Helpful analysis ... as of late, I've been saying that Franco's Spain is a model for the GOP ... an historian friend of mine noted that Buckley was a fan of Franco. I suggest that Viktor Orban and Tucker Carlson were the 21st Century version. Keep up the good work ... the stakes are higher than ever.
Jun 27, 2022·edited Jun 27, 2022Liked by Kristin Du Mez
This reads like the Cliff Notes of J&JW with additional wisdom & insights. Thank you.
I, too, wonder why lies & deceit are now acceptable within Christianity? For the past couple of decades, I've been hoping that progressives & middlers would focus on the fullness of the biblical text -- (tears grow over my eyes even as I write this). Thank you, Kristin, for being a light in our lives. May we, together, bring restoration to this world.
Thanks, Kristin, for stating this so well. As I read your words here, my mind flipped to recollections of Not in God's Name (Confronting Religious Violence) by Rabbi Jonathan Sacks. Reminding us of Abraham's mission, "to be a blessing to others," the inside cover points out, "it is not our task to conquer or convert the world or enforce uniformity of belief," (eye-opening explanation as to why God disrupted the Babel Tower project) " ... [but] to be a blessing ... The use of religion for political ends is not righteousness, but idolatry." Sacks opened my eyes to the ironic qualification for a scapegoat: "they must be capable of being portrayed as the cause of the present troubles, yet weak enough to become a victim." It seems this is what's going on, and has been going on, in the U.S. for a while now, scapegoating the marginalized as the cause of the troubles of the Moral Majority, stoking fear into a frenzy.
Another note ... putting yourself in the line of fire ... giving them fodder ... this is how to jumble up their playbook plans ... in their minds, everything is crystal clear; so we do them a favor by muddying the waters, forcing them to think, or at least "cancel" someone ... by refusing to obey in advance, by playing the game with our rules, shall I say, and not theirs. Something progressives have got to learn. Keep us all posted ... your writings are vital to the welfare of the nation.
Many friends in my church are reading Jesus and John Wayne. At my suggestion or I loan them a copy. With some it has had a ripple effect by their suggestion. Some have tried to engaging me in their negative take after reading a few pages. I won’t engage with them . I believe and support you dear sister in Christ. Never give up and I won’t either. Wilma Rabidoux I’m a member at CRC in Hudsonville. Michigan
Great post. I thought you might be interested in Alasdair MacIntyre's take on Dreher's "Benedict Option" mindset, given that he lifted the title from MacIntyre's "After Virtue." While MacIntyre never misses an opportunity to overplay his hand, I thought his burn of Dreher and company spot-on, and witty to boot. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eA2LrtGgTM4
MacIntyre has had interesting things to say about what "tradition" is, and how "traditionalists" fundamentally misunderstand it. Traditions are partly but centrally constituted by an ongoing, extended argument about what the tradition is all about, how it is best to go about realizing the goods it seeks, and whether those goods are true and worth pursuing. Traditions are bearers of reasons, rather than an alternative to reason, which means debate and inquiry are central to them. "Traditionalists", like Dreher want to block the path of inquiry before one even sets out upon it: they are, in MacIntyre's terms, "Burkeans" about tradition insofar as they share Burke's view that tradition is a counterweight to change rather than an agent of it. "Traditions, when vital, embody continuities of conflict. Indeed when a tradition becomes Burkean, it is always dying or dead." ("After Virtue",p. 222).
The other thing about crypto-Burkeans like Dreher (and, even more drastically. the "Neo-Integralists" that are making noise in Right-wing Catholic circles), is that they are VERY committed to the total conformity of the social and political orders to ahistorical religious principles and indefeasible authority, whether that of a flat-footed literalism about scripture (American Christian Nationalists) or the pope (Integralists). But the idea of INDEFEASIBLE or infallible authority is a contradiction in terms: without "continuities of conflict", traditions are Burkean, hence dying. Which, maybe, for "traditionalists" is the point. Antonin Scalia used to laud the idea of a "dead" constitution immune to reform or interpretation. When Christians think that the traditions of Christianity are like Scalia's US Constitution, well, that's cause for worry.
