When I studied terrorism in South Asia, I ran across a lot of literature on "de-radicalization." One thing I recall is that de-rad program were most successful when they were locally driven and involved religious leaders. In other words....
Imams who didn't believe in terrorism were the best at teaching young men to not be terrorists. They taught a version of Islam that did not lead to violence. These programs worked better than government-run programs or attempts at "modernization" whatever that is. That means....
Applying that insight to today: Christian pastors have a special responsibility and burden. They have a unique role in "de-radicalizing" the people in their pews. They need to teach the difference between Christianity and Christian nationalism.
This will go against the grain for many pastors who prefer to avoid politics from the pulpit. With respect, you don't have that choice. If you avoid it, you tacitly communicate that the Bible has nothing to say about your congregants' political activities, no matter what they are
That sort of quietism is false--which you know because you never adopt quietism when it comes to abortion or religious liberty. Those are just causes that require Christian engagement. So too is the fight against the idolatry of politics.
If you are a Christian pastor or institutional leader wondering what this looks like or how to do it, please reach out. DM me. I'd love to start that conversation and point you in the direction of some good resources. You have an important role to play right now.
As a starter, I'll repost this report on "Faith and Healthy Democracy" I helped with over a year ago. It doesn't directly address Christian nationalism, but it does help map the political terrain. Pgs 53 and following have a few sparse recommendations:
"You're not allowed to condemn one bad thing unless you condemn all bad things in the order and with the intensity I prefer," is another bad take.
I've seen a lot of "If you didn't condemn the riots last summer, I don't want to hear about the Capitol riot." For the record, I did condemn the riots (and the police brutality) last summer. But so what if I didn't? So what if we choose different battles to fight?
I used to get upset when people didn't care about my pet issue--the war in Afghanistan--as much as I did. It took me years to make peace with the fact that most of you don't care and never will, even though it is literally a matter of life and death. It still hurts a little, tbh.
This rings hollow unless it's accompanied by a recognition of, and repentance for, how we got here. Trump's defenders, like Mohler, defended, justified, and explained Trump till now but draw the line at rioting. Maybe the road that led to the riots needs reexamination.
To put it another way, if you argue, as Mohler did, that Christians should vote for Trump with full knowledge of Trump's character and record, then you own the consequences. Pleading ignorance ("I didn't know he'd incite a riot") rings hollow because we warned this would happen
People who study politics and history for a living *knew what Trump was* from the beginning. He's a demagogue. We are not surprised by this and we warned you about it *years ago*. Trump has never shown much regard for the constitution, and today was only the latest proof.
I see folks are ranking Star Wars again. So let me step in here and help you out.
Here is the definitive ranking of Star Wars.
Now, to do this right, we can’t just rank the Skywalker saga. We have to include the spinoffs. The cartoons. The TV series. Yes, the holidays specials. We’re going to do pretty much all of it, folks.
I will not be ranking animated shorts: Forces of Destiny, Galaxy of Adventures, Blips, Rollout. I’m going to skip the Droids and Ewoks cartoons (1985 - 87) and most Lego Star Wars content. We have to draw a line somewhere.
It is not true that "99 percent of people" recover from COVID. I think you mean 99 percent *survive*, but even that's iffy, since the case fatality rate changes over time in different circumstances.
But counting the mere fact of survival is a poor measure of this disease's impact. Some number of people struggle with long term illness after passing the critical stage. This can be a debilitating, even disabling illness for some people. who.int/docs/default-s….
Aspiring to be a "public intellectual" or "thought leader" is another way of saying "I want to be famous for being smart," which is ironic because it isn't very smart to want to be famous.
I mean, consider. Wanting to be famous for thinking hard is just obviously prideful--and pride cometh before the fall. You walk around with a target on your back, just begging the twitter mob to catch you saying something dumb or hypocritical or incorrect.
And most fame is mostly unearned. How many public intellectuals really have a true lifelong record of insights and contributions to public discourse? How many are just people coasting off one or two decent books or a sweet deal as a columnist somewhere.