They are the same. You are correct. And it also shows how this never goes away, how we must always be on guard and protect society from it, even when it feels like we’re winning.
You know I’m part of unusual Church of Christ congregations when they have no problem with me saying that I am a “sinner and a tax collector” even when speaking at the pulpit. I am ex-IRS after all. I spent six years as a literal tax collector.
When you have bad bits of eisegesis where people are reading into the text things that aren’t there you wind up with our Christian Nationalist mess. My prof for New Testament survey back in undergrad would’ve given them a tongue lashing for reading that passage from Matthew in that context. The quickest executive summary is that the law in the Old Testament is a covenant between God and his people. Covenants are what we consider today to be just another form of contract. Rather than destroy the contract, Jesus fulfilled it so a new agreement could be made known as the new covenant. I am glossing over a ton but that’s what the more normal interpretation would be thinking about as to that passage.
I interpret this text your way now, Stephen, and agree with you. Christian Nationalists go out of their way to have their cake (Jesus died for me) and eat it too (but I still love me some Old Testament God when I can use it to control others.)
This is the perfect example of why the correct application of separation of church and state matters. It is perfectly fine for different denominations and sects to read their faith document and interpret them differently. That’s part of what faith is: Finding the message that speaks to one’s soul and following it. Those differences are acceptable and appropriate because it’s faith. Anyone could be right; no one could be right; everyone could be part right and part wrong. We cannot know.
That has no place in our laws and government. Many Christians understand this and see this section the way you and your church do. But Christian Nationalists don’t agree. Which is fine as long as they’re the only ones following that dogma. But when they want to force it on everyone, when they want to come into your church and say “You are reading the Bible wrong and we’re right,” that’s a real problem.
I read the full sermon at your link. I seem to remember having heard more or less all of it at one time or another.
It's interesting to me that what he's saying about marriage and adultery is addressed to men. Obviously it makes sense because public speaking would be to men, and not women, but one might also think that instructions to men could be different from those to women, if we consider the differences between the sexes in a patriarchy system (and they might persist anyway even in a more equal system).
First he says to men that if you're fantasizing about another woman, you're cheating on your wife. Harsh perhaps, but in practice men would be doing this without their wife's knowledge or consent, so he has a point that it can be hurtful.
Then he says to men that you don't really have any good reason to divorce your wife unless (or until?) she's already left you (emotionally) for another. In a world in which divorce is an action men do to women, which puts the woman at an extreme social disadvantage, this counsel is understandable; it's meant to protect women from abuse. It's not really contemplating a scenario in which the wife could be an abusive spouse, and it's consistent with teaching that men should serve their wives, which might just be the only way to civilize the male of the species and get him to put his energies toward productive tasks that help others.
Anyway just my two cents. I know there are usually 'correct' ways to interpret the text and 'incorrect' ways, but I believe that while you can and should look at a text in its context, a text should also be able to stand on its own and be open to reasonable interpretations. 🤷
One of the things I remember most about my upbringing is the constant hammering of “women must submit.” Men are commanded to love their wives enough to die for them, but that message received a fraction of sermon and Sunday School time.
Because I think you’re right: Jesus was addressing men and, in my view, holding them to a higher standard of behavior in relationships.
But that isn’t how Christian Nationalists interpret it. And they also like to segregate males and females for indoctrination, where these sexist, patriarchal interpretations are even more extreme.
While I don’t love having deep theological discussions here, I think it’s important for average Americans to grasp these differences in dogma. We cannot defeat something we don’t understand. I’m not sure many Christians understand how radicalized and extreme Christian Nationalists are, or where and how they twist the Bible to their purposes.
Yeah. Always skeptical when teaching that comes from some other part of Christianity gets put above the words of Jesus himself. Obviously this was all written down, by men, but if there's going to be value in it today it's going to come from the radical love Jesus taught. Reading the sermon just reminds me, as always, how much of his preaching was spent warning about people who make a show of being holy, and the rich. It's like every time I read the words I just see it's warning about the Christian Nationalists so incredibly clearly. Honestly it validates the Christian message for me more than anything else, that it's clearly directed exactly against these kind of people.