When religious "traditionalism" and socio-political "traditionalism" come together, you get a kind of uber-Constantinianism that's generally threatening to both the socio-political order AND the freedom of Christian Church. Karl Barth saw this very clearly, as did Dietrich Bonhoeffer and the Confessing Church in 1930s Germany. American Christian Nationalism seems poised to do to American Christianity exactly what the German Christian movement did to Germany: corrupt both the ecclesial and the political realms. It's frightening, to put it mildly. Thank you for your good work in exposing this kind of Nationalistic, Constantinian despotism for what it is. Keep it up! ---LMN
This is an old post but why not comment? I come at this whole discussion as a lesbian in a 10-year marriage with two children under five (including a two-week old son currently sleeping in a baby swing). My denomination is going through similar stuff as yours.
Part of me hates that *I* have to accept nuance on the “LGBT issue” because I just want people to get it together and deal with the fact that there’s nothing wrong with my wife and me or our family. So a big part of me would love to have the cultural power to write off or marginalize anyone who disagreed with that. On the other hand…I get that I don’t get to do that, and that it’s important to accept people with “traditional” views that they hold humanely. It’s a bummer for gay people that this has to be a nuanced issue, but I have to live with that.
What I cannot live with is how many conservative evangelicals seem to deny that my marriage/family relationships are real and have value, even if they don’t see the situation as ideal or religiously permissible. Like, if a person doesn’t think their denomination should perform same-sex marriages because of tradition, doctrines, etc., fine. Whatever. But if a person can’t bring themselves to acknowledge the objective reality that I’m in a 13-year loving relationship, and that I birthed two children that we love and care for, and that it’s inane and insulting to dismiss our entire life together as just “not putting our identity in Christ” or “not believing there are any moral limits for sexuality” or, my goodness, “decadence” or whatever…if a person can’t deal with the fact that I’m not evil and didn’t make my decisions thoughtlessly, then I have given myself permission to dismiss them. People who think like that are dumb and not trying hard enough.
I’m really glad your school decided to grant faculty the freedom to dissent. That’s really great. I appreciate your writing on this issue, it’s all very well-said.
Kristin, I have high regard for your work and writings. You "get" the tension at Calvin. Thank you for writing about it.
Helpful analysis ... as of late, I've been saying that Franco's Spain is a model for the GOP ... an historian friend of mine noted that Buckley was a fan of Franco. I suggest that Viktor Orban and Tucker Carlson were the 21st Century version. Keep up the good work ... the stakes are higher than ever.
This reads like the Cliff Notes of J&JW with additional wisdom & insights. Thank you.
I, too, wonder why lies & deceit are now acceptable within Christianity? For the past couple of decades, I've been hoping that progressives & middlers would focus on the fullness of the biblical text -- (tears grow over my eyes even as I write this). Thank you, Kristin, for being a light in our lives. May we, together, bring restoration to this world.
Thanks, Kristin, for stating this so well. As I read your words here, my mind flipped to recollections of Not in God's Name (Confronting Religious Violence) by Rabbi Jonathan Sacks. Reminding us of Abraham's mission, "to be a blessing to others," the inside cover points out, "it is not our task to conquer or convert the world or enforce uniformity of belief," (eye-opening explanation as to why God disrupted the Babel Tower project) " ... [but] to be a blessing ... The use of religion for political ends is not righteousness, but idolatry." Sacks opened my eyes to the ironic qualification for a scapegoat: "they must be capable of being portrayed as the cause of the present troubles, yet weak enough to become a victim." It seems this is what's going on, and has been going on, in the U.S. for a while now, scapegoating the marginalized as the cause of the troubles of the Moral Majority, stoking fear into a frenzy.
Another note ... putting yourself in the line of fire ... giving them fodder ... this is how to jumble up their playbook plans ... in their minds, everything is crystal clear; so we do them a favor by muddying the waters, forcing them to think, or at least "cancel" someone ... by refusing to obey in advance, by playing the game with our rules, shall I say, and not theirs. Something progressives have got to learn. Keep us all posted ... your writings are vital to the welfare of the nation.
Is it possible that Dreher does not understand Jesus in his book The Benedict Option???
- maybe because he writes about "A Strategy for Christians in a Post-Christian Nation",
instead of "A Strategy for Christians in a Post-CHRISTENDOM Nation" ???
Thank you! Being Christian Reformed has become difficult. Your perspectives help.
