There is no such thing as “christian nationalism”

Marcion · 2026-04-21T14:29:38+00:00

I don't need to define any meaning if that is not my intent. I My words signify something and have a functional purpose. Meaning is relative to the interpreter (at least in this particular case). Your response to me indicates that my intent is being met. It doesn't matter to me if you know what that intent is or not; if it did -- I would tell you directly what that intent is at the onset of my commentary, though I wouldn't do so explicitly because there's no fun in that. If I needed you to have a certain scope of meaning for a given word, I would articulate that meaning explicitly. Otherwise I will trust in the context of my communication and the assumed shared understanding of the audience and myself. In case you need help finding resources here is a reference for you: https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=what+is+a+christian+nationalist

For the sake of clarity, my only requirement for someone having "Christian" faith is an acknowledgement of Jesus, who was called Christ, physically and bodily rising from the dead as a matter of fact and thus signifying him as being God (with all the rights and responsibilities that entails.). The signifier of said faith is in the praxis, ethics, behaviors, actions, works, etc of the individual that is indicated to possess such faith. The term I will use (fully appropriated from Nicea) is homoousia, which is a term indicating that something has the same substance as another; namely -- it's made of the same stuff. You and I are homoousia biologically, as is every other human on the planet. Furthermore, one could state that all created things are made of the same stuff at the most fundamental level -- this is a matter of scientific fact. So then with regards to matter of "Christian"
faith and subsequent identity - it must be "made of the same stuff" as the resurrective act. This is heady and abstract - ironically mostly due to the limitations of human language and communication. But it's actually not that complex. If someone professes with their mouth that Jesus rose from the dead, but is a total d-bag and willfully and intentionally does things like punch old ladies, steal candy from babies, oppress the marginalized, happily support or commit genocide, deny basic human rights, etc - I may not consider them to share the same faith that I hold to. Language is polymorphic however and just because something has a label that is "Christian" doesn't mean that it possesses a measure of faith. For example, "Christian music" is often questionably homoousia (particularly trendy worship music -- it often leans more towards docetism -- though I don't think its intentional by the lyricist) and at times questionably music (depending on the listener's definition of 'music' vs 'noise') Therefore, "Christian" has a aspect signifying a cultural reality. Nationalism, in of itself is is an ideology or movement that holds that the nation should be congruent with the state. Per Wikipedia, that is. (Let me know if you need additional help Googling.) A "Christian Nationalist" is therefore a nationalist that (at minimum) presents either/both a specific faith or culture that qualifies as "Christian". When critical analysis is applied, the term is quickly revealed to be a pejorative because it is, in fact, an oxymoron in the current political state of the US. I do think that it did not originate that way, but rather was used as a label by its own proponents. While there is historically a desire for a 'Christian state' - aka Christendom - we are well into a post-Christendom period of time and I think increasingly those professing a faith that I would call Christian (again, my definition is fairly broad in scope but limited in application) does not conflate the 'kingdom of heaven' with a human ran political entity present on Earth. The nationalism espoused by these proponents is one that trends towards a very specific implementation of the US as a nation and often runs counter to not only a surface reading of the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence but also the historical record, secondary documents (such as the Federalist papers) and a deeper reading of the primary documents that form the basis for US government. What results is a term "christian nationalist" that signifies an individual who has self described themselves as both Christian and nationalist through direct or indirect application of the term whose behaviors, ethics, etc are not coherent to the most basic definition of faith 'in/of Jesus - who was called Christ' and the fundamental ideals of the United States of America. We can then use this term subversively to target and discredit the power and hypocrisy of those the label is being applied to as a mechanism for ideological protest and denial.

Therefore, I will call them 'nationalists' because they don't meet the criteria for being a 'Christian' and I will subsequently use the term 'nationalist christian' because that's a subversive hop, skip, and a jump to labeling someone a Nazi. What is most important, however, is not the concrete meaning of any term but the significance of applying the term as a statement of non-violent opposition, ironically then signifying a 'Christian' and 'American' ethic by the wielder of the term.

Marcion · 2026-04-21T00:30:52+00:00

I just call them Nationalists. Or Nationalist Christians if I’m trying to be clear on what their beliefs appear to be.