Christian Nationalists, IMO, are so far off the mark. They don’t talk the talk or walk the walk. I have always hated people who just spouted off Bible verses to prove their point.
I agree, Monica. Yesterday, I told my husband how much I still deplore that I can flip this switch in my brain and think like them. That's indoctrination. And why we must fight to keep more Americans from being subjugated and controlled by it.
It's tempting to laugh at the conservative Christians who claim that their god intervened to save Trump from the recent mass shooting at his rally, but if you think about what they are saying, it it's actually pretty offensive. What kind of god would intervene to save Trump but not the people who were killed at that rally or all the innocent children killed, injured, and traumatized by school shootings?
Right as this newsletter went live, I started chatting with my friend Tato Torres (who contributed to my series on authoritarian thinking back in July.) He shares links with me about what he and his team are working on, and today's was about the ways authoritarian thinkers turn things around on the rest of us.
For example, this paragraph from today's newsletter is textbook authoritarian thinking:
"They would argue that the rest of us are the real instruments of death, because we continue to reject the One True God. We continue to vote for politicians who aren’t Christians. We continue to condone things their Bibles oppose and condemn. Christian Nationalists aren’t causing gun violence; politicians like JD Vance insist non-Christian Nationalists are."
For decades, many Americans didn't want to hear about religion. Many Americans STILL don't. But this ignorance about where this thinking comes from and how they twist things cannot continue if we hope to defeat them. As I told Zach, I don't enjoy making this Substack a deep theological discussion. Newsletters like this one get heavy if they come day after day. But it's vital that Americans know this stuff, that they can recognize it when they see it in the wild, that they can call it out and condemn it in their communities.
I never laugh at them. I don't find anything they do or say funny. I know they're serious. They mean to subjugate and control the rest of us, and they believe they are ordered by God to do whatever they must to accomplish that control.
Such a complete, thoughtful and profound critique of the questions posed, especially with regard to analysis of the exegesis of the old/ new testaments taken by CN as well as your identification and criticism of old testament teachings embraced by Christ in the NT gospels.
Also, the extent to which you invite your readers into your writing is remarkable. Unlike so many threads which are limited to something of a closed loop of post exchanges between readers, I find myself thinking that I have been, and will continue to be, in a conversation with you. I'm sure many if not all of your readers have the same experience.
People have billions of online options and thousands here on Substack. Committing to have (and encourage) conversations has made this space so much better than it would have been. From the beginning, I limited to comments to paid subscribers (and those who use the leaderboard to share my work and earn paid status) because I wanted to protect this community from trolling.
People regularly chastise me in the notes for making all post comments paid, but virtually every time I forget, someone trolls me. It's great of them to self-identify so I can block them, but being open online as a woman saying confrontational things AND protecting my mental health are more important than the feelings of those who think note comments should be free.
I hope I answered your questions, Garth. I shortened them, but I think I got the gist of what you were asking. It really helps to apply this lens to what people like JD Vance say, but plenty of others in Congress and state legislatures are CNs. On the Supreme Court, Gorsuch, Alito and Thomas are dominionist CNs; the other conservative justices also fail to separate their Catholic Christian Nationalist dogma from their interpretation of law.
It's simple...
Christian Nationalists love
1. The Crusades
2. The Spanish Inquisition
3. The Pogroms
4. The Witch Trials
5. The Trail of Tears
6. The Holocaust
Non-Christians being tortured and killed. What could be better and funnier to them?
They are the same. You are correct. And it also shows how this never goes away, how we must always be on guard and protect society from it, even when it feels like we’re winning.
