Here, in 1940, is Mr. Kunze of the fascist German-American Bund explaining to Congress that though his group used the swastika as its emblem, it had nothing at all to do with Nazism.

They used the swastika, he explained, as the symbol of White Christian nationalism. What the point of sharing this? Not to claim that today's CNs are secret fascists. Rather:

1. Christian nationalism is real and isn't new. Scholars didn't invent the phrase last year and it didn't originate as a smear by leftists.

This is an excellent thought experiment and an important question. Bart, I hope if you don't mind if I take up Sam's and Josh's invitation to weigh in on your question.

https://twitter.com/bartbarber/status/1577646659621867524

As I try to emphasize in my book, nationalism is an argument about how one defines the nation. Nationalism says "we are an X nation," (in the US case, a Christian nation), AND the govt should keep it that way.

A thread about theology and political science. 🧵 I have a question for theologians who make grand pronouncements about civilizational order.

Is that pronouncement a theological statement or a political one?

When I talk about our political crisis, I am often asked "how do we get out of this mess? what's the solution?"

There is no silver bullet to fix everything, but I increasingly convinced that only radical devolution or decentralization can avert catastrophe. Essentially, we either split up peacefully and legally, keeping a broad umbrella of unity for foreign affairs and national defense, or we risk splitting up violently and losing even that.

Post-liberalism is historically ignorant.

Most versions of the argument go like this: things used to be great, now they're awful, it's liberalism's fault, let's dare to think illiberal thoughts.

Narrator: things did not used to be great. 🧵 Take the piece about Tim Keller. Author argues that the culture was neutral, now it's hostile, so nice-guy Keller is a guy of the past.

That is only true of the culture's stance towards one particular strand of affluent, bland, mostly White Christianity.

I’m seeing a lot of “if we don’t stop Putin now, he’ll invade Estonia/Poland/all Europe just like Hitler.”

The German military in WWII had something like 18 million troops.

Russia today has 1.3 million, the best parts of which are stalled out in Ukraine.

Relax people. A lot of responses to this tweet seem to think I am downplaying the threat from Russia or not taking the war seriously.

It is a bit weird for me to be accused of being too dovish.

I've spent 10 years warning about the threat from Russia.

This opinion piece cites my work on Christian nationalism but misunderstands it.

cnn.com/2022/02/15/opi… Private associations, like adoption agencies, are allowed to define themselves religiously. That's what the First Amendment freedoms of association and religion mean.

Assume for a moment that Putin is right and that NATO expansion is somehow a threat to his security (it isn't). That....still wouldn't justify an invasion of Ukraine.

I wish pundits who take Russia's side on NATO expansion would remember this. Russia's decision to invade Ukraine, which seems imminent, is unjust, unlawful, and illegitimate--no matter what you think about NATO expansion. That's the first and most important moral fact of the crisis around Ukraine that we should repeat over and over.

If you find yourself always on the left, or always on the right--never pulled to the other side--I can almost guarantee you misunderstand what politics are supposed to be about. Let me explain. The left-right political spectrum comes from the French Revolution in which advocates of change sat on the left, advocates of stability sat on the right.

Defined that way, both are inclinations, not ideologies. Do you want change, or stability?

This is pretty similar to the definition of Christian Nationalism I use in my book (especially point 3) explaining why it is unwise.

https://twitter.com/william_e_wolfe/status/1466605860340133891

My questions would be: how do you implement this vision while respecting the rights of those who do not agree with it?

I want to respond to some things in Carl Trueman’s essay about “The Failure of Evangelical Elites.”

Context: I’m an admirer of Trueman’s book, “The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self,” and have benefited from many of his essays.

https://twitter.com/firstthingsmag/status/1448326413619105797

Trueman interprets Mark Noll and George Marsden as the inheritors of Schleiermacher’s mantle, reinterpreting Christianity to make it appealing to its cultured despisers.
This is nonsense.

As chaotic and awful as the scene has been in Kabul this past week, there's reason to believe the worst is yet to come. Why?

The Taliban did not just win a war.

They also won a hostage: Kabul International Airport, and everyone who is trying to get there. (thread) Something like 100,000 people, American citizens and Afghan refugees, are trapped in Afghanistan now under Taliban rule and have only one possible evacuation point: Kabul airport.

The US controls the airport, but the Taliban have checkpoints all around it.

As Afghanistan collapses, I see a few myths taking root. I'd like to respond to some of them. "Our presence was unsustainable."

The US presence was tiny, affordable, and low-risk. Few US soldiers were in harm's way. There was no significant antiwar movement at home. The $$ is way lower than the 2010 peak.

The idea that "I can do whatever I want to without regard for the consequences to others" is how a 5-year-old thinks about freedom. It isn't a serious approach to public policy.

https://twitter.com/PaulDMiller2/status/1423759016661078018

Ironically, the right used to criticize the left for parroting this kind of freedom. They would accuse the left of advocating total individual autonomy with no thought for broader social responsibilities. Now the shoe is on the other foot.

Ok, I have another take on the conflict between Israel and Hamas. Considering I recently wrote a book on just war, I should say something about the moral aspect of the conflict.

amazon.com/Just-Ordered-L… Hamas is a terrorist organization that deliberately murders civilians and says it wants to destroy Israel.

Verdict: unjust, **no matter what you think of the Palestinians' cause**.

This isn't hard, people.

There's a lot of conversation among evangelicals about manhood and womanhood. What strikes me is how little of the conversation is rooted in anything the Bible says--because the Bible does not say much about what it means to be a man *in distinction to being a woman* & vice versa There's a culture of machismo in some corners of evangelicalism that dresses up "traditional" (1950s) masculinity as "Biblical": Men must be physically strong, assertive leaders, breadwinners, protectors, etc. Go read @kkdumez book.

Jesus movies generally don't work. Growing up I watched Franco Zeffirelli's "Jesus of Nazareth," (1977) and the old-Hollywood big-budget "King of Kings" (1961). Never thought very highly of them. They make Jesus look stoned or boring. There's a real challenge presenting Jesus in a dramatic narrative. It's hard to give him a character arc. Arcs depend on overcoming weakness, flaw, or failure. See also: Paradise Lost. God shows up and turns the tide of battle without effort. It's not dramatically satisfying.

"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?

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....

https://twitter.com/dandarling/status/1347923778811080705

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....

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.

https://twitter.com/albertmohler/status/1346925742639226891

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

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.