Some critics of Christian conservatism recently examined my contrast of Christian conservatism with self-identified Chistian nationalism. Progressives typically conflate the two, while I noted the important distinctions between the traditional Religious Right and the new brand of self-identified Christian nationalists.
On their podcast Holy Post, Veggie Tales creator Phil Vischer, former Christianity Today editor Skye Jethani and The Rise and Fall of Mars Hill author Mike Cosper pondered my analysis. They did not specifically disagree with my perspective. But Jethani seemed to speak for all when he said the differences between Christian conservatism and Christian nationalism are no longer “as stark as they used to be.”
Cosper vigorously rejected both Christian conservatism and Christian nationalism, as he would, he said, reject both the worship of Moloch and the worship of Ashara. The notion of “Christian America” is “anti-Christian, anti-Gospel.” He insisted “you cannot have a Christian nation state,” and warned that both Christian conservatives and Christian nationalists “want to exert power so that Christianity is privileged in America.”
Americans use “nation” in ways others do not, Jethani asserted. He insisted that for most “nation” is tied to ethnicity, which means “America is not a nation, America is many nations.” In this point, Jethani almost agrees with Stephen Wolfe, author of A Case for Christian Nationalism, who ties nationhood to ethnicity. America is indeed unique by conceiving of a nation including many ethnicities but bound together by adherence to our founding principles, bonded by centuries of shared historical experience.
Christian conservatism is “moving towards things he [Tooley] lists as Christian nationalist,” Jethani also observed. “He’s comparing the Religious Right of 1990 or 2000 to the Christian Right today.” Jethani concluded that “Christians liked Reagan and adopted his views, and today they like Trump so they adopt his views.”
Jethani is not wrong is saying Christian conservatism is changed from even recent history. My review was partly historical, reflecting on Christian conservatism as I have personally known it, from the 1980s onward. I’m confident in saying that vast majority of Christian conservatives today do not self-identify as Christian nationalists and do not, as self-identified Christian nationalists do, advocate for Christianity to become an official religion by law, with government potentially punishing heretics and apostates. But Christian conservatism, with others on the right, is less committed to limited government and traditional Founding American principles. Much of it has become more statist, nationalist, and populist versus where it was as recently as ten years ago.
According to Jethani, Christian conservatives are merely adopting the preference of Republican presidents they champion. There is some truth there, but that’s not the whole story. As a teenager, I recall sending a personal donation to Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority. In return, I received a copy of Francis Schaeffer’s How Then Shall We Live, which introduced me to Schaeffer’s wider works. Schaeffer, who was influential in the 1980s, offered a historical and political theory for Christians that’s largely missing from today’s populist Christian conservatism. Today’s Christian conservatism relies more on social media polemics tied to the broader secular popularist Right.
As to Cosper’s assertion that a Christian nation is impossible, it obviously depends on the definition. Vischer, sarcastically, kept asking Cosper if a Christian nation is good if it encourages Christian values in society, eliciting laughter. But a nation that claims to be and aspires to be Christian has a motive for social virtue, kindness and dignity that otherwise would be lacking. Self-identified Christian nationalists want America to return to the Christendom of centuries ago, in which nations were by law Christian with a religious establishment enforcing its version of Christianity in statute. Christian experience and Christian ethics led Western societies to abandon despotic religious establishments in which the wrong beliefs were punished in civil law. But a society where most people have been or maybe still do profess Christianity remains a positive good if society is inspired to greater humanity. Such a society will affirm religious liberty and freedom of speech for all. There is only “privilege” in the sense that a majority perspective is always in some sense advantaged, especially in a democracy. But in a just society, and certainly in a Christian influenced society, minority rights are protected.
Few American Christians today want non-Christians treated as anything other than full citizens, despite what many critics claim. But it’s true that more Christian conservatives are on a postliberal trajectory that aligns with some self-identified Christian nationalist perspectives. Christian nationalists who want established religion will never be very large in number. But they can still be influential.
