Christian nationalism: The civic idolater’s religion.

NATIONALISM 'næʃ.(ə.)nəl.ɪz.əm noun. Belief a particular ethnic group (i.e. nation) should be congruent with the state, or be supreme within it; and the state’s native identity must share this ethnic group’s characteristics.

2. Exalting one ethnic group above all others; promoting its culture and interests above (or against) those of other ethnic or multinational groups.

[Nationalist 'næʃ.(ə.)nəl.ɪst noun.]

 

CHRISTIAN NATIONALISM noun. Belief Christians should be congruent with the state, or be supreme within it; and the state’s native identity must share Christianity’s characteristics.

2. Exalting Christians above all others; promoting its culture and interests above (or against) those of other religions and philosophies.

Let’s not mince words: Nationalism is a racist belief. Period.

French nationalists believe France should only consist of ethnic French people. To them, any immigrants from Algeria, Spain, Switzerland, or any other country aren’t really French, even if they were born in France, speak fluent French, have French citizenship, and contribute to society. In fact French nationalists would really rather they didn’t contribute to society, ’cause they’re “not really French.”

Turkish nationalists: Same deal. Israeli nationalists: Same deal; if you’re not Jewish you’re not really Israeli. United States nationalists: Same deal, except instead of insisting Americans be native Americans (i.e. American Indians) they insist the only real Americans are white English-speaking Anglo-Saxons like them. And they’d really like it if everybody else would just “go back to where you’re from,” and thereby make America great again. (By which they mean white again. As if it was ever only white.)

Now yeah, there are various conservatives who admit they’re nationalist, but insist they’re not racist; they’re perfectly fine with nonwhite Americans! Some of their best friends are nonwhites! The United States is a melting pot; diversity is one of our strengths; immigrants make some of the best Americans; most of all they love ethnic food. They even have nonwhite relatives.

So why on earth do they identify themselves as nationalists? Well they’re Christian nationalists. It’s the very same idea the racists have… but now let’s swap out all the racism for Christianity. To them, the United States should only consist of Christians. Any immigrants with other religions need to abandon those religions at the border, and either embrace Christianity or recognize its supremacy in American culture. And not resist that supremacy: They can practice their weird religions in private or in secret, but they must always remember America is a Christian nation.

Oh, I should mention many Christian nationalists don’t swap out all the racism for Christianity. Sometimes the racism’s still right there. They’re not so sure nonwhite Christians are real Christians… otherwise why wouldn’t they attend their nice white conservative churches? Why would they dare vote for liberal causes? Nope; if they were real Christians they’d conform to white churches and conservative causes.

And other Christian nationalists are fully aware they’re racist, and always have been. They want the United States to be a country for white Christians… but they find they get more traction if they emphasize the Christianity part and downplay the racism. Privately, they’ll tell you all about it.

No, nationalism isn’t just extreme patriotism. Some of the lousier dictionaries will define it that way… and some Christians will define it that way ’cause they don’t really understand what nationalism is. They just think it sounds patriotic. It’s got “nation” in it! But they don’t understand “nation” doesn’t mean country; it means ethnic group. It’s about race. Christian nationalism may borrow the racist term, but it still comes with all the racist baggage. Hence Christian nationalism has racism deeply embedded in it. Deeply.

“Why are you permitting blatant immorality?”

1 Corinthians 5.

Today’s passage is a whole chapter. It’s short, but yep, it’s a chapter.

It’s a little controversial among certain Christians—for the very same reason Paul and Sosthenes had to write it to the Corinthians. It has to do with sexual misbehavior in Corinth’s church, which Paul felt had gone beyond the pale—but the Corinthians were tolerating it, ’cause grace. And nuh-uh; that’s not how grace works.

I’ll start with where the apostles set up the scenario.

1 Corinthians 5.1-5 KWL

1Unchastity among you is getting reported everywhere—

the kind of unchastity which isn’t even approved by gentiles—

with a man having his father’s woman.

2You people are arrogant;

and don’t, more appropriately, mourn,

about how you should remove from among you

the one doing this work?

3For I, though absent in the body, being present in spirit,

like one who’s present, have already condemned this behavior.

4In the name of our master, Christ Jesus,

when you are gathered together with my spirit,

in the power of our master Jesus,

5hand over such a person to Satan for the flesh’s destruction,

so the spirit might be saved on the Lord Jesus’s day.

I translate the word πορνεία/porneía as “unchastity,” because that’s precisely what it means. Chastity means appropriate sexual activity; porneía is the opposite. Yes, people tend to define chastity to mean celibacy—no sexual activity at all—and that’s inaccurate. If you’re a clergy member who took a vow of celibacy, as some have, that’s what chastity means for you—you gotta keep your vows! But for every other Christian, chastity just means monogamy. You and your partner only have sex with one another, and don’t deprive one another, yet don’t make your partner do anything they consider immoral or don’t want. (It’s about loving one another, not personal gratification.)