You know I’m part of unusual Church of Christ congregations when they have no problem with me saying that I am a “sinner and a tax collector” even when speaking at the pulpit. I am ex-IRS after all. I spent six years as a literal tax collector.
When you have bad bits of eisegesis where people are reading into the text things that aren’t there you wind up with our Christian Nationalist mess. My prof for New Testament survey back in undergrad would’ve given them a tongue lashing for reading that passage from Matthew in that context. The quickest executive summary is that the law in the Old Testament is a covenant between God and his people. Covenants are what we consider today to be just another form of contract. Rather than destroy the contract, Jesus fulfilled it so a new agreement could be made known as the new covenant. I am glossing over a ton but that’s what the more normal interpretation would be thinking about as to that passage.
This song from the Stamps-Baxter hymnals entitled “He Paid A Debt He Did Not Owe” covers it nicely: https://hymnary.org/hymn/SNP21979/21
I interpret this text your way now, Stephen, and agree with you. Christian Nationalists go out of their way to have their cake (Jesus died for me) and eat it too (but I still love me some Old Testament God when I can use it to control others.)
This is the perfect example of why the correct application of separation of church and state matters. It is perfectly fine for different denominations and sects to read their faith document and interpret them differently. That’s part of what faith is: Finding the message that speaks to one’s soul and following it. Those differences are acceptable and appropriate because it’s faith. Anyone could be right; no one could be right; everyone could be part right and part wrong. We cannot know.
That has no place in our laws and government. Many Christians understand this and see this section the way you and your church do. But Christian Nationalists don’t agree. Which is fine as long as they’re the only ones following that dogma. But when they want to force it on everyone, when they want to come into your church and say “You are reading the Bible wrong and we’re right,” that’s a real problem.
Excellent point, thank you.
Thank you for working so hard to translate their language. It helps tremendously.
It is always good to hear that I’m helping.
I read the full sermon at your link. I seem to remember having heard more or less all of it at one time or another.
It's interesting to me that what he's saying about marriage and adultery is addressed to men. Obviously it makes sense because public speaking would be to men, and not women, but one might also think that instructions to men could be different from those to women, if we consider the differences between the sexes in a patriarchy system (and they might persist anyway even in a more equal system).
First he says to men that if you're fantasizing about another woman, you're cheating on your wife. Harsh perhaps, but in practice men would be doing this without their wife's knowledge or consent, so he has a point that it can be hurtful.
Then he says to men that you don't really have any good reason to divorce your wife unless (or until?) she's already left you (emotionally) for another. In a world in which divorce is an action men do to women, which puts the woman at an extreme social disadvantage, this counsel is understandable; it's meant to protect women from abuse. It's not really contemplating a scenario in which the wife could be an abusive spouse, and it's consistent with teaching that men should serve their wives, which might just be the only way to civilize the male of the species and get him to put his energies toward productive tasks that help others.
Anyway just my two cents. I know there are usually 'correct' ways to interpret the text and 'incorrect' ways, but I believe that while you can and should look at a text in its context, a text should also be able to stand on its own and be open to reasonable interpretations. 🤷
One of the things I remember most about my upbringing is the constant hammering of “women must submit.” Men are commanded to love their wives enough to die for them, but that message received a fraction of sermon and Sunday School time.
Because I think you’re right: Jesus was addressing men and, in my view, holding them to a higher standard of behavior in relationships.
But that isn’t how Christian Nationalists interpret it. And they also like to segregate males and females for indoctrination, where these sexist, patriarchal interpretations are even more extreme.
While I don’t love having deep theological discussions here, I think it’s important for average Americans to grasp these differences in dogma. We cannot defeat something we don’t understand. I’m not sure many Christians understand how radicalized and extreme Christian Nationalists are, or where and how they twist the Bible to their purposes.
