The power of the Alt-Right message can
be seen in those who are rejecting conservatism, classical liberalism, and
other pure ideologies in favor of watered-down versions of the Alt-Right that
Richard Spencer and others have collectively labeled the Alt-Lite. This is
one thoughtful Alt-Lite piece by a self-declared Liberal Christian Nationalist
who has, in his own words, embraced identity politics.
I
think I am a “Liberal Christian Nationalist,” and, now that Christians arguably
have no real influence in this country – just as they, particularly
nationalists, have little influence in Europe (first see here ; then here and
here) – this shouldn’t scare anyone.[i] I don’t expect to get too many of my
fellow Americans to identify with me in this, nor does it mean I expect to see
a LCN party arise. I suspect that the list that I have put together below
though – explaining what I mean by “Liberal Christian Nationalism”, might be of
more use to countries who are young when it comes to their Christian
commitment.
Please note that these points deal with issues of “race” in some detail, since that is, I think, always the elephant in the room and demands thoughtful engagement. Further, in full disclosure, I put together this 32 point list in part in response to a list that the “Alt Right” leader, Vox Day (author ofThe Irrational Atheist), put together.
Before jumping into my list, a key point: in my view, the Leftism of today includes many who would consider themselves on the political right. Their philosophy is ultimately deferential to the language used in the 1992 Planned Parenthood vs. Casey decision of the Supreme Court: “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” (of course, logic tells us that “private beliefs” will ultimately only be permitted to be translated into action for some persons – others’ actions will inevitably be determined to be “out of bounds” – see below). A person who is conservative, on the other hand – including those who find room to account for the importance of identity in politics – would continue to agree with the words of the late Russel Kirk – or, perhaps, at least want to agree with him: “[conservatives are] all those people who recognize an enduring moral order in the universe, a constant human nature, and high duties toward the order spiritual and the order temporal.” “Conservatives” who say that what Kirk says is “no longer true” or irrelevant are being anything but conservative. After all, if what Kirk says it is no longer true, how was it ever more than an illusion to begin with (given that he speaks of the words “constant” and “enduring” as if these terms mean something)?
My list:
Please note that these points deal with issues of “race” in some detail, since that is, I think, always the elephant in the room and demands thoughtful engagement. Further, in full disclosure, I put together this 32 point list in part in response to a list that the “Alt Right” leader, Vox Day (author ofThe Irrational Atheist), put together.
Before jumping into my list, a key point: in my view, the Leftism of today includes many who would consider themselves on the political right. Their philosophy is ultimately deferential to the language used in the 1992 Planned Parenthood vs. Casey decision of the Supreme Court: “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” (of course, logic tells us that “private beliefs” will ultimately only be permitted to be translated into action for some persons – others’ actions will inevitably be determined to be “out of bounds” – see below). A person who is conservative, on the other hand – including those who find room to account for the importance of identity in politics – would continue to agree with the words of the late Russel Kirk – or, perhaps, at least want to agree with him: “[conservatives are] all those people who recognize an enduring moral order in the universe, a constant human nature, and high duties toward the order spiritual and the order temporal.” “Conservatives” who say that what Kirk says is “no longer true” or irrelevant are being anything but conservative. After all, if what Kirk says it is no longer true, how was it ever more than an illusion to begin with (given that he speaks of the words “constant” and “enduring” as if these terms mean something)?
My list:
1.
The history of the world teaches us that the separation of
religion and politics is ultimately untenable. Ironically, the possibility of
conceiving of a “separation of church and state” could have only taken place in
a nation that is largely made up of an influenced by Christians (“give to God
what is God’s, to Caesar what is Caesar’s”), who justifiably, at their best,
have a reputation for both being simple, humble, content, and not apt to
glorify strength.
2.
The Bible is the Word of God. Whoever you are, Jesus Christ is
your Creator, your God, your King. This is what Christians have always believed
and taught. It is only for the sake of conversation and common ground with the
world – all of whom we are to love with Christ’s love – that we might start by
talking about how the Bible “contains God’s Word”, “contains the Gospel”, how
Jesus is “our God,” or how we consider the Bible to be authoritative.
3.
If “true patriotism” means “freedom and equality not only for
Americans but for all people on earth,” as Eleanor Roosevelt said, one should
consider supporting Christian missionaries who share the Gospel of Jesus Christ
– His defeat of sin, death and the devil for us through the (unlikely) victory
at the cross vindicated by the resurrection – out of sincere conviction and not
with any colonial-esque designs.
4.