Many friends in my church are reading Jesus and John Wayne. At my suggestion or I loan them a copy. With some it has had a ripple effect by their suggestion. Some have tried to engaging me in their negative take after reading a few pages. I won’t engage with them . I believe and support you dear sister in Christ. Never give up and I won’t either. Wilma Rabidoux I’m a member at CRC in Hudsonville. Michigan
Clear, concise, and true, as always. Thanks so much for your analysis, and for standing on the front lines.
Beautifully worded and deeply thoughtful. Thank you!
Very well done. You’re really helping a lot of us with a high view of scripture embody it better.
Great post. I thought you might be interested in Alasdair MacIntyre's take on Dreher's "Benedict Option" mindset, given that he lifted the title from MacIntyre's "After Virtue." While MacIntyre never misses an opportunity to overplay his hand, I thought his burn of Dreher and company spot-on, and witty to boot. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eA2LrtGgTM4
MacIntyre has had interesting things to say about what "tradition" is, and how "traditionalists" fundamentally misunderstand it. Traditions are partly but centrally constituted by an ongoing, extended argument about what the tradition is all about, how it is best to go about realizing the goods it seeks, and whether those goods are true and worth pursuing. Traditions are bearers of reasons, rather than an alternative to reason, which means debate and inquiry are central to them. "Traditionalists", like Dreher want to block the path of inquiry before one even sets out upon it: they are, in MacIntyre's terms, "Burkeans" about tradition insofar as they share Burke's view that tradition is a counterweight to change rather than an agent of it. "Traditions, when vital, embody continuities of conflict. Indeed when a tradition becomes Burkean, it is always dying or dead." ("After Virtue",p. 222).
The other thing about crypto-Burkeans like Dreher (and, even more drastically. the "Neo-Integralists" that are making noise in Right-wing Catholic circles), is that they are VERY committed to the total conformity of the social and political orders to ahistorical religious principles and indefeasible authority, whether that of a flat-footed literalism about scripture (American Christian Nationalists) or the pope (Integralists). But the idea of INDEFEASIBLE or infallible authority is a contradiction in terms: without "continuities of conflict", traditions are Burkean, hence dying. Which, maybe, for "traditionalists" is the point. Antonin Scalia used to laud the idea of a "dead" constitution immune to reform or interpretation. When Christians think that the traditions of Christianity are like Scalia's US Constitution, well, that's cause for worry.
When religious "traditionalism" and socio-political "traditionalism" come together, you get a kind of uber-Constantinianism that's generally threatening to both the socio-political order AND the freedom of Christian Church. Karl Barth saw this very clearly, as did Dietrich Bonhoeffer and the Confessing Church in 1930s Germany. American Christian Nationalism seems poised to do to American Christianity exactly what the German Christian movement did to Germany: corrupt both the ecclesial and the political realms. It's frightening, to put it mildly. Thank you for your good work in exposing this kind of Nationalistic, Constantinian despotism for what it is. Keep it up! ---LMN
This is an old post but why not comment? I come at this whole discussion as a lesbian in a 10-year marriage with two children under five (including a two-week old son currently sleeping in a baby swing). My denomination is going through similar stuff as yours.
Part of me hates that *I* have to accept nuance on the “LGBT issue” because I just want people to get it together and deal with the fact that there’s nothing wrong with my wife and me or our family. So a big part of me would love to have the cultural power to write off or marginalize anyone who disagreed with that. On the other hand…I get that I don’t get to do that, and that it’s important to accept people with “traditional” views that they hold humanely. It’s a bummer for gay people that this has to be a nuanced issue, but I have to live with that.
What I cannot live with is how many conservative evangelicals seem to deny that my marriage/family relationships are real and have value, even if they don’t see the situation as ideal or religiously permissible. Like, if a person doesn’t think their denomination should perform same-sex marriages because of tradition, doctrines, etc., fine. Whatever. But if a person can’t bring themselves to acknowledge the objective reality that I’m in a 13-year loving relationship, and that I birthed two children that we love and care for, and that it’s inane and insulting to dismiss our entire life together as just “not putting our identity in Christ” or “not believing there are any moral limits for sexuality” or, my goodness, “decadence” or whatever…if a person can’t deal with the fact that I’m not evil and didn’t make my decisions thoughtlessly, then I have given myself permission to dismiss them. People who think like that are dumb and not trying hard enough.
I’m really glad your school decided to grant faculty the freedom to dissent. That’s really great. I appreciate your writing on this issue, it’s all very well-said.