Historians of Christian nationalism are alarmed by its appearance in American pulpits
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
But when it comes to at least one subset of Trump’s religious devotees, this reticence makes sense—and not because all of them necessarily support the white supremacists who rallied in Virginia last week. Instead, it may be because they share a very specific worldview that shapes their relationship to the president: Christian nationalism.
Historians agree the roots of American Christian nationalism—including flavors that do insist on white supremacy—stretch back decades. Today’s right-wing preachers are hardly the first group to insist on a “Christian” America, or to heap praise on a “strongman” leader. Yet historians also agree that previous examples of Christian nationalism are distinct from the variety preached by today’s so-called “ Trumpvangelicals. ”
The result is an odd theological paradox. Pro-Trump Christian nationalism may be decidedly American in form, but it also has a frightening amount in common with historical examples of flag-waving spirituality in other countries—including those with far darker pasts.
But if history is any indication, the strongest versions of leader-linked Christian nationalism aren’t just powerful—they’re dangerous.
Arguably the darkest case of leader-linked Christian nationalism (not to be confused with Christianity as an instrument of empire, which has its own depressing history ) is the role of Nazi Christians in 1930s Germany. Christians are known to have been active participants in Adolf Hitler’s rise, a tragic story that Robert Ericksen, a historian and professor at Pacific Lutheran University, chronicles in his book Complicity in the Holocaust: Churches and Universities in Nazi Germany .
While Christian pastors such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer have achieved worldwide acclaim for resisting Hitler, Ericksen explained, many German Protestants fell in line with Nazis—so much so that the Führer relied on them.
“Nazi support was a very strong vote in the Protestant Christian community,” Ericksen told ThinkProgress in an interview. “Without that base of voters, Hitler’s party would have languished.”
THE GERMAN CHURCHES AND THE NAZI STATE
‘Christian Confrontations with the Holocaust’: GERMAN CHRISTIAN NATIONALISM: ITS CONTRIBUTION TO THE HOLOCAUST
The government parties are supposed to serve ALL Americans, not just Christians. What you're advocating is the beginning of a theocracy.
Mark 12:17
Then Jesus said to them, "Give back to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." And they were amazed at him.
hitler? LOL
is trump or any other nationalist talking about burning people in ovens?
godwins law has been evoked.
seriously... too funny
Larry, Trump probably doesn't even know what is meant by nationalism in the context Think Progress is trying to promote. I would classify Trump's so-called Nationalism as Americanism. I'm sure you love this country, so why be taken in by an unscrupulous website that is so far to the left it should be two feet off the screen.
As I read this article, I see there is unbridled hate and it has taken over some people's ability to use common sense.
Six,
These are fine examples of propaganda. Well edited put together with a hashtag. And you wonder why Larry is posting what he is posting?
Here is something more honest and off the cuff.
Why are we relitigating Charlottesville? You have to be willfully ignorant to keep trying to tie Trump to White Nationalism. He has condemned it more times than any white elected official I can think of.
And speaking of “elected,” Trump was, in fact, elected; and he is not holding onto power via military might. So it’s pretty absurd to refer to him as a “Strongman.”
I can't say that Christian Nationalism is the problem the author of these articles presents it to be but I can't say that it is not, either. I can say that I cannot remember attending any church that proposed something like Christian Nationalism or dominionism. That said, I'd like to put my two cents in concerning the idea.
In the beginning, man's charge was to take dominion over the Earth. Our task was to manage the Earth on God's behalf. We were supposed to be it's caretakers in His name. But that changed when we fell from grace. Once fallen, we were no longer equipped to do that original task. We were too consumed by sin to do even know what was right any more. Instead of subduing the Earth, managing it in His name, we flailed about, badly in need of rescue.
That rescue came in the form of God's Son, Jesus Christ. For those of us who accepted that salvation our task became something different. It was to make disciples in every nation. To bring the Good News to everyone we can. And Jesus showed us how to do it. He did not teach his followers how to take over governments and legislate belief in him. He went from town to town, proclaiming the Good News. People either accepted it or rejected it. And concerning those who rejected it, our course of action was to shake the dust off our sandals as a sign that their rejection was on their own heads, not the bringer of the Good News.
The people who think Christian Nationalism or Dominionism are falling into the same trap as had the Jews of Jesus' time. Those Jews thought the Messiah would be a political King of Israel. A brilliant military commander who would deliver them from Rome and establish Israel as the rulers of the world. They thought in terms of dominion over the Earth with them as God's chosen above all others.