Those countries who have attained a high level of political
liberty, including freedoms of speech, press, assembly and religion – as well
as greater effectiveness, mobility, and choice when it comes to economic issues
(made possible by increased trust) – are nations that have been greatly
influenced by Christianity.
5.
Greco-Roman culture, as well as the Renaissance and
Enlightenment which drew from it, forced Western forms of Christianity to
become much more reflective and nuanced in their understanding of biblical
truths. Christianity also seeks to appreciate what is good, true, and beautiful
from all cultures (see Philippians 4:8).
6.
Christians are first and foremost citizens of heaven, not earth.
In, but not of the world, their “dual ethnicity” means that they belong first
to the kingdom of heaven, and are members of “God’s chosen ethnos” (I Peter
2:9). Though all are one “in Adam,” God has, post-fall, also ordained a
diversity of nations (see Acts 17:26), from whom He will obtain worship (Rev.
7:9).
7.
Biblically, earthly nations are inseparable from the concept of
“ethnos,” from which we get “ethnicity”. In like fashion “genos”, from where we
get “genes,” can be translated as offspring, family, race, nation, kind, or
even sex. We see that these terms involve notions of blood and parentage, even
if “ethnos” is more closely connected than “genos” with our notions of culture.
8.
Ultimately, the Church is a new Nation that re-unites, by faith
in Christ, persons not just from this or that race, tribe, or nation, but from
the entire human family – making one Nation, or, more accurately, Kingdom, to
whom all the earthly nations will stream in the life to come, “Kingdom come”.
9.
The idea to rather sharply distinguish “church and state” comes
from Jesus Christ Himself. He said to “give to God what is God’s and Caesar
what is Caesar’s”. It is desirable that the Church and earthly nations support
one another even as it is also desirable that each stay out of the other’s core
business – the Church forgiving sin and giving eternal life, nations protecting
their people while seeking truth and justice.
10. It
may indeed be better to be governed by a wise Turk than a stupid Christian
(mis-attributed to the 16th Church Reformer Martin Luther, though it might seem
to sum up his thinking well) though even with this consideration (which seems
not to be mindful about continuity), the ideal or preferred persons to lead a
nation are, in general, Christians with political gifts – not the leaders of
the Church, but Christians nonetheless.
11. In
contrast to some, there is nothing in the Christian religion that demands we,
in our earthly sojourn, must have Christian rulers or even a certain kind of
government. If a beloved Christian chieftain or king were to step down to
establish a democracy, even with the caveat that the elected ruler must be
Christian (e.g. “firm Nicean”) – or at least persons sympathetic to Christianity
– it is reasonable to debate whether or not this would, generally speaking, be
a responsible move.
12. Nevertheless,
there is no theological reason, in theory, that a Democratic or Republican
(understood classically, not in terms of the American political parties)
Liberal Christian Nation should not be desirable – along with the desire to
keep it thusly (Ben Franklin: “A Republic – if you can keep it” – see here).
13. But
if this is the case, here, a “balance of powers” is only one part of the
puzzle. Collective theological – and hence cultural – formation must be seen as
being absolutely critical: in order to have equality under the law, real
respect for the dignity and rights of each individual, a wise degree of
cultural tolerance, etc., one must, simply, have Christian teaching. “Liberal
Christianity” and their progressive allies are, in fact, parasitical here (see
here).
14. As
“childless men who had forgotten their childhoods” (Bertand de Jovenel), Hobbes
and Locke (largely followed by Leo Strauss, the father of “neo-conservatism”)
believed the false philosophy that we are by nature “free and independent,”
naturally “ungoverned and even non-relational.” (see here) Hypothesizing
“states” (personal and corporate!) that are devoid of nationality, ethnicity, and
religion is simply unreasonable, and can’t not result in expressions of social
Darwinism, glorifying the powerful and attractive, and impatient with, and
dismissive towards (or worse) “losers”.
15. When
it comes to the sexes, the Left has, in essence, rejected fatherhood as a
category. Might not the rejection of the notion of “fatherland” by related?
(this article is worth pondering) America cannot be “an idea,” however much
that statement might force us to consider its seemingly unique qualities.
The list actually consists of 32
points, but you can read the whole thing there. Unlike the intellectually
autistic spergs of the Alt-White, I welcome the rapid expansion of the
Alt-Lite, as it drives even more nails in the coffin of ineffective ideology
politics in general and American conservatism in particular.
Full text of reviewed article at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/justandsinner/embracing-identity-politics-why-i-am-now-a-liberal-christian-nationalist/
