Jesus as “nightclub bouncer?”

Google Image

Have you noticed that often, a subject appears to be of little interest until we delve into it, then it may appear to be of major importance? For me, that’s the case with “Christian nationalism.”

The phrase may appear to be harmless, nothing that would affect me or mine. But in the present political climate, Christian nationalism appears to be gaining in popularity. And I now believe that it may seriously misinterpret and undermine biblical and church teaching, making it toxic for people searching for God in the Christian tradition and dangerous for a country that purports to be democratic and just.

That judgment is based on what I’ve read about Christian Nationalism, including an article in a recent issue of the New York Times in which Times columnist Ross Douthat interviews evangelical pastor and influencer, Douglas Wilson.  

Transcendent Grounding

“Christian nationalism” says Wilson, “is the conviction that secularism is a failed experiment, that societies require a transcendent grounding in order to be able to function at all. And as a Christian, I believe that that transcendent ground should be the living God and not an idol.”

Sounds innocent perhaps, but as the interview unfolds, it’s obvious that for Wilson – and I believe for many who expound Christian nationalism – it would mean a society that excludes and disparages all those who fail to embrace Christianity, specifically Wilson’s brand of Christianity. Jesus, in effect, would become like a nightclub bouncer, barring those who fail to conform from entering into the normal functions of society, if not into the Kingdom of Heaven.

Douglas Wilson
Google Image
“We have racked up quite a body count of awful crimes,” says Wilson, “and I believe the only way out is for us to repent and turn to Christ. This would be things like no more Pride parades, no more drag queen story hours, no more abortion on demand, no more legalized same-sex unions — all of that, done.”

Douthat asked if what he wants is “a society that acknowledges Jesus’ authority over politics and patriarchal authority in the home and asks if he wants this to be enforced by law.”

“Yeah, by law, by law,” answers Wilson. “…I’ve been ministering, preaching coming up on 50 years. And when I first began ministering, homosexual behavior was against the law. That was not a totalitarian hellhole. That was not “The Handmaid’s Tale.” It was a free and prosperous country that I was grateful to God to be growing up in.”

Quoting Mosaic law (the basis for the rules of ancient Hebrews), Wilson says he favors making abortion illegal; requiring prayer in public schools; enforcing all 10 commandments through public law in the U.S.; and laws against adultery and fornication. And he would not allow building of minarets for Muslims.

Would people vote on all this? Douthat asks. “Right,” says Wilson. “Households would cast a vote, and the decider would be the husband.”

In Line with Biblical Teaching?

So, shouldn’t genuine Christians agree with Wilson’s proposals? Wouldn’t they be in line with the teaching of the Bible?

Not from what I know as a lifelong Christian because it ignores what science has helped us understand about the Bible and how to interpret it – not encouraging us to do whatever we want but, guided by the church, become committed to what the Bible really means and the spirit of what it means.

People who know a bit of history could say in response to people who advocate Christian nationalism: “Been there, done that.” Religions over the years – principal among them, my own Catholic faith - have attempted to force their teachings on people and the effects have always been disastrous.

Jesus doesn’t coerce; he invites. He’s nothing like a nightclub bouncer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Gospel of The Little Prince

Image
  Attention all those concerned only with “matters of great consequence:” Is it possible that you’ve become someone you didn’t want to be, having strayed far from the innocence and simplicity of childhood? That’s the main question asked in The Little Prince, which Netflix, the streaming video service, has added to its repertoire of movies and TV shows. Though not a big fan of animated flicks, I was a big fan of the book, The Little Prince, back in the 1970s when it became extremely popular in the U.S. It was first published in French and English in New York in 1943 as a novella by French aristocrat, writer, poet, and pioneering aviator Antoine de Saint-Exupery , who disappeared while piloting a Free French Army plane the following year over the Mediterranean Sea. Nearly Two Million Copies “The novella is the fourth most-translated book in the world and was voted the best book of the 20th century in France,” says Wikipedia. “Translated into more than 250 language...
Read more

‘Spiritual but Not Religious,’ Revisited

Image
Google Image I’ve expressed several times in these blogs my skepticism about declarations by some of our contemporaries that they are “spiritual but not religious.” Much of the skepticism results from the false dichotomy this entails, as if the spiritual and religious are mutually exclusive. Spirituality, after all, is the whole point of being religious. With the exception of some forms of Buddhism, all the major religions aim to bring people closer to God, who is “spiritual.” St. Paul, among the earliest leaders of Christianity, wrote that he is imparting a teaching “not taught by human wisdom but taught by the spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who possess the Spirit.” But Daniel Horan, Franciscan priest, theologian and author, wrote in a recent edition of the National Catholic Reporter: “What if our starting point in thinking about what it means to be a person in communion with God, oneself and the world was not reduced to external expressions of institutional belo...
Read more

Ignoring the Obvious?

Image
Google Image As it says on its website, this blog is written mainly for “those who have given up on God  and/or religion ,” and in a broader sense, for all of us who are searching for God (including me; writing it allows me to carefully consider the quality of my own faith). Giving up on religion, of course, is not the same as giving up on God. I’m sure everyone who identifies as "spiritual but not religious“  would agree, as well as those of us who consider themselves spiritual as well as religious. But sometimes I wonder whether people who have given up on God or religion are, as the old idiom goes, "cutting off their nose to despite their face."  They may have old doubts that could possibly be resolved; old quarrels with clergy that don’t warrant cutting God off; have the idea that religion, or belief in God, is outdated and irrelevant; the notion that all religious people are hypocritical. Or just see God and religion as boring. Warrant Slamming the Door on Go...
Read more