Comment by Gary Bebop on March 14, 2024 at 11:31 am
You say Francis Schaeffer’s influence is largely missing from today’s populist Christian conservatism. That’s worth pondering, but is it true? Schaeffer’s works remain of baseline reference for an innumerable host of us, and his thought continues to percolate through influencers like yourself. Schaeffer’s reading of history was always subject to criticism, but the trajectory of modern thought has borne out his warnings.
Comment by Dan W on March 14, 2024 at 2:06 pm
I believe terms like Christian Nationalism are used to frighten the general public. Terms like Christian Conservative or Christian Right isn’t scary enough. They want to frighten voters into demanding restrictions on religious freedom. “We’ll protect you from those scary Christian Nationalists. Just give us the power to tax, censor or maybe even imprison then “
Comment by Roy Jacobsen on March 15, 2024 at 11:35 pm
David French have an excellent opinion piece in The NY Times “What is Christian Nationalism, Exactly?” French states there is much confusion where some conflate conservative Christians with Christian Nationalists. Christian conservatives have every right to influence our society with Christian values as does those who have secular values. C. Nationalists posit the false idea that our founders established a Christian nation. Whose Christianity are they proposing? Anyone with some education knows our founders included orthodox Christians, Deists and never intended to establish a theocracy. This notion comes from Puritan and a Calvinist theology that was thankfully overturned in New England by 19th century Methodists, Baptists, Episcopalians and Roman Catholics. Religious pluralism established by Roger Williams in Rhode Island soon became established in all the New England states and elsewhere. Christian Nationalism is a dead end it is theocratic and a danger to all people including Christians.
Comment by Salvatore Anthony Luiso on March 16, 2024 at 12:53 am
The confusion is due in large part to how people identify themselves and disagreements about what it means to be a Christian nationalist and a Christian conservative.
I think all Christian nationalists consider themselves to be Christian conservatives, and those who reject their Christian nationalist beliefs not to be Christian conservatives.
I also think there are Christians who can be fairly regarded as Christian nationalists, but who deny being Christian nationalists.
(By “fairly regarded” I mean according to a definition of Christian nationalism that is not so broad that it includes most Christians nor so narrow that it includes only a tiny minority of Christians in America.)
Comment by Douglas Ehrhardt on March 16, 2024 at 4:55 am
David French and the New York Times, always a great source of non biased information on anything Christian. They’ll stop this evil plot again humanity.
Comment by David on March 16, 2024 at 8:27 am
A number of years ago, I came across a website entitled, “Taking the Country by Force for Christ.” I did not give it much thought at the time, but now I wonder.
Comment by Gary Bebop on March 16, 2024 at 12:51 pm
Jousting with labels is a quixotic postmodern turn. Have we no real occupations?
Comment by Different Steve on March 16, 2024 at 5:02 pm
I can’t find any website that corresponds to what David alleges; apparently he can’t either. Link or it didn’t happen.
Comment by David on March 17, 2024 at 9:01 am
I could not find it again either. Websites are not eternal.
Comment by David on March 17, 2024 at 10:38 am
Here is an ad for a book I have not seen that might mention the website I encountered years ago.
https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-violent-take-it-by-force-matthew-d-taylor/1144500243
Comment by MikeB on March 17, 2024 at 1:15 pm
Couple perspectives.
There is a fear that the far left will crush religious freedom, the right to tell children that they are the sex that God made them and nothing else. The far left would love to imprison Christians for that, much as the Romans imprisoned Christians for saying the emperor is not God, and that there is only one God (in 3 parts etc…). There is a belief that Christians need advocates in government and court to allow them to continue practicing.
Religious exemption was what saved my job when Covid vaccinations were mandated in my industry. I believed then and now that I have no right to value my life over the life of any child who was butchered for the stem cells to produce a vaccine.
But I had faith in God, and if I had been terminated without an exemption, God would have provided. But many others believe we need to vote and support those who respect our faith to protect our ability to freely witness and follow God.