Yeah. Always skeptical when teaching that comes from some other part of Christianity gets put above the words of Jesus himself. Obviously this was all written down, by men, but if there's going to be value in it today it's going to come from the radical love Jesus taught. Reading the sermon just reminds me, as always, how much of his preaching was spent warning about people who make a show of being holy, and the rich. It's like every time I read the words I just see it's warning about the Christian Nationalists so incredibly clearly. Honestly it validates the Christian message for me more than anything else, that it's clearly directed exactly against these kind of people.
I’ve repeatedly said Jesus Christ wouldn’t vote for Christo-fascist Republicans. He condemned everything they and their wealthy overlords stand for.
Christian Nationalists, IMO, are so far off the mark. They don’t talk the talk or walk the walk. I have always hated people who just spouted off Bible verses to prove their point.
I agree, Monica. Yesterday, I told my husband how much I still deplore that I can flip this switch in my brain and think like them. That's indoctrination. And why we must fight to keep more Americans from being subjugated and controlled by it.
It's tempting to laugh at the conservative Christians who claim that their god intervened to save Trump from the recent mass shooting at his rally, but if you think about what they are saying, it it's actually pretty offensive. What kind of god would intervene to save Trump but not the people who were killed at that rally or all the innocent children killed, injured, and traumatized by school shootings?
Right as this newsletter went live, I started chatting with my friend Tato Torres (who contributed to my series on authoritarian thinking back in July.) He shares links with me about what he and his team are working on, and today's was about the ways authoritarian thinkers turn things around on the rest of us.
For example, this paragraph from today's newsletter is textbook authoritarian thinking:
"They would argue that the rest of us are the real instruments of death, because we continue to reject the One True God. We continue to vote for politicians who aren’t Christians. We continue to condone things their Bibles oppose and condemn. Christian Nationalists aren’t causing gun violence; politicians like JD Vance insist non-Christian Nationalists are."
For decades, many Americans didn't want to hear about religion. Many Americans STILL don't. But this ignorance about where this thinking comes from and how they twist things cannot continue if we hope to defeat them. As I told Zach, I don't enjoy making this Substack a deep theological discussion. Newsletters like this one get heavy if they come day after day. But it's vital that Americans know this stuff, that they can recognize it when they see it in the wild, that they can call it out and condemn it in their communities.
I never laugh at them. I don't find anything they do or say funny. I know they're serious. They mean to subjugate and control the rest of us, and they believe they are ordered by God to do whatever they must to accomplish that control.
Such a complete, thoughtful and profound critique of the questions posed, especially with regard to analysis of the exegesis of the old/ new testaments taken by CN as well as your identification and criticism of old testament teachings embraced by Christ in the NT gospels.
Also, the extent to which you invite your readers into your writing is remarkable. Unlike so many threads which are limited to something of a closed loop of post exchanges between readers, I find myself thinking that I have been, and will continue to be, in a conversation with you. I'm sure many if not all of your readers have the same experience.
People have billions of online options and thousands here on Substack. Committing to have (and encourage) conversations has made this space so much better than it would have been. From the beginning, I limited to comments to paid subscribers (and those who use the leaderboard to share my work and earn paid status) because I wanted to protect this community from trolling.
People regularly chastise me in the notes for making all post comments paid, but virtually every time I forget, someone trolls me. It's great of them to self-identify so I can block them, but being open online as a woman saying confrontational things AND protecting my mental health are more important than the feelings of those who think note comments should be free.
I hope I answered your questions, Garth. I shortened them, but I think I got the gist of what you were asking. It really helps to apply this lens to what people like JD Vance say, but plenty of others in Congress and state legislatures are CNs. On the Supreme Court, Gorsuch, Alito and Thomas are dominionist CNs; the other conservative justices also fail to separate their Catholic Christian Nationalist dogma from their interpretation of law.
"To them, gun violence is caused by sin and perversion, by rejecting the One True God."
They probably also believe they're commanded to rid Satan of his tools that lead to sin and perversion.
So why do they hand out guns?
Because they'd rather let armed people take away your porn.