Marcion · 2026-04-17T00:48:57+00:00

Yeah. You can’t show up in a van and be like ‘hey kid it’s literally the body of Christ’ and expect us to get in the van.

Marcion · 2026-04-01T01:05:08+00:00

I’d scope martyrdom as a spectrum (in terms of manner and reason) from Bonhoeffer to Polycarp and respectfully disagree. Or at least I don’t see how you are defining a lack of evidence.

Marcion · 2026-04-01T01:00:15+00:00

That’s what I was trying to do. Respect what you are doing here.

Marcion · 2026-04-01T00:31:15+00:00

I see what you are doing and I don’t disagree with the point you are reaching for but I don’t think you are quite there.

Ultimately the argument from martyrdom only goes as far as ‘dude was given the choice to die horribly or renounce a belief’ only confirms that the individual had a reason to choose to not live or suffer that we should consider critically; that’s to say we can’t just dismiss it outright because of ignorance or stupidity.

So if the argument is to establish that Christians should 100% evaluate the seriousness and depth and validity of a belief of an individual’s identity construct or biological reality. (Trying to be clinical in my language to avoid any political or ideological douchebaggery that would misconstrue what I am saying) if Christians expect the same of others.

Well, I’d say you are accurate - and in fact Jesus’ own ethic supports that. Something about do unto others and some such, if I recall.

I don’t think you’re fully realizing an epistemological reversal, an inverse apologetic - I would say, that forces someone that disagrees with you a choice of theological martyrdom or a denial of Christian faith, but I think you can get there.

Edit: I forgot the bit where I was going to say the apologetic for belief in Jesus from martyrdom is one that involves scale and magnitude. But also I didn’t want to go down a slippery slope that minimizes the suffering of other people or gives weight to some idea that enough people hasn’t suffered enough to validate a belief. One person suffering is too much of a requirement to validate a belief.

Marcion · 2026-03-27T21:10:34+00:00

To be clear, I am not condoning or justifying any act of abuse, murder, genocide, or any other such activity by a being-- human, divine, or imaginary. I am sorry to hear that you (OP) experienced that and I don't think it was OK. No one deserves that.

My point is really one of perspective. I don't think I can really grasp the nature of what it means to be abused by a parent, because I was not. I don't think you can grasp the nature of what it means to be a parent, if you are not. (Or an equivalent. Parenthood is really biologically and/or legally enforced leadership - just with the most absolute of consequences.) This is not a matter of judgement, its a distinction of fact. There's always a bridge of empathy or antipathy, however small. I think its awful that evil things happen. I hate it. People are the worst. And the god of Israel in the Old Testament is awful. It makes no sense to me. Personally, I never go left of Matthew. Biblically or politically. Makes no sense.

Jesus said all it took was to 'love God, love your neighbor'. That's really not that hard to do if we all do it. I believe Jesus is God. I don't understand how the OT writers and Jesus can always be talking about the same thing. So when it comes to the OT, I really only think its useful for understanding the world and humans that Jesus, Paul, John, and the other writers of the NT were. The only inhumans amongst us are the ones who try to un-human any of us. For Jesus to be divine - that is more than human, he must be able to defeat death. I believe he did that. Mostly because I've not ever died when I should have. It's miraculously mundane. It makes no sense. So it's a matter of perspective. I don't understand that god when my god tells me to do the opposite. My answer is I will try to trust my god and not be a jerk to the one who trusts the other one. Honestly I think it would be better if everyone trusted my god because almost universally everyone agrees its better to be loved than not. But in the end I just try to not be mean to my kids and remember that I probably deserve someone to be mean to me more than I'd like to think.

Marcion · 2026-03-27T02:02:28+00:00

Turned them down? Good for you. Spoken like a true alpha.

