Biblical Truth in the Marketplace: MAGA Christianity vs. Process Theology

Biblical Truth in the Marketplace

MAGA Christianity vs. Process Theology

by R.E. Slater & ChatGPT-5

Christian culture leaders continue the age old practice

of manufacturing a God and a faith in their own image...

By their fruits ye shall know them...

Matthew 7.16

Introduction

The phrase “biblical truth in the marketplace” has become popular among MAGA-Christian leaders. At first glance, it sounds noble - a call to live faithfully in public. But when examined closely, it reflects a worldview in which Scripture is reduced to a rigid ideology, wielded as a tool for political and cultural dominance. It suggests that the Bible is a fixed code of divine decrees, directly transferable into legislation and policy, with the goal of imposing “God’s will” on any society - especially a pluralistic society.

By contrast, Process Theology (e.g., Process Christianity) approaches truth as dynamic, relational, and rooted in God’s persuasive love. It does not treat the marketplace as a battlefield to be conquered, but as a shared commons where truth emerges in relationship, responsibility, and creative dialogue.

To understand the difference, we need to look at four key areas: how each views Scripture, the marketplace, authority, and ethics.

Matthew 7:16 is part of Jesus's teaching on false prophets, stating, "Do people pick grapes from thornbushes; figs from thistles?" This illustrates that just as a plant produces fruit in keeping with its nature, so too will false prophets be identified by their actions. The "fruit," or outward manifestations of their faith, will reveal their true character and actions, allowing people to recognize them for what they are.  

Context of the Verse

• Beware of False Prophets: Jesus instructs believers to be wary of false prophets who appear righteous on the outside but are inwardly corrupt, like wolves in sheep's clothing. 

• Identifying False Prophets: The verse follows the analogy of a good tree bearing good fruit and a bad tree bearing bad fruit, meaning a person's true nature is revealed through their actions and behavior. 

Meaning of the Metaphor

• Fruit as Actions/Character: The "fruit" symbolizes the outward manifestations of a person's faith, which includes their behavior and works.

• Nature of the Tree: Just as a healthy tree produces its respective fruit (grapes from grapevines, figs from fig trees), a person's true character will produce corresponding fruits.

• Revealing True Nature: Therefore, by observing the "fruit" of a person's life—their actions and deeds—you can recognize their true nature, whether they are a true prophet or a deceptive one.

---

One Bible Verse BLOWS UP MAGA's

False Version of "Christian Faith"

1. The MAGA Approach: Truth as Weapon

MAGA-Christianity treats the Bible primarily as a literal and static text. It is read selectively, with emphasis on passages that reinforce hierarchical structures, exclusionary norms, and culture-war talking points. The marketplace — whether of ideas, politics, or economics — is seen as a battleground where the faithful must “stand firm” against secularism, liberalism, and pluralism.

This approach assumes that biblical truth is self-evident, unchanging, and universally binding in exactly the same form as ancient Israelite law or early church instruction. Any deviation is condemned as compromise or apostasy. In practice, “truth” becomes a tool to mark insiders and outsiders, to reward loyalty, and to punish dissent.

The consequence is that truth is turned into a weapon: a way of controlling discourse, excluding difference, and justifying domination. Rather than engaging society with humility, MAGA Christianity approaches public life with suspicion and hostility, confident that its interpretation of Scripture alone represents God’s absolute will.

• Literalized Scripture: MAGA-Christianity often treats the Bible as an inerrant rulebook. Truth becomes propositional, absolute, and transferable into slogans.

• Marketplace as Battlefield: Public life is seen as a zero-sum contest where God’s people must impose biblical standards over against “the world.”

• Power over Love: The emphasis falls on enforcing “God’s truth” through legislation, rhetoric, and dominance, with little regard for diversity or dialogue.

This approach mirrors the very forms of religious nationalism Bonhoeffer opposed in Nazi Germany: the fusion of religion and political ideology into a weaponized faith.