Chastity also means you can’t just partner up with anyone, like promiscuous people will. Stay away from people who don’t or won’t or can’t love you. Stay away from people who demand you prioritize them over Jesus. And of course, avoid someone who already has a partner; and no close family members, whether by blood, marriage, or adoption.

Anyway if you know the myth of Oedipus of Thebes—and of course the Corinthians knew it, ’cause Thebes was a longtime ally, and only 85km away—you’ll know it’s an icky story. The king of Thebes had a son; his son was prophesied to kill his father and marry his mother; the king was horrified and had the baby abandoned in the woods. Except the shepherd who was supposed to abandon him, didn’t. Oedipus was adopted by a different royal family, fled from them as soon as he learned the prophecy… and happened upon his birth parents, and unwittingly fulfilled the prophecy. And the gods cursed Thebes with a plague because of it—because even pagans thought that was nasty.

Yet here it was, happening right there in the Corinthian church. And the Corinthians were letting it happen.

The Johnson amendment, and preaching the wrong kingdom.

Despite the name, the National Religous Broadcasters isn’t just national, isn’t just religious, and isn’t just broadcasters. (It was founded in 1944, but it kept the original name.) It’s international now; it’s exclusively Christian; and of course in the internet age you gotta allow for more than just radio and TV broadcasts. It was founded in part to fight the Federal Council of Churches’ 1943 takeover of the religious programming of radio networks; nowadays it’s more of a support group for Evangelical media creators.

I bring ’em up because they’re suing the Internal Revenue Service, the tax-gathering agency of the U.S. federal government. Their argument is the IRS is inconsistently applying the Johnson Amendment to non-profits, and should just do away with it altogether.

Yeah, I’d better explain in more detail for people who aren’t familiar with any of that.

In the United States we have a Constitutional right to freedom of religion. And to keep the Feds and states from hassling churches by taxing their finances, churches are encouraged to become tax-free nonprofit organizations. We call them 501(c)(3) organizations, named for the specific subsection of Title 26 of the United States Code which defines ’em. For your convenience, I’ll quote it. Warning: Legalese.

Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office. 26 USC §501(c)(3)

In simpler English:

1. None of your org’s incoming money should be controlled by, or benefit, one individual. Like the head pastor. Your church shouldn’t be merely a promotional tool to help your pastor get speaking engagements and sell books and videos. Nor should it spend all its money enriching your pastors, yet do little to no ministry.
2. The church shouldn’t spend “a substantial part” of its money (and other laws define how big is “substantial”) on pushing its politics: Promoting causes or lobbying government.
3. The church can’t promote a political candidate or campaign.

The Johnson amendment is the “which does not participate in, or intervene in… any political campaign,” etc. It’s named after Lyndon Johnson, who was still a senator when he got it passed in 1954. It applies to every 501(c)(3) nonprofit; not just churches. It wasn’t controversial when it was first passed, because back in the ’50s most pastors recognized politics is a dirty business, and didn’t wanna soil themselves in it.

But not anymore! Back in February, the NRB even had former president and current presidential candidate Donald Trump speak at their annual convention. He’s offering to overturn that pesky Johnson amendment if only they’d return him to power. “All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me,” he told them. Mt 4.9 Or something like that.

The NRB hasn’t officially endorsed Trump, but you know they wanna. Well, they’re trying to get rid of the amendment; if they succeed, they certainly can.

And lots of partisan pastors and churches would love to promote political candidates right from the pulpit. Would love to denounce the opposition party and its politicans, and call ’em tools of Satan. Would love to sway their entire congregations to vote their way. Some of ’em do it anyway, willingly risking their nonprofit status, figuring the IRS might not do anything if the people of their congregation never tell on ’em. Others have voluntarily given up their nonprofit status, pay taxes, say whatever they please, and roll around in politics like pigs in poo.

Patriarchy: When fathers ruled the earth.

PATRIARCHY 'peɪ.tri.ɑrk.i noun. System of governance in which the father, or eldest male, is ruler.

2. System wherein women are largely excluded from positions of authority.

[Patriarchal 'peɪ.tri.ɑr.kəl adjective.]

When people talk about patriarchy nowadays, they tend to mean the second definition above: The system is rigged in such a way that women can’t find their way into any official or significant positions of leadership. There is no way into it. At most they can have unofficial power, like a First Lady; they can have insignificant power, like being in charge of cleaning the break room. (Gee, what an honor.) But never any serious authority. The “old boys’ network” keeps shutting them out.

Obviously because the “old boys” don’t wanna work with women. Especially don’t wanna work for women. Doesn’t matter the reasons; they’re all different forms of sexism. It’s a way-too-common problem in the present day. But actually sexism isn’t what this article is about. (Not primarily. Sexism doesn’t have to be part of patriarchy. But it nearly always is.)