But Jesus had a different agenda. His was to make possible for the individual to have a personal relationship with God. He did this by, although being fully God in all his glory, leaving that behind to become a man destined for slaughter on our behalf. He did the exact opposite of what had been expected. He humbled himself in becoming human and letting Rome and the Jewish leadership put him to death. Because that what was needed to bring man and God into relationship.
And Christians need to have the same attitude. Jesus came as a servant, and servanthood, not dominion, is what we should emulate. If Jesus had wanted dominion politically, he most definitely would have dominated. I would love for our country to be a Christian nation. I want that with all my heart. But the only way it can be a Christian nation is if it's people willingly choose Christ. You can't create a Christian nation through Dominionism or Christian Nationalism. That is, from the top down. You could only do it from the bottom up. You can't legislate Jesus into anyone's heart. Attempting to do so would almost certainly be a horror.
People who think Dominionism or Christian Nationalism is a good idea are either wolves in sheep's clothing, seeking power for themselves, or they don't really know Jesus or what he want's from us. There is no support for such things in the Bible. With one exception.
Jesus will come back some day and when he does, the whole world will be a theocracy, lead by himself for the glory of his Father. He is the only one who has the power and the wisdom to rule. The Bible is clear that Jesus himself will take dominion over the Earth and all that are in it. It isn't our job to do it and anyone who tries is trying to usurp Christ's place.
So, to any of my Christian brothers and sisters out there who think Dominionism is a good idea I think you should reconsider. Emulate Jesus. Read Revelations and see that it is Christ who establishes his rule on the Earth, not us.
Nazi Germany was not a theocracy. Neither was fascist Italy or the communist Soviet Union. Napoleon Bonaparte, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and Joseph Stalin led strictly secular governments. Bonaparte, Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin persecuted orthodox Christian authority to remove obstacles that interfered with achieving their secular goals of expansion.
History shows that the real problem is secular imperialism. Secularism must subjugate religious authority through persecution, coercion, and force to allow expansion across national boundaries. As the history of Bonaparte, Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin shows secular expansion does not respect national boundaries, traditions, cultures, or religions. Nationalism and codified religious morality are the most viable defenses against secular imperialism.
As History also shows, religion is just as guilty of the same thing.
Medieval inquisitorial excesses attributed to Christianity were, in reality, motivated by the power of monarchy and feudal nobility. Royalty and nobility claimed divine justification for their imperialism. Keep in mind that royalty and nobility arose before Christianity; Christianity did not create royalty.
Really? Tell that to The Stuart Family of England.
Keep I'm mind the church sanctioned and participated in such events. Nor to mention the church held considerable power and sway over the populace, which even a monarchy was not separate from.
The Stewart family of Scotland? The Magna Carta of 1215 was the first step in establishing a secular government in England. The House of Stuart (successor to the House of Tudor) unified England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland under a single monarchy. However, each of the countries retained their own government. The War of the Three Kingdoms during the reign of Charles I (about 1640) was about attempting to expand the authority of the English parliament over the other governments just as had been done with the English monarchy.
The secular English parliament executed Charles I. Cromwell sought to expand secular English parliamentary authority over the monarchy and over the governments of Scotland and Ireland. Charles II was Catholic which prohibited him from ascending to the throne.
When? The Protestant Reformation occurred during the 16th century. The Age of Enlightenment encompassed the 17th to 19th centuries.
European colonial expansion during the 16th and 17th centuries was driven by mercantilism (secular greed) and not by religious evangelism.
So, when did the church sanction and participate in such events?
It isn't as simple as that. When you speak about the "church" you have to take into account that, considering the time period, we aren't necessarily talking about Christianity. In some ways Constantine didn't do Christianity any favors when he made it the state religion. The Church ended up having two faces.
One face of the Church was made up of people who were honestly doing their best to follow Christ. The other, not so much. When Constantine made it the state religion it opened up a new source of power to the sons of nobles that wasn't there before. Second, third and fourth sons, and so on, now had an avenue to power and wealth that hadn't been there before and the church became flooded with people seeking only those things. Through much of it's history, what you think of as Christendom was Christian in name only.
Point being, the ideology of Christianity didn't sanction such events, but instead, self serving men used the institution for their own gain, more often than not.
Christian Nationalism. Never heard of the term until Trump. It must be real. The cult of the Stormy Who endures.