---

2. The Process Approach: Truth as Relational Becoming

Process Theology begins with a different assumption: reality itself is processual, always becoming, always relational. Scripture, therefore, is not a frozen rulebook but a dynamic witness to humanity’s evolving encounter with God. Its authority lies not in literal fixity but in its ability to call communities into deeper love, justice, and creativity.

The marketplace in this vision is not a battlefield but a commons. It is a place where diverse voices meet, where truth is not imposed but discovered together through dialogue and interaction. Process thought insists that God’s truth is persuasive, not coercive — it invites but does not compel. This means truth must be tested in community, weighed by its fruits, and continually reinterpreted in light of new contexts.

Where MAGA-Christianity closes the circle around what truth was, process thought opens the circle toward what truth is becoming. It insists that God is still speaking, still drawing creation toward greater beauty, harmony, and justice.

• Dynamic Scripture: In a process lens, the Bible is not a static code but a living witness to humanity’s evolving encounter with God. Its authority lies not in literal fixity but in its power to inspire justice, compassion, and creativity.

• Marketplace as Community: Rather than a battlefield, the marketplace is a shared space of dialogue and mutual influence. Truth is discerned in relationship, tested by its fruits of love and justice.

• Love over Power: In process thought, God’s truth is persuasive, not coercive. It calls humanity into cooperative becoming, not conquest.

Here, truth is not owned but shared. It does not silence the other but invites all voices into the work of co-creation.

---

3. Competing Visions of Authority

The difference in how each side understands authority is stark.

• MAGA Christianity: Authority is rooted in the literal text of the Bible, interpreted through the lens of conservative tradition and enforced by political power. This results in a rigid hierarchy: God speaks → the Bible records → we enforce. In this model, authority is top-down and unquestionable. Dissent is framed as rebellion against God himself.

• Process Theology: Authority is rooted in Christ as the living Word, mediated through Scripture but always discerned in context. Authority is relational and dialogical — God calls, but humans respond freely and responsibly. Scripture is authoritative, but never in isolation from conscience, community, and the Spirit’s ongoing work in history.

This difference leads to two contrasting visions of the marketplace. For MAGA Christianity, authority justifies domination; for Process Theology, authority enables dialogue and growth. One uses power to enforce compliance; the other seeks understanding and cooperation.

• MAGA Christianity: Authority rests in the literal text, interpreted through the lens of cultural conservatism and political power.

• Process Theology: Authority rests in Christ as the living Word, continually interpreted in context, always calling communities toward justice, compassion, and creative transformation.

Where MAGA-Christianity seeks to fix truth in the past, process thought seeks to embody truth in the present, always open to God’s ongoing call.

---

4. Ethics in the Marketplace

Ethics is where the contrast becomes most visible.

• MAGA Ethics: Right and wrong are defined by conformity to fixed codes. Success is measured by victory in cultural battles: passing laws, winning elections, controlling school boards, restricting rights. The guiding question is: Are we winning the fight to preserve biblical values against our enemies? This produces a binary ethic of winners and losers, insiders and outsiders.

• Process Ethics: Right and wrong are discerned through love’s reach and creativity’s expansion. Success is measured by whether actions increase the well-being of all — human and nonhuman, individual and communal. The guiding question is: Does this action contribute to justice, compassion, and the flourishing of life? This produces an ethic of cooperation, responsibility, and mutual care.

Where MAGA Christianity divides the marketplace into opposing camps, Process Theology seeks to weave it into a shared commons. One works to preserve dominance; the other works to foster relational wholeness.

• MAGA’s Ethics: Obedience is measured by conformity to rigid codes. The goal is victory — protecting “our” values against “theirs.”

• Process Ethics: Responsibility is measured by love’s reach and creativity’s expansion. The goal is cooperation — seeking the good of all in an interdependent world.

In short: MAGA ethics divides the marketplace into winners and losers; process ethics opens it into a shared commons of becoming.

---

Conclusion

When MAGA-Christian leaders speak of “biblical truth in the marketplace,” they mean a static truth wielded for political control. It is truth as weapon: exclusionary, rigid, and triumphalist. Process Theology offers a different vision: truth as relational becoming, discerned in community, tested by love, and persuasive rather than coercive.