What I’m writing about is the first definition: The government we see among the early Hebrews, in the families of Noah, Abraham, and Jacob before the Law was handed down; and to a lesser degree the system we see in families thereafter. Before there were judges and kings, before there were cities and nations and empires, before there was anything, there were families. The families were led and ruled by the father or eldest male: The patriarch.

Now, we Americans grew up under democracy. When we’re in a situation where there’s no leadership, we often figure, “Okay, we’ll take a vote.” All of us are equal, so the majority should rule, right? If one of us tries to assume power, we object, ’cause that’s not fair. But that’s because we were raised to be democratic. The ancients weren’t. Popular vote didn’t rule the day; the strongest or loudest or most dangerous did. This is Darwinism at its simplest.

The one best able to strike down his foes dwas usually the physically strongest; the man. And in order to maintain power, patriarchy was the system these men put into place. The man, the father of the family, the paterfamilias, ruled. They taught their kids this was the way things worked. So whereas our culture falls back on democracy to decide things, theirs fell back on patriarchy.

It wasn’t egalitarian; spouses got no equal say. Wasn’t democratic, where the kids got a vote too. It was a dictatorship. What the patriarch decided, was how things were. No one to overrule him, no constitution to say he violated civil rights, no legislature to control his behavior, no police to stop him. If he decided he was taking a second or third or hundredth wife, he did. If he forbade his daughter from marrying a certain man, she had to obey. If he ordered his son put to death for disobedience, off with his head. Seriously.

And there are a number of Christians who read about these “good old days” in the bible, and wouldn’t mind returning to them. Oh, I’ll get to those guys.

The Revised Version, and the American Standard Version.

In my article about other English-language bibles in the 1600s and 1700s, I mentioned how your average King James Version fan isn’t aware there even were other bible translations back then. They think John Wycliffe translated it first; then it was followed up by a bunch of really bad translations; then King James ordered a proper translation and that’s the KJV. They know nothing about the Geneva Bible. Nor any of the other translations which followed. They just presume once the KJV was translated, absolutely everyone used it. (Except Catholics. And heretics.)

Of course there are dozens of English-language translations today. So some years ago I asked my bible class whether they knew what the next popular English-language bible after the KJV was. Most said, “Um… the NIV?” Nope, not the 1978 New International Version. But I’ve since found lots of people give the NIV as their answer.

I grew up in the ’70s, so I remember we had a lot of translations to choose from back then. Mom had a parallel bible, which came in handy whenever the KJV was hard to understand; it had the KJV in one column, the 1969 Modern Language Bible in another, the 1971 Living Bible in another, and the 1952 Revised Standard Version in another. My first bible was a KJV, but I later got a 1976 Good News Bible. And I remember coming across the 1971 New American Standard Bible, the 1966 Jerusalem Bible, and J.B. Phillips’ 1958 The New Testament in Modern English. No doubt some of you can think of others.

Some of the folks in my class remembered the NASB, and I asked them whether they recalled an old American Standard Bible. None of ’em really did. But that’s the one I’m gonna write about today—and its immediate predecessor, the 1885 Revised Version. (RV for short. Sometimes it’s called the English Revised Version, or ERV, but nah, I’m not gonna call it that.)

What’d it revise? The King James Version.

(Why didn’t they therefore call it the New King James Version? Well in the Church of England, they tend to call it the Authorized Version instead of the KJV; and it was the official bible of the church, so they simply called it the Revised Version… leaving NKJV up for grabs a century later.)

The convocation of Canterbury is one of the regular general assemblies of the Church of England. On 6 May 1870 the convocation created a committee to revise the King James Version. The goal was “to adapt King James’ version to the present state of the English language without changing the idiom and the vocabulary,” and update it to “the present standard of biblical scholarship.”

Why then? Well, archaeology had recently been invented—and by “recently” I mean in the past 25 years or so. Rather than dig through ruins and graves looking for treasures, anthropologists were looking for data, information about how people used to live. Great advances had been made in interpreting unfamiliar ancient langauges. And Christian anthropologists went looking for ancient copies of the bible—and found many.

Much more had therefore been discovered about the first century’s culture and practices, and methods of Greek translation. And when bible scholars compared the newly-discovered bible manuscripts to the the Majority Text and Textus Receptus, they immediately saw the defects of those medieval bibles: Why on earth were they using a bible translation based on a Greek New Testament that was a compliation of every textual variant its editors could find? Why wasn’t it, properly, based on the oldest copies of the scriptures there are?—which they had in their very own British Museum.

And since the Church of England listened to its scholars (heck, made bishops of them), once enough of ’em decided it was time to revise the King James Version, they did.

The “𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘣𝘴 31 woman.”

