The power of the empire against the power of love

On Saturday evening NPR aired a segment of Heath Druzin, host of the Extremely American podcast, and James Dawson of Boise State Public Radio talking to Gabriel Rench, a promoter of Christian Nationalism (CN) and one founder of Fight Life Feast, a conference to discuss national takeover. The segment is 11 minutes and there is a transcript. One goal of CN is that only Christians (and implying the right kind of Christians, certainly white and male – and definitely not gay) can run for political office. That is disconcerting to Druzin, who is Jewish. That takes away one of his fundamental freedoms. Add to that this self-serving statement from Rench:

I think that the Christian faith is the ideal moral doctrine and principles for a thriving society, and the farther you get away from that, the more in chaos we descend.

The discussion can be disconcerting for another reason. Rench and his colleagues are unfailingly polite and they appreciate a good whiskey. They don’t call down fire and brimstone and they aren’t pastors at megachurches. Their conferences have a distinct bro motif. Yet, they talk of takeover. Though they may offer you, the non-Christian, a drink, they consider you the enemy. America is rapidly becoming less Christian. So it seems strange that CN people need support from the people they want to disenfranchise. They also recognize that democracy may no longer return their historical results. Druzin said, “Being in the minority isn't as much of an issue if the majority can't vote.” CN people are building a parallel society and economy with their own email, movies, books, and crowdfunding. They interact with the ideologies the rest of us see and explain it (denigrate it) from their point of view. Andrew Whitehead, a professor at Indiana University who studies these groups, said:

Ultimately, Christian nationalism is focused on gaining and maintaining access to self-interested power. And I think that that ultimately draws Christians away from the example and words of Jesus in trying to break down dividing walls of hostility and to actually loving our neighbor.

I thought about this segment and how how far CN proponents have strayed from the Jesus they say every American should bow down to. I was going to rant about that, but I see Whitehead did a great job more succinctly than I would have, though I’ll add that the “ideal moral doctrine” that Rench proclaims is the doctrine of power, not the doctrine of love. Also, I think it better that credentialed Christian leaders should have a go at it... In looking for that NPR article I found an Extremely American podcast episode with religious leaders discussing their opposition to CN. The audio is 42 minutes with periodic ads and I don’t see a transcript. CN is having a moment, with proponents in Congress and associated with the nasty guy. It is time to hear opposing voices. So the moderator (I think Druzin) discussed CN with a panel. Ben Cramer grew up in an Evangelical family and now writes in opposition. Angela Denker is an ELCA Lutheran pastor, who wrote the book Red State Christians and the upcoming book The Disciples of White Jesus. Owen Strand is provost of Grace Bible Theological Seminar in Arkansas. He wrote the books The War on Men and Christianity and Wokeness. Yes, though he opposes CN he is very much anti-woke. I took notes while I listened, though could not transcribe it well enough to quote. Since most of the panelists’ comments were variations on the same thing (and usually full of Christian jargon) I’ll summarize much of what they said. The primary point (as mentioned above) is that CN reorients the church to look like the power of the empire rather than emphasizing power of love. This is the difference between promoting the social hierarchy and working to subvert and eliminate the hierarchy. It turns Jesus from being the embodiment of love into a militant and political idea. The church is to hold the empire accountable when it abuses power, not to be that abusive power. Jesus called his disciples to care for the marginalized (the ones at the bottom of the hierarchy). When Jesus calls us to make disciples of the nations most Christians believe we are to disciple the people around us. But CN takes that “nations” bit literally. They say they are to disciple America, Sweden, and Uganda. But we are not the ones to make nations bow down to Jesus. Denker is critical of the “prosperity gospel,” the idea that if one does something good (like give money to the church) then God will reward them financially. But that reduced God to being an ATM and ignores many people we recognize as following Jesus quite closely, yet who were poor – and were frequently assassinated (see MLK). The participants were asked how we might counter the CN movement. They all gave variations on a theme: treat those you might oppose with love. Listen to them and be aware of weaponized language. Be aware of our own, often subconscious, narratives that we project onto others. Strand said a lot about wokeness and I need to respond to it. He said being woke teaches boys they are toxic, teaches whites they are racist and can’t help but commit microagressions at every turn, and that capitalism foments a power structure. Wokeness is thus fomenting CN because it targets white people by declaring them white supremacists. That has pushed boys and men into the arms of actual white supremacists. White supremacists say that whiteness isn’t a problem but an element of pride. All that reminds me of the book, White Fragility, Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism by Robin DiAngelo, I wrote about it in May and here is an excerpt:

Since being white is seen as normal, yet is so full of privilege, white people expect to feel comfortable everywhere in their world. When they are challenged in their racism they become uncomfortable and that’s supposed to be not allowed. When they are uncomfortable they strike back at what caused that feeling. That conveniently turns the conversation from the racism the non white person is experiencing to the distress the white person is feeling. And white superiority is maintained. In the author’s work of diversity and racism training she has seen that many times. As long as she’s talking generalities white people are fine. As soon as she says something like: that little thing you did or said is actually racist, white people claim they’ve been attacked. The one receiving the correction and all the other white people there usually leave, not to continue with the training.

Wokeness means to wake up from the slumber of being oblivious to the effects of ones actions and to recognize one’s privileged position and how it affects those who aren’t white. And then one tries to do something about it, to correct the wrong and not repeat it. I see Strand looking at wokeness and having the typical privileged white reaction of striking back at what caused him to feel uncomfortable. In this case it is condemning wokeness to the point of writing a whole book condemning wokeness. Can boys and men show toxic masculinity? There are a multitude of examples showing they can, based on attitudes taught by a society built around racism and misogyny. Are they hardwired so they must show toxic masculinity? Of course not. Vice President nominee Tim Walz appears to be one who doesn’t. So let’s teach our boys and men, not that they are innately wicked, but that they can treat themselves, each other, the girls and women in their lives, and those who aren’t white with kindness and respect, even love, without including elements of dominance. Let’s teach them a different definition of masculinity. Let’s counter the message of the hierarchy that has so thoroughly saturated our culture. Strand is wrong about the goals of wokeness, but he is right in how to educate boys and men, to accomplish the goals of wokeness. He said we must put an arm around them, to love them, to teach them about grace, to guide them into the ways of love. Tell them they way forward is not to preserve your whiteness, but to trust the teachings of love.