The contrast could not be sharper. One approach seeks to control the marketplace; the other seeks to transform it into a commons where God’s truth is lived out in justice, compassion, and creativity.

Summary Observation: If truth is to have meaning in public life, it cannot be reduced to slogans of power. It must be lived in the costly, dynamic work of relationship. Biblical truth in the marketplace is not about conquest but about co-creation. It is not about controlling society but about participating with God in its ongoing renewal.

---

Bibliography

MAGA-Christianity / Culture War Sources

(Useful to understand the mindset and rhetoric, even if problematic)

• Eric Metaxas, Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy (Thomas Nelson, 2010).

  • Key text for how Bonhoeffer is repurposed in evangelical/MAGA narratives.

• Eric Metaxas, Letter to the American Church (Salem Books, 2022).

  • Explicitly frames today’s America as a replay of 1930s Germany, urging Christians to resist “cultural capitulation.”

• David Barton, The Myth of Separation (WallBuilder Press, 1992).

  • An influential but deeply flawed book promoting the idea of America as a “Christian nation.”

• Stephen Wolfe, The Case for Christian Nationalism (Canon Press, 2022).

  • A systematic argument for merging Christianity with political control in the U.S.

---

Process Theology & Alternatives to Culture War

• Tripp Ruller, The Rise of Bonhoeffer, multi-series podcast

• John B. Cobb Jr., Christ in a Pluralistic Age (Westminster, 1975).

  • A classic in Process Christology, emphasizing relational truth and interreligious dialogue.

• Marjorie Hewitt Suchocki, God, Christ, Church: A Practical Guide to Process Theology (Crossroad, 1982).

  • A clear introduction to Process Theology’s dynamic view of truth, ethics, and community.

• Catherine Keller, On the Mystery: Discerning Divinity in Process (Fortress, 2008).

  • Explores relational truth, pluralism, and public theology in a process framework.

• Thomas Jay Oord, The Uncontrolling Love of God (IVP Academic, 2015).

  • Though not strictly process-only, it extends relational/process insights into theology of love and freedom.

• Bruce Epperly, Process Theology: Embracing Adventure with God (Energion, 2011).

  • A very accessible introduction that connects process thought with daily ethical and public life.

---

Broader Critiques / Contextual Works

• Kristin Kobes Du Mez, Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation (Liveright, 2020).

  • Essential for understanding evangelicalism’s drift into Christian nationalism.

• Samuel L. Perry & Andrew L. Whitehead, Taking America Back for God: Christian Nationalism in the United States (Oxford, 2020).

  • Academic sociological study of Christian nationalism as an ideology.

• Stephen R. Haynes, The Battle for Bonhoeffer: Debating Discipleship in the Age of Trump (Eerdmans, 2018).

  • Directly addresses how Bonhoeffer has been claimed by both MAGA Christianity and progressive theology.

---

✅ Summary Observation:

• If you want to see how “biblical truth in the marketplace” is weaponized → Metaxas, Wolfe, Barton.

• If you want to see how Process Theology reframes truth relationally and non-coercively → Cobb, Suchocki, Keller, Oord, Epperly.

• If you want context and critique of the culture war itself → Du Mez, Perry/Whitehead, Haynes.

Bonhoeffer's Legacy Defies Maga-Christianity's Mis-Use

Bonhoeffer's Legacy Defies

Maga-Christianity's Mis-Use

by R.E. Slater & ChatGPT-5

Christian culture leaders continue the age old practice

of manufacturing a God and a faith in their own image...

By their fruits ye shall know them...

Matthew 7.16

I'm not a fan of Eric Metaxas who wrote a "shaded" (not shady, tho' perhaps it is) biography on Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Currently he's stumping about maga-Christian circles speaking to "biblical truth in  the marketplace" which is a lot of huey based upon maga-Christusnity's literalized view of their Bible. So I asked Chatbot as to it's thoughts or comments on the subject and this is what Chatbot and I came up with....

---

Me

Chat, what's your thoughts on the subject that Christian culture leaders have manufactured a God and a faith in their image?