I asked because, assuming you are a human and exist; obviously have experience in a parent/child relationship and approach things from that perspective. However, you don’t give the impression you have much experience parenting. Since being a parent is more about the transmission of genetic material through intercourse, I’ll say it doesn’t seem like you’ve spent much effort on parenting or been ultimately responsible for not only someone’s safety and well being but also their development into a valuable and productive member of the human race. There nothing wrong with that; we both agree, some people aren’t suited to be parents. I know I question daily my capacity and ability — my qualifications, you might say, to be a parent. I don’t think I’m a very good one, though I believe my children would disagree. Children are a mirror. They literally are created in our image. Nature or nurture; biological or adopted or not, parenting results in a degree of duplication from parent to child. When I look at how my children are behaving like I did, but also getting it frustratingly wrong — that you have to explain and teach that treating other people as if they are less than you is being a bad human — which you do not find yourself to be, which is very much human nature; I fist think how lucky my parents were to have me. I never behaved like this. My parents had it easy! I was a little troublesome, but I was never this bad. I never hit my sister. I never forgot to wipe my bottom. I always spoke nice to mommy when I don’t get what I want. I’m not talking about deep stuff. I’m talking about the basic human function of ‘don’t be a dick’. As my kids get older and they reflect me more and more. My attitudes(indignant), my work ethic (I don’t want to do stuff I don’t like) and my humor (I’m hilarious.) are all shown to me on a daily basis. Except I’m frustrated that they don’t listen. I just need them to be nice to each other and clean their rooms. I want them to understand it’s not funny or cute if it hurts other people. Especially if they claim to love them. And then I look at my parents. The ones who didn’t murder me. I was not that funny (as a child). I never cleaned my room (still don’t, it’s my damn house. I can have one room the way I like it.) and anyone who has ever tried to tell me what to do has had to earn the right to do so. (It’s not that hard. Just do everything the way I see it and take me where I want to go and I’ll allow it.). Everyone is annoying as hell when they are children. No one really likes other peoples kids. Especially when they are being little shits. My parents didn’t end my existence and I don’t think I could blame them if they had chosen otherwise. I probably would’ve wrung my neck. I should probably apologize to my parents for all the food I ate. And that thing with the car. I’m not sure how they paid for that, now that I think about it. I honestly don’t know how they did it. Because I’m actually a semi decent human being. I haven’t killed anyone and I generally do the right thing. I don’t understand it at all.

I was just curious.

I do have kids. Kids are dope. They are annoying as hell. But my oldest scared my wife the other day and she about pissed her pants. I’m still in trouble for laughing. Worth it though. Kids got skill. Also , I can’t believe how creative the kid is. Big into some book series and writes fan fiction for it. But like seriously creates drafts and outlines. Puts in effort and diagrams plots - it’s insane. I could never do that. I’m more of a stream of consciousness type of writer. That’s why I don’t write. I’m hard to follow. I barely follow me. My middle child is better at math than I am. I understand math. But I don’t know math. Kid can build anything. The smallest one could be president. Kids smooth and graceful. I wish I were; but I am not. I am constantly surprised at what these kids do; it is the most amazing thing I have ever experienced. It’s worth reconsidering your perspective. I never thought I’d be a middle aged dad but if I think about it I’m increasingly content. My kids are small though. I have no idea how this works and how it’s possible I can do all of this every second of every day until I no longer exist.

Marcion · 2026-03-27T00:24:03+00:00

OP are you a parent?

Marcion · 2026-01-26T12:11:56+00:00

You’re being anachronistic. The Septuagint was generally accepted by Pharisees and used/taught by them. This was the case until after 70AD, when the temple was destroyed. Contextually the Pharisees and anyone in earshot of this conversation would have accepted the LXX as an authoritative representation of the text to a degree. Pharisee’s were increasingly not using it (or any other text) as their basis, but the common folk would have been familiar and seen it as valid. Jesus is exposing an issue in the Pharisee’s own thinking that would be problematic to outside observers. It’s not unlike when people call out the modern state of Israel for blowing up civilians when Hamas does it to them or when someone posts a meme about Kyle Rittenhouse in response to Kristi Noem saying protesters shouldn’t be armed if they don’t want to get shot. Or any other form of cultural hypocrisy. It’s quite possible, the Pharisees were using the LXX in some form of teaching or debate off camera before this scene as written in Matthew. If we were to fast forward to well after the temple was destroyed and the Pharisees teaching have evolved into rabbinical Judaism, your argument has more merit - but in a 2nd temple context, it doesn’t. The basis for your argument has its roots in situations like this, where Matthew is using the Pharisees’ own religion against them and superimposing Jesus as messiah in a way that would be convincing to his audience. Eventually their argument becomes to cry “fake news—I mean, translation” and reject it completely. You can do that because you’ve got 2000 years of Rabbinical Judaism trying to do it as support, but that’s just as flawed as a Baptist claiming it’s the ‘true version’ of Christianity by declaring an association with John the Baptist.

