allegiance when push comes to shove is to Christ not to country, to cross not to flag. It;s not a new issue of course as we know well from English history. WE might say that it's the struggle between pre and post Constantinian Christianity
The heresy is to confuse a nation for the Kingdom. That does not mean that nations have no right to exist, nor any right to be defended from those that would destroy them. They are part of the principalities and powers, fallen yet redeemable. Are you not simply offering the equal and opposite error to those that you are criticising - and because that attitude scorns things that people have deep love for (righteously - patriotism is, as Aquinas delineates, a virtue) - are you not simply stoking the fires of eventual conflict? You are saying that love of nation is 'Corban' and Jesus wasn't impressed with that. (Sorry to be grumpy but I think this is really important)
No, I'm not saying that nation-states have no right to exist...but they're existence is purely contingent. I'm not sure, therefore, that I would say they're redeemable (or not). The people within them certainly are. But states rise and fall, come and go, and whether they exist or not matters not one jot to the Kingdom of God, except insofar as they promote the good and confront evil. I'm sorry, though, if my piece came across as scorning the things people love--insofar as they're good, true, and beautiful I think people should love them, secure in the knowledge that in God's hands they are secure and will be woven in some mysterious way into the fabric of God's Kingdom. But if our love of them yields to fear, anger, grievance, and the like, then we can be sure that the smell of sulphur isn't far behind.
I'm fond of the Christian writer Kahlil Gibran's take on this: 'of the good in you I can speak, but not of the evil, for what is evil but good, tortured by its own thirst, and forced to drink of stagnant waters?' The Christian task is not to condemn the thirst but to share the living water - and it is part of the gross failure of the church to do that (along with the rest of the secular governing class in the UK) that leads directly to the 'fear, anger, grievance' and so on. I'll go back to lurking now, sorry for the interrupt!
Your article suggests to me that you believe Christians should be passive in the face of what they perceive as evil, because non of it matters in Gods wider plan.
Does it not matter that a nation loses its Christian identity with all the freedoms and benefits which that brings?
….. Is this passivity what you would have recommended to Churchill when he declared war on Hitler?
It would also be helpful if you had defined at the outset who you consider to be far right….
I’m sorry if my essay came across as calling for Christians to be passive. I think Christians ought to be deeply involved in political discourse, offering not only our perspective on what it means to live together as a nation but also demonstrating it through how we argue, debate, and love our enemies.
While I don’t believe any nation has ever been Christian, I do lament the loss of the Christian underpinnings that upheld so much of our common life together. But the only way to recover that is through evangelism.
Finally, I’m a great admirer of Churchill, but by his own admission his Christian faith wasn’t very deep.
I follow and agree. Literally this morning I'm reading about the early settlers in what I call "Riveria," which is the rich agricultural region on both sides of the Mississippi River from Vicksburg to New Orleans. (Part of my big fiction project.) It's interesting how keen the early settlers were to keep things communitarian. What changed things? Human appetite (is what I'd say). Wanting more (and more). That's an old, old story! Thanks for getting back. And I thought your "Genealogy" article was at once morally beautiful and a brilliant finger-put on how we must allow the complexity of History to intervene in our judgment of the present and its dramatis personae.
Your use of St. Austin is very powerful and to me compelling. Who can disagree with your basic thesis? The Christian Right is standing on a very slippery slope. On the other hand, I found I needed a definition of 'nation' and of 'nationalism.' And I needed to know if "nationalism" is a bad thing in every case? While from your perspective (and I agree with you) every nation or self-conscious people falls short of the City of God yet to come, and our citizenship is in Heaven, and we must act like we believe this, I'm curious about the relationship of the Church, the Kingdom, and the "type" of the People of God we find in the Hebrew Bible: Israel. Also: I am loath to see C.S. Lewis as advocating socialism. His point in Mere Christianity about the apostolic communion can be well taken (the Christian Socialists in England were a pretty inspiring group!), but later in his life Lewis appears to be quite anti-socialist. First, the overarching theme of "Men Without Chests" is that the individual must stand on his feet and, in the end, stand before God. This requirement assumes that our souls are in the making - and we should not want the State taking care of us in most cases. Second, pretty close to the end of his life Lewis wrote "Willing Slaves of the Welfare State," which leaves little room for the interpretation that Lewis favored, even as a Christian, socialism. I submit that he used the word to startle the reader in that Mere Christianity chapter. I'm sure his Christianity did not allow him to be satisfied with "late capitalism," but neither was he ever really comfortable with socialism as we have come to know it. I don't know but perhaps Lewis appreciated that clever but profound quip Winston Churchill made as a young man in Parliament (about 1905?): "The early Christians taught that What is mine is yours, while the Labour Party wants us to believe that What is yours is mine."