ChatGPT

Yes, I share your concerns. Eric Metaxas’s Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy is widely read, but among scholars of Bonhoeffer it’s considered “shaded,” as you put it—presented with a selective lens that tends to fit contemporary culture-war agendas rather than Bonhoeffer’s own complex theological and ethical context.

---

Framing the Discussion

1. Bonhoeffer’s Own Witness

• Bonhoeffer’s resistance to Hitler wasn’t grounded in a “literalized” biblicism, but in a deep Christocentric ethic of costly grace (Nachfolge / Discipleship).

• His theology was profoundly relational and incarnational: Christ present in community, in suffering, and in the neighbor. That makes him hard to “weaponize” for a movement centered on political domination.

• He also emphasized responsibility before God and others, not rigid proof-texting.

2. Metaxas’s Portrayal

• Metaxas tends to flatten Bonhoeffer into an evangelical hero-figure, casting him as a proto-culture-warrior who validates a conservative “biblical truth in the marketplace” approach.

• Historians such as Clifford Green, Victoria Barnett, and Charles Marsh have noted that this misrepresents Bonhoeffer’s theology, cutting him off from his Lutheran, ecumenical, and even progressive impulses.

3. MAGA-Christian Context

• The language of “biblical truth in the marketplace” in MAGA-Christian circles often amounts to a literalist, triumphalist rhetoric: “our Bible, our truth, our politics.”

• Bonhoeffer would have opposed precisely this conflation of God’s Word with nationalistic ideology. In Letters and Papers from Prison, he warns against religion used as a tool of power, advocating instead for a “religionless Christianity” that seeks the neighbor’s good and lives under Christ’s lordship without grasping for control.

4. The Deeper Irony

• To invoke Bonhoeffer in support of authoritarian or exclusionary politics turns his witness upside down. He stood against state-sanctioned ideology masquerading as Christianity.

• His true legacy is prophetic courage: the willingness to suffer, even unto death, for love of Christ and solidarity with the oppressed. That is radically different from “biblical truth as market slogan.”

---

✅ Summary

In my estimation, I’d say: Metaxas offers a popularized Bonhoeffer that resonates with evangelical culture warriors, but it strips away the depth of his theology and the nuance of his resistance. It’s closer to propaganda than to serious biography. - ChatGPT

---

Me

Create a side-by-side comparison of Metaxas’s Bonhoeffer vs. Scholarly Bonhoeffer, so the contrasts are clear.

---

Bonhoeffer: Metaxas vs. Scholarly Portrait

1. Theological Orientation

• Metaxas’s Bonhoeffer:

  • Cast as a proto-evangelical, with strong affinities to American conservative Protestantism.

  • Emphasis on “biblical inerrancy,” personal piety, and simple moral clarity.

  • Downplays Bonhoeffer’s academic theology (Lutheran, Barthian, ecumenical roots).

• Scholarly Bonhoeffer:

  • Deeply shaped by German Lutheranism, Barth’s Christocentrism, and ecumenical theology.

  • Theology is complex, dialectical, and incarnational — Christ encountered in community and in the “other.”

  • Wrote about costly grace (discipleship requiring suffering and obedience) and “religionless Christianity” (faith beyond culture-bound religiosity).

---

2. Political Engagement

• Metaxas’s Bonhoeffer:

  • Portrayed as a clear, almost lone prophet standing against Hitler.

  • Becomes a poster-child for “speaking truth to power” in ways that resonate with MAGA-Christian culture wars.

  • Simplified into a battle of “true believers” vs. secular/evil forces.

• Scholarly Bonhoeffer:

  • His resistance grew gradually and painfully, rooted in theological wrestling and communal discernment.

  • Was part of the Confessing Church movement, not an isolated hero.

  • Emphasized ethical responsibility before God and community, not a culture-war stance.

---

3. Use of Scripture

• Metaxas’s Bonhoeffer:

  • Depicted as relying on literalized “biblical truth” — a direct link to contemporary evangelical proof-texting.

  • Often implied that Bonhoeffer validates present-day “Bible in the marketplace” slogans.