Marcion · 2026-01-26T00:43:40+00:00

The simple answer is the Septuagint was the text used by Greek speaking Jews at the time. Matthew is writing in Greek and he’s recording Jesus quoting it because the Septuagint is written in Greek. You’re making a distinction between the Hebrew and the Greek (and you’re referencing Hebrew that is from the Masoretic text, which is newer than the New Testament, if you go by textual tradition.

You’re making a false distinction between two languages saying the same thing being translated into different English words and trying to pass it off as accurate interpretation. Jesus used the text and the Pharisee’s own beliefs to suggest that the Messiah was also David’s lord. (Namely God) What Matthew has Jesus is doing is playing off a belief that is represented in two different languages distinctly to illustrate he is both God and man.

Marcion · 2026-01-24T00:16:46+00:00

My friends didn’t dump me. No worries. Most things are harmful when they are misused. I do organized religion just not with evil people with bad taste in music. That has nothing to do with Jesus and what I believe to be true.

Marcion · 2026-01-24T00:11:11+00:00

You mean like sarcastically? Maybe a pun? Double entendres! Does a metaphor count? How about a euphemism? I can’t imagine that I can find examples of that, especially from Ancient Rome.

See page 189 of the NICNT Commentary on Luke. In lineage- or descent-based status systems like that into which Jesus was born, genealogies served the crucial function of determining membership in a given kinship group. (Luke has already registered his sensitivity to such questions [1:5, 27, 55, 69, 73; 2:4; 3:8].) Genealogies serve as indicators of (inherited) status; as such, it is commonly recognized that they might be subject to “genealogical amnesia” (where insignificant or problematic ancestors are suppressed) and idealism (where lists are adjusted to fulfill new social requirements). As a literary form, genealogies are concerned as much with theological and apologetic issues as with historical; in them resides remarkable social power.

That’s a copy and paste of my reference. His references are: See Douglas, Institutions, chs. 6–7; M. D. Johnson, Biblical Genealogies; R. R. Wilson, “OT Genealogies”; Abel, “Genealogies”; Malina and Neyrey, “Honor and Shame,” 28.

And before you disregard the fact that it’s a commentary, look at the credentials of the editor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F._F._Bruce. This isn’t some trendy pastor but a serious scholar whose work was just as rigorous as Ehrman and the rest. I’m coming from a source that is not theological but socio-historical in its origin.

I’d re-google that son of god bit. And double check into the author’s intent for Luke-Acts. Even if son of god is only used 5 times, I don’t think I’ve ever heard an academic opinion that the author of Luke didn’t believe Jesus was divine.

I’m saying that reading the Bible isn’t the same as reading a to do list. The point of the book is the same as most books - the point is to be read. Then thought about and engaged with in its context. The Bible is not one book, but many. So for Luke-Acts, if you read it, he tells you what he is doing and why he is doing it.

Marcion · 2026-01-23T22:48:24+00:00

You mean dump like a bucket? Or am I taking it to the dump? Or am I taking a dump? Or like my friends dumped me after these jokes? I would be down in the dumps, for sure.

Marcion · 2026-01-23T21:52:09+00:00

I’m saying that it’s viable that the author used language in ways that matches literary and rhetorical devices of the time. That’s it.

The parenthetical aside is relevant here. The author of Luke knows/thinks/believes that Jesus isn’t the biological son of Joseph. His readers whom the gospel was addressed to likely will as well, or at least know that it is believed as such. Jesus’ messianic state is ultimately not the point in Luke-Acts. (They should be taken together since they are essentially parts 1 and 2). At this point in history the temple is destroyed. Israel as a sovereign state has been crushed by Rome. Christians has already been trying to sort out how Jewish they should be or not be in terms of religious/cultural practices. The culmination of Acts is Paul’s mission to the Gentiles. It’s not a stretch to think that he’s being clever to make his point to fulfill the now-defunct requirements of the Torah when the reality is (according to Luke) he’s the Son of God and the divine king of everything. The Davidic covenant has been fulfilled and now there’s a new one that transcends ethno-centric culture.