Additionally, so many Christians wished there had been a Trump or Reagan to take back the church. They have seen the mainline denominations fall because oh well the rules and votes support them, and it wouldn’t be nice to throw them all out in the way Jesus threw out the money changers. They see Trump as someone who will have the courage to throw people out.
To this day I do not understand how a small batch of elite apostates took over all of the mainline denominations.
Comment by Gary Bebop on March 17, 2024 at 5:46 pm
“To this day I do not understand how a small batch of elite apostates took over all of the mainline denominations.”
Many of us could testify to the stealthy and deceitful tactics employed by mainline advocates to Queer the church. This may seem implausible and even ludicrous to bystanders, but not to faithful eyewitnesses. The mainlines crumpled to subversion because conservative voices were shellacked and shunned. It’s amazing that Mark Tooley and Tom Lambrecht (for example) are still standing.
Comment by David on March 17, 2024 at 8:38 pm
“COVID-19 vaccines do not contain fetal cells. However, some COVID-19 vaccines use a historic fetal cell line in production and manufacturing.”—U of Michigan
The fetal cell lines were obtained 40-50 years ago and consist of loose cells, not formed fetuses.
Comment by MikeB on March 17, 2024 at 9:53 pm
I am very grateful to Mark and company for all of the insight. It feels very like when I was reading the book Bonhoeffer about the fundamentalists and how the non traditionalists had almost taken over the seminaries before the Second World War drove them back for a couple decades.
I was born too late and became interested far too late to have experienced this, but forgive my ignorance, how did every mainline denomination fall in what seems the same way.
If United Methodists has fallen earlier I’m not sure I would have known how hard Christians fought to keep Christ in the church.
Comment by MikeB on March 17, 2024 at 11:41 pm
David, I am highly aware of the process used and who was the tissue used in each of the four major covid vaccines. Far more than you are it seems.
One was from the 1970s and another was from the 1980s both from Europe. Both were very far along in development. I looked into the process used for each of the vaccine types.
At the end all life belongs to God, you can quantify with time or other things to make you feel better, but all life is in God’s hands.
He can take my life at his pleasure, I trust in him alone.
Comment by David on March 18, 2024 at 8:26 am
Some people donate their bodies to science. Others donate specific organs. Some women donate their miscarriages or abortuses to science.
Comment by MikeB on March 18, 2024 at 10:31 am
David, everything you’ve said is inaccurate.
HEK (Human Embryonic Kidney) 293 are fetal cells used in testing on Pfizer, Moderna, and AstraZeneca it was a 14+ week life female human in the Netherlands with functioning Kidneys who’s life was ended in 1972.
MRC-5 are lung cells used in testing on AstraZeneca, it was a 14 week old male human whos life was ended in 1966.
PER.C6 are retinal cells used to generate the Johnson and Johnson Vaccine were from an 18 week old human killed in 1985 in Europe.
To clarify for you, these were not dead bodies donated to science. Cellular death starts immediately, and those cell lines required immediate cooling upon death. The “scientists” harvesting each of those three humans had to plan this out. They surgically butchered the babies alive while extracting them, putting the body parts into refrigeration. The process was definitely a painful way to die.
Why do they use fetal cells when adult cells can be used?
Well the more a cell divides the more errors can occur, the cells are super cooled until they are needed to prevent division.
If they used Adult cells, they cells would need more review to ensure the cells had not mutated, therefor inserting uncertainty into the test material.
Of course the adult cells could be harvested from a living adult who could then leave the hospital after a relatively minor surgery.
It’s purely a profit driver, there would need to be additional collections, reviews, and shorter histories of test data to validate against.
This is no different than boycotting an insurance company that uses human skin lamps from holocaust victims in their offices. Of course there is no cellular material used in the watches you buy, and of course it would be more expensive to replace all the lamps.
Are you ok with people keeping Human Skin lampshades?
Comment by Different Steve on March 18, 2024 at 1:12 pm
David, that book isn’t even published yet, so, sadly, there are no reviews or sales figures on it yet. I will hazard a guess that it will not reference the web page you alleged, since there appears to be no trace of your alleged webpage on the internet, and it seems likely any author, however slovenly, would have verified this webpage’s existence before alleging its existence in their book. I assume you will be ordering a copy?