• Scholarly Bonhoeffer:

  • Scripture read Christocentrically, not literalistically.

  • The Word is always mediated through Christ and interpreted in community.

  • His approach to the Bible was dynamic, ethical, and incarnational rather than rigid.

---

4. View of Christianity

• Metaxas’s Bonhoeffer:

  • Christianity is framed as moral clarity and heroic faith against secularism.

  • Fits neatly into the narrative of “Christian America” vs. enemies of God.

• Scholarly Bonhoeffer:

  • Christianity is lived in weakness, suffering, and responsibility — “When Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die.”

  • Acknowledges ambiguity, failure, and costly obedience rather than triumphal certainty.

  • “Religionless Christianity” critiques any political/religious fusion.

---

5. Legacy

• Metaxas’s Bonhoeffer:

  • Inspirational hero, mobilized for American evangelical and MAGA culture-war battles.

  • Becomes a symbolic validation of “fighting back” with God on one’s side.

• Scholarly Bonhoeffer:

  • Martyr who points toward humility, solidarity with the oppressed, and faithful resistance to tyranny.

  • His theology resists being co-opted by any ideology — left, right, or otherwise.

  • Legacy is about prophetic witness in love, not weaponizing faith.

---

✅ Summary

Metaxas presents a Bonhoeffer made in the image of American evangelical culture wars — simplified, heroic, and mobilized. Scholars present Bonhoeffer as a complex, Christ-centered thinker whose legacy warns precisely against the fusion of political ideology with religious certainty.

---

Bonhoeffer’s Words that Resist Fusion with MAGA-Christian Misuse and Abuse

1. On Grace & Discipleship

• MAGA Misuse: Bonhoeffer as a symbol of “moral clarity” and nationalistic defense of “biblical truth.”

• Bonhoeffer’s Word:

  “When Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die.” (The Cost of Discipleship)

  • True discipleship is costly, involving suffering and loss — not triumphalist slogans or political conquest.

---

2. On Religion as Power

• MAGA Misuse: Christianity equated with political power and cultural dominance.

• Bonhoeffer’s Word:

  “What keeps gnawing at me is the question, what is Christianity, or who is Christ actually for us today?” (Letters and Papers from Prison)
  “We are moving towards a completely religionless age.”

  • Bonhoeffer warns against fusing Christianity with cultural/political power. He sought a faith stripped of domination, grounded in Christ’s presence with the suffering.

---

3. On Community

• MAGA Misuse: Faith used as an individualistic “truth weapon” in the marketplace.

• Bonhoeffer’s Word:

  “The church is the church only when it exists for others… not dominating, but helping and serving.” (Letters and Papers from Prison)

  • Christianity is relational and outward-facing, not a tool for control or exclusion.

---

4. On Truth & Lies

• MAGA Misuse: Claiming monopoly on “truth” while aligning with manipulative politics.

• Bonhoeffer’s Word:

  “If you board the wrong train, it is no use running along the corridor in the opposite direction.” (Ethics)

  • Truth isn’t about slogans; it’s about living responsibly before God, even when it means opposing one’s own cultural tribe.

---

5. On Responsibility

• MAGA Misuse: Casting themselves as persecuted heroes while wielding power.

• Bonhoeffer’s Word:

  “Action springs not from thought, but from a readiness for responsibility.” (Letters and Papers from Prison)

  • Faith is not self-martyring theater — it is accountable, ethical responsibility to God and neighbor.

---

6. On Power & Weakness

• MAGA Misuse: Strength and domination framed as “God’s will.”

• Bonhoeffer’s Word:

  “God lets himself be pushed out of the world on to the cross. He is weak and powerless in the world, and that is precisely the way, the only way, in which he is with us and helps us.” (Letters and Papers from Prison)

  • God’s presence is in vulnerability, not triumphalist displays of power.

---

✅ Summary

Bonhoeffer’s own words consistently undermine the ways he is being recruited by MAGA-Christianity. His Christ is one of costly grace, weakness, and solidarity with the suffering — not a culture-war general.

---

Conclusion

The true Bonhoeffer cannot