PROVERBS 31 WOMAN 'prɑ.vərbz 'θɜr.di 'wʌn 'wʊ.mən noun. A productive woman, like the ideal wife described in Proverbs 31.

2. A compliment offered to a valued wife. (Whether or not she matches the woman of Proverbs 31.)

Among many Christians, the ultimate compliment you can pay your wife is to call her a “Proverbs 31 woman.”

Properly, it means she meets the bible’s standard for an ideal wife. (More specifically, Lemuel’s mother’s standard; more about Lemuel and his mom in a bit.) And since people don’t bother to read their bibles, Christians included, they really just mean she’s a good Christian. Whether she’s anything like the Proverbs 31 passage is a whole other deal.

Yeah, I’ll quote the passage. It’s not the whole of the chapter; it’s just this bit.

Proverbs 31.10-31 KWL

10A capable woman! Who’s found one?

She‘s worth far more than rubies.

11Her husband’s heart trusts her,

and he has no shortage of loot.

12 She pays him back with good, not evil, all her life’s days.

13She asks for wool and flax.

She’s happy to work with her hands.

14She’s like a merchant ship:

She imports food.

15She rises when it’s still night.

She provides meat for her house and her employees.

16She organizes a field.

She plants a vineyard with the fruit of her hands.

17She belts herself with strength.

She makes her arms strong.

18She tastes her merchandise to make sure it’s good.

Her lamp isn’t put out at night.

19She puts her hands on the spindle.

Her palms hold the distaff.

20Her palms spread for the humble.

Her hands reach out to the needy.

21She doesn’t fear snow for her household:

All her house are warmly clothed in red.

22She knits herself tapestries.

Her clothing is purple.

23Her husband is recognized at the city gates.

He sits with the land’s elders.

24She makes and sells tunics.

She gives belts to Canaanites.

25Her clothing is strength and honor.

She will relax in days to come.

26Her mouth is opened in wisdom.

The Law of kindness is on her tongue.

27She watches the goings-on of her house.

She doesn’t eat bread idly.

28Her children rise and call her happy.

Her husband praises her:

29“Many daughters do well,

but you surpass all of them!”

30Grace can be false.

Loveliness is useless.

A woman who respects the LORD will be praised.

31Give her back the fruit of her hands,

and her deeds will praise her in the city gates.

Check it out. Only once does her devotion to God come up; in verse 30. But no doubt her good deeds are the result of loving God and wanting to excel for his sake. Even so, the bulk of this passage is about the fact this woman works. Works hard. Gets stuff done, and does it well.

When our heroes stumble. Or sin. Or sin big-time.

Had to resist the temptation to title this article, “There goes my hero; watch him as he goes.” You’ll see why.

This week I came across two cases of a person—a person many people greatly admire—failing. One’s Christian; one’s pagan. I admit I wouldn’t’ve seen any connection between the two, except I read an article about the pagan that just sounded… well, startlingly familiar.

Starting with the pagan, ’cause I read about him first. I don’t expect all my readers to know who rock star Dave Grohl is. You might’ve heard of his first band, Nirvana; you might’ve heard of his current band, Foo Fighters. Both bands have been very successful. I still listen to their music. (No, you don’t have to if you don’t wanna.) Grohl announced recently that, once again, he’s gonna be a father. Mazel tov!… except it turns out the mother of his new baby isn’t his wife, and he’s filing for divorce from said wife, and his adult kids have turned off their social media accounts because they don’t wanna deal with his upset fans. I don’t blame ’em.

Yes, his fans are upset. Grohl has a reputation as a family man. Unlike most rock stars, who leave the wife and kids at home, go on the road, and partly like… well, obviously rock stars, Grohl and his bandmates deliberately brought their families with them. Hey, they’re rich; why not? For that matter why don’t other rock stars?—other than the obvious reasons of road-trip infidelity. But Grohl kinda showcased the fact the band’s families were traveling with them, and even had his kids come on stage and play along. Fun to watch! So his fans grew used to thinking of Grohl as a good guy and loyal husband.

And maybe he was loyal. I don’t really know him; neither do his fans, no matter what they might imagine. For all we know he might’ve separated from his wife years ago, and just kept it private. Or he might’ve cheated on her constantly. I’ve no idea.

Either way, I’m not gonna judge Grohl. I have no business doing any such thing. Maybe he has legit reasons for what happened, but even if they aren’t—to me anyway—he’s not Christian! He doesn’t answer to Jesus; he certainly doesn’t answer to me. If he wants to end things with his wife and be with someone else, he can. Society will judge him for it, and society doesn’t do grace, so that sucks. (Then again too many Christians don’t do grace either. But that’s another rant.)

When I first heard this news (’cause this made the news; I didn’t read it on any gossip blog) my knee-jerk reaction was, “Aw, that’s too bad.” Divorce sucks.

But then I read a certain article on an entertainment website.