I love the critique that Christian Nationalism isn't nationalist enough.
However, I also think it applies to the both of you. How come neither of you have been to the Great Plains? It makes me sad to think that neither of you have seen a proper grassland. Susannah, next time you have a family reunion, you guys ought to consider Fort Robinson State Park in Crawford, Nebraska—one of the country's top sites for family reunions.
If shepherds had more wisdom, perhaps we wouldn't feel the need to pose a dichotomy between the sacred and the political. But, because as a church we still struggle to articulate and teach deep wisdom, we fall prey to these tribal identity traps, and thus feel a need to say "don't sacralize politics and vice versa", as a hedge against our worse tendencies.
It's the old problem of "everyone doing what is right in their own eyes".
I recently ran across a really good example of this dichotomy in action, and how as a church we tend to lose the plot.
Someone was complaining about the recent scandal of some Church of England ministers casually baptizing folks from the Middle East who were claiming asylum, to undergird their asylum claims.
Ostensibly, these ministers were typical liberals, more concerned about social justice than the truth.
But the conservative complainer was lodging his complaint in precisely the wrong area. He was miffed that these casually baptized folks were sullying the national identity, enabled by the Ministers. It made him feel dirty as an Englishman, or something.
What he should have complained about was not the asylum status of the immigrants, but the casual nature of the baptisms.
If they were true converts, then who the hell cares if that resulted in legitimate asylum claims? Let the Englishman feel dirty, if they're real Christians.
To clarify a bit, the boundary that I think needs to be made between secular politics and the Church is not merely or even primarily on account of ministers' lack of competence. It has much more to do with the nature of the minister's vocation and the danger of undermining it by 1) potentially confusing the authority that pastoral speech has with the expression of non-authoritative opinions (even very wise ones) on an area where ministerial authority does not apply; 2) implicitly aligning the Church and its politics with the lesser authorities of secular and partisan politics (similar to the reason why the king does not get involved in partisan politics).
At what point in Christian religious history do you propose that ministerial authority was narrowed? I am not seeing that idea in the scriptures.
I appreciate the good intent of what you're saying, given the embarrassment to Christendom of some public ministerial opinion. I often am tempted to say that certain ministers ought to stay in their lane.
But I feel like that problem needs to be solved in some other way than saying that ministerial authority is narrow. To me, that proposal sounds too much like the liberal Protestant meta narrative, or a blinkered version of two kingdom theology.
Ministerial authority is better thought of as 'focused', rather than 'narrowed'. One way to think about it is that ministers should speak with a 'thus saith the Lord' and can bind consciences in such a manner. However, this is not the sort of thing that can be said about prudential political matters and when pastors start declaring opinions on such matters, the actual authority they should be exercising (the 'thus saith the Lord') becomes confused with their personal opinionating (whether informed or not).
Another thing to bear in mind is that ministers are not the only Christians and Christians (even ministers) are not always acting in such a ministerial capacity. Other Christians can and should be actively involved in such areas, acting prudently in terms of Christian principles. However, such political activity is not sacralized, nor does it come with a 'thus saith the Lord' authority.
Okay, the paradigm of binding the conscience makes a lot more sense, thanks. There should be a very high bar for doing so in what we would call prudential matters. I’m still not a huge fan of language which calls to mind a secular/sacred distinction (e.g. words like sacralization). How do we remember that everything is holy and owned by God, while discouraging the zeal without knowledge which characterizes those who hastily bind the conscience? To me, scripture’s injunction to pray for all rulers helps in this regard. It reminds the partisan-minded that they must honor even their political enemies; and if God says to honor them, their must be something sacred going on.
I love the critique that Christian Nationalism isn't nationalist enough.
However, I also think it applies to the both of you. How come neither of you have been to the Great Plains? It makes me sad to think that neither of you have seen a proper grassland. Susannah, next time you have a family reunion, you guys ought to consider Fort Robinson State Park in Crawford, Nebraska—one of the country's top sites for family reunions.
We only go to our house in CT for reunions!
I've been to the Great Plains!
If shepherds had more wisdom, perhaps we wouldn't feel the need to pose a dichotomy between the sacred and the political. But, because as a church we still struggle to articulate and teach deep wisdom, we fall prey to these tribal identity traps, and thus feel a need to say "don't sacralize politics and vice versa", as a hedge against our worse tendencies.
It's the old problem of "everyone doing what is right in their own eyes".
I recently ran across a really good example of this dichotomy in action, and how as a church we tend to lose the plot.
Someone was complaining about the recent scandal of some Church of England ministers casually baptizing folks from the Middle East who were claiming asylum, to undergird their asylum claims.
Ostensibly, these ministers were typical liberals, more concerned about social justice than the truth.
But the conservative complainer was lodging his complaint in precisely the wrong area. He was miffed that these casually baptized folks were sullying the national identity, enabled by the Ministers. It made him feel dirty as an Englishman, or something.
What he should have complained about was not the asylum status of the immigrants, but the casual nature of the baptisms.
If they were true converts, then who the hell cares if that resulted in legitimate asylum claims? Let the Englishman feel dirty, if they're real Christians.
To clarify a bit, the boundary that I think needs to be made between secular politics and the Church is not merely or even primarily on account of ministers' lack of competence. It has much more to do with the nature of the minister's vocation and the danger of undermining it by 1) potentially confusing the authority that pastoral speech has with the expression of non-authoritative opinions (even very wise ones) on an area where ministerial authority does not apply; 2) implicitly aligning the Church and its politics with the lesser authorities of secular and partisan politics (similar to the reason why the king does not get involved in partisan politics).
At what point in Christian religious history do you propose that ministerial authority was narrowed? I am not seeing that idea in the scriptures.
I appreciate the good intent of what you're saying, given the embarrassment to Christendom of some public ministerial opinion. I often am tempted to say that certain ministers ought to stay in their lane.
But I feel like that problem needs to be solved in some other way than saying that ministerial authority is narrow. To me, that proposal sounds too much like the liberal Protestant meta narrative, or a blinkered version of two kingdom theology.
Ministerial authority is better thought of as 'focused', rather than 'narrowed'. One way to think about it is that ministers should speak with a 'thus saith the Lord' and can bind consciences in such a manner. However, this is not the sort of thing that can be said about prudential political matters and when pastors start declaring opinions on such matters, the actual authority they should be exercising (the 'thus saith the Lord') becomes confused with their personal opinionating (whether informed or not).
Another thing to bear in mind is that ministers are not the only Christians and Christians (even ministers) are not always acting in such a ministerial capacity. Other Christians can and should be actively involved in such areas, acting prudently in terms of Christian principles. However, such political activity is not sacralized, nor does it come with a 'thus saith the Lord' authority.
Okay, the paradigm of binding the conscience makes a lot more sense, thanks. There should be a very high bar for doing so in what we would call prudential matters. I’m still not a huge fan of language which calls to mind a secular/sacred distinction (e.g. words like sacralization). How do we remember that everything is holy and owned by God, while discouraging the zeal without knowledge which characterizes those who hastily bind the conscience? To me, scripture’s injunction to pray for all rulers helps in this regard. It reminds the partisan-minded that they must honor even their political enemies; and if God says to honor them, their must be something sacred going on.