Comment by David on March 18, 2024 at 1:48 pm
I happen to be someone who worked with cells, culturing, freezing in liquid nitrogen, and thawing them for reuse in cultures. As you say, many cell types are limited in the number of times they can divide due to telomere shortening, not mutations. HeLa cells go on forever and have been very valuable in medical research. Viruses only multiply in cells, hence a constant source is needed.
Unfortunately antivax and anti science types have been spreading conspiracy theories. The Associated Press mentioned:
“AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. AstraZeneca did not use MRC-5 cells, which were cells first obtained from the lungs of a 14-week male fetus in the 1960s, in its production process for the COVID-19 vaccine.
THE FACTS: As news continues to break around the results of the COVID-19 vaccines, false claims about the vaccines are circulating online.”
I suggest you consult valid scientific articles and not Fox News or religious propaganda. I guess the Bible is to be condemned because it refers to books that no longer exist. I am hardly responsible for websites that disappear.
Comment by David on March 18, 2024 at 1:58 pm
Oh, here is the AP link before people start complaining. I suggest people read it.
https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-9730954855
Comment by Different Steve on March 18, 2024 at 2:14 pm
COVID vaccine manufacturer disputes MRC-5 being ingredient, but aborted cells seemingly played role in creation of AstraZeneca vaccine
https://theiowastandard.com/covid-vaccine-manufacturer-disputes-mrc-5-being-ingredient-but-aborted-cells-seemingly-played-role-in-creation-of-astrazeneca-vaccine/
Comment by MikeB on March 18, 2024 at 4:34 pm
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/nov/18/facebook-posts/oxford-astrazeneca-vaccine-does-not-contain-aborte/
Yes, as Steve notes, MRC-5 was used to test Astra, not to create it, which is exactly what I had said.
Telomer shortening is not the only cause of mutation, but mutation is the key problem in preventing statistically relevant data comparing the effects across multiple revisions of vaccines.
At this point I doubt you work in the field, you have a history of saying anything just to attack people.
Comment by Rob H on March 26, 2024 at 4:41 pm
There is an intractable ideological conflict in the approach to societal influence that Tooley puts forward. The gist of his approach seems to be that it would be wrong (both in light of the constitution and Christian teaching) to impose Christianity on the nation using the power of the government. On the other hand, though, Christ commands his followers to “teach the nations to obey everything I have commanded.” Tooley suggests that this can be legitimately pursued through debate and influence in the public square. This is a kinder, gentler approach. However, it is still total in its aims. And (here’s the biggest problem) to the extent that society becomes increasingly Christian by non-coercive means, it will inevitably become coercive as well. The end result is, I think, about the same as far as non-adherents are concerned. If 70% of the population is Christian, no satanist or atheist will get elected to office. How is that, in practice, any different than having a law in place that requires creedal adherence in order to get into office? The kinder, gentler, goal is still at bottom totalitarian because Christians have a totalitarian view of truth. God is always right, and they know what he says. Nothing trumps that! Here’s an example right out of the headlines: Christians don’t think abortion is morally acceptable, based on their religious principles. And so now, due to the preponderance of Christians in certain states of the union, non-believers in those states are quite literally forced to comply with Christian morals, even if they don’t believe in God: they can’t have an abortion. Talk of minority rights (thank you for mentioning this) is just talk when the majority is convinced that their moral scruples are divinely inspired. Where are minority rights in the abortion laws of Alabama, for example? Crickets. How quickly this goes sideways! The other thing that abortion law illustrates is the way in which Christians are bound to think that their moral principles, when encoded into law, are nothing more than completely obvious common sense, transcending, in their mind, their religious motivations. In fact, they are nothing of the sort. They are merely religious principles imposed on the general population. The problem here is not one Christian strategy of another, but the entire idea that anyone has access to the mind of a God.