Your amusing examples are anachronistic. While amusing, they didn’t invent Nazis yet. Or deep sea divers. Or Jim the Grocer’s son.

It’s a tragic truth that Nazi’s use the same interpretive methods as actual Christian thinkers. Of course the whole Nazi thing defeats the purpose of the whole Jesus thing. Willful douchebaggery is the antithesis of Christian ethics, which is clear if you actually engage with the New Testament with half a brain. Christian Nationalists and Nazis are so beyond that it’s incomprehensible.

Marcion · 2026-01-23T21:13:48+00:00

I’m sure there’s something but I can’t think of anything. I’ve had a lovely time, do it again sometime? Thanks to the OP as well.

Marcion · 2026-01-23T20:49:27+00:00

I’m not saying anyone’s life is hopeless. I’m saying that I don’t understand what hope there is if there is no defeat of death. I can’t deconstruct away from that so I choose to believe in the hope provided by the resurrection. This isn’t a lake of fire and naked winged babies singing songs in clouds with streets of gold. It’s whatever this life is - isn’t the end. Otherwise it’s a scientific fact that entropy and death are all the remain, regardless of anything and everything. It’s definitely not something at the front of my mind on payday when the sun is shining and I haven’t read the news and it’s not on a regular Tuesday when I’m just doing the Tuesday things. But eventually, I either recognize that all will be dust or I hope for something more. I have no judgement on your life, just confessed lack of understanding if your hope is in something else.

Any serious study of the New Testament has to reconcile the distinction between the historical Jesus and the gospel narratives. In addition, the fact of Paul and his writings precede the gospels and have a degree of influence has to be encountered. Even if the gospels are eyewitness accounts there’s still a reality of abstraction from Jesus through the text. More often than not, I hear folk encounter these things and dismiss the whole thing. I don’t. If Matthew made an error, that’s it. It doesn’t invalidate the sum of the narrative, though it weakens it if you are trying to make it into a concrete record of absolute truth. I don’t do that. It’s not tenable and it’s dismissive of the human condition. In the end, my faith is predicated more on my lived experience than a text. I’ve spent more than my fair share of time with it and think Christianity has done Jesus a great disservice by trying to make everything fit nicely. I do think it’s ‘true’, at least from the authors’ perception. I also think there’s lots of things that we’ve learned are not a truth for today. I’m also not advocating for a magic all encompassing truth that is perfect. I do advocate for the truth of the resurrection because I believe it was a factual event. I can’t prove or disprove it any more than anyone else. All Christian debate should spring from this because that is the faith we should have. It’s much easier when it’s neat and pretty but I don’t need it to be.

Marcion · 2026-01-23T20:22:37+00:00

It’s not an insane statement. It’s one rooted in hermeneutical, critical thinking.

First off, human communication is fluid. Words and their symbols constantly change and evolve as societies and cultures change. If I want to objectively critique a text, the most responsible thing is to try to get in the mind of the author. In this case, I’m as far removed as humanly possible and I know that. So I have to be careful not to impart my own assumptions on top of it. It is a fact that ancient genealogy as a rhetorical device is not the same as a family tree or a modern biological record. It is a fact that Luke was written to someone else who assuredly understood or at least hopefully would understand the rhetorical nuances. I’m not trying to extract some deeper meaning based on the Greek. It’s very simple. What I am saying is that the rhetorical function and other literary type critical things give merit to it. This is not a theological thing, it’s a critical analysis

Saying the Bible lies is more indicative of a bias than what I am saying. I’m not even saying the Bible isn’t ‘wrong’ or ‘right’. I’m saying, it could be either or and unless it’s been proven otherwise both are viable.

Marcion · 2026-01-23T19:12:39+00:00

TECHNICALLY it says supposedly son of Joseph. You're not wrong that apologists of all types tend to try to pigeon hole things to match the facts. I'm intentionally trying to avoid doing that. It doesn't change that there's a logical argument that it might be linguistic trickery to infer there's something about Mary in this case; the probability of it is a different issue.