Hi Chip, I'm away from my laptop and find writing on a phone a pain, so this will have to be brief. First, I'd be hard pressed to think of a context in which nationalism might be good. Patriotism, if a fidelity to one's neighbours, pla ce, and heritage, is fine, as a kind of love, though made contingent by thr Gospel. I agree with you about Lewis being cheeky, though I think a Christian economics (if such a thing exists) would be communitarian. Personally, I think Christianity challenges all forms of economics, which invariably become an instantiation of Revelation's empire.
Thanks for this. As a Muslim, thanks again.
That means a great deal to me.
I am a native born citizen of the USA, but when I die, as eventually I will, what citizenship will I hold?
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose" (attributed to Jim Elliot)
This is very helpful, Mark...thanks! Will be sharing with my flock.
Thank you for your perspective, and for putting words to what we’re seeing. “Grievance dressed up as piety”, “the flag is not a cross” —exactly.
I keep thinking of what Stanley Hauerwas said many years ago about how American Christianity has become “more American than Christian.” It feels now like it’s more MAGA than Republican, more Republican than American, and more American than Christian. [And I say this, not as some radical lefty but as a former Republican who couldn’t endorse what was happening in the party. Now I like to call myself a “screaming moderate” ;) ]. Thank you, too, for reminding us where our true identity is. There’s a feeling of displacement here, even though we haven’t left… but as “home” becomes less and less recognizable. I appreciate the reminder that as Christians, we only have one true Home.
Thank you, friend.
I didn't read mark's piece quite like that. It seemed to me that he did give due weight to the significance of earthly loyalties - we have to do that in the light of the incarnation itself. But our ultimate allegiance when push comes to shove is to Christ not to country, to cross not to flag. It;s not a new issue of course as we know well from English history. WE might say that it's the struggle between pre and post Constantinian Christianity
The heresy is to confuse a nation for the Kingdom. That does not mean that nations have no right to exist, nor any right to be defended from those that would destroy them. They are part of the principalities and powers, fallen yet redeemable. Are you not simply offering the equal and opposite error to those that you are criticising - and because that attitude scorns things that people have deep love for (righteously - patriotism is, as Aquinas delineates, a virtue) - are you not simply stoking the fires of eventual conflict? You are saying that love of nation is 'Corban' and Jesus wasn't impressed with that. (Sorry to be grumpy but I think this is really important)
No, I'm not saying that nation-states have no right to exist...but they're existence is purely contingent. I'm not sure, therefore, that I would say they're redeemable (or not). The people within them certainly are. But states rise and fall, come and go, and whether they exist or not matters not one jot to the Kingdom of God, except insofar as they promote the good and confront evil. I'm sorry, though, if my piece came across as scorning the things people love--insofar as they're good, true, and beautiful I think people should love them, secure in the knowledge that in God's hands they are secure and will be woven in some mysterious way into the fabric of God's Kingdom. But if our love of them yields to fear, anger, grievance, and the like, then we can be sure that the smell of sulphur isn't far behind.
I'm fond of the Christian writer Kahlil Gibran's take on this: 'of the good in you I can speak, but not of the evil, for what is evil but good, tortured by its own thirst, and forced to drink of stagnant waters?' The Christian task is not to condemn the thirst but to share the living water - and it is part of the gross failure of the church to do that (along with the rest of the secular governing class in the UK) that leads directly to the 'fear, anger, grievance' and so on. I'll go back to lurking now, sorry for the interrupt!