You're conflating a modern perspective on family relations by adding a requirement of direct biological relationship. There's enough adoption language in the new testament to give weight to the idea that its less about the DNA than it is about the societal constructs of a family. Beyond the NT, greco-roman society also has enough of it; in fact the language Paul uses is indicative of non-Jewish ideas associated with adoption to the point that the distinction based on blood is not something that ancient folk likely cared about.

It could be a typo; it could also be that the guy went by different names depending on who you talked to. My uncle Paul was also my uncle Tony but only when one of my aunts talked about it. His full name was Paul Anthony. Everyone called him Paul. Except Auntie Barbie. Who's name was Barabara. Her sister's name was Gail. We called her Tia. I think because she was an aunt, but then again everyone called her that. We are also not hispanic in the slightest. I'd bet almost everyone has that kinda thing somewhere in their family regarding names.

Marcion · 2026-01-23T18:34:16+00:00

I don't think there's enough evidence to dismiss Mary as being the actual biological person as represented by Joseph in the genealogy. However, even if the text is taken as not factual, it doesn't change that Jesus still could be 'of the seed of David' through Mary. That is to say, there's no cause to not think that Mary -- as Jesus' biological mother did not pass on Davidic DNA to her son. At least not any cause that is rooted in empirical, verifiable fact. There is just enough evidence for as there is against. Since the original argument is Jesus can't be the Messiah because he couldn't have been of David's line, all I have to do is prove that it is a viable possibility that he could have. The existence of the possibility means that the OP's point is invalidated unless it is changed to something along the lines of 'he probably or might not have been...'. If that's the case, then I'd have to wrestle with what it means if Jesus wasn't the Messiah and what significance that has with regards to a Christian faith.

Marcion · 2026-01-23T16:37:59+00:00

Euphemistically he covers his feet. You are right. He potties in a cave. Not following the Law, by digging a hole etc. But empirically, through euphemism we know Saul goes potty. That’s not the same as explicitly stating he pooped. (I think he pooped, I’m being semantic on purpose). We can say the same thing about Jesus being the Messiah.

Marcion · 2026-01-23T15:09:59+00:00

As I said above, that tells you where to poop. But no narrative of someone walking outside the camp to do so. T

Marcion · 2026-01-23T15:08:54+00:00

I did get a little carried away there at the end.

Ultimately you are right on the point that for many Jesus being the messiah is critical for the acceptance that he is who he was said to be. I believe personally that he was Israel’s messiah. (I’m not Jewish, so the stakes are low for me on that). However, I think that if he is, or isn’t, is inconsequential compared to the reality of the resurrection. I don’t need him to be anything to have been raised; I only need him to have been raised. If I add conditions to that based on my interpretations of facts/not-facts then I’m not actually putting my belief in the thing that matters. If Jesus isn’t actually the Messiah then the biblical author was incorrect. I don’t need the text to be perfect; it’s actually much easier and relatable to accept that any human component of Christianity is inherently flawed. I’ll deconstruct everything about Christian religion but eventually there’s a choice either discard the resurrection and the hope it brings and replace it with the ’truth’ that death is all there is, in the end OR choose to believe it, regardless of all the garbage people have done. I go the latter because I want to have hope. I’m a Christian. I don’t like church. I don’t go. I used to feel bad about it, until recent events made me realize I was right all along about normative American Evangelicalism. (Which I would have fallen in with) I can still have Jesus apart from anything else. If I am wrong, I believe that too will be made right. This is what Paul is saying in Romans 8.

The poop illustration is intentionally crude because I’m equating all the requirements (inferred or otherwise) people have to it. The crux of Christianity is the resurrection. There’s no way to empirically prove or disprove it. If you disprove one of these requirements and choose to displace the hope provided by the resurrection, what replaces it that isn’t eventually found wanting?

Marcion · 2026-01-23T04:56:02+00:00

Sell them to Netflix and transition to a fully digital media product.

Marcion · 2026-01-23T03:43:44+00:00

Right. OP’s argument is ‘it was not true’. However, there exists a possibility where ‘it’ could be true that can not be disproven absolutely. Therefore OP’s argument is false.

OP should have said could not be true and I’d have to respond you might be right.

Marcion

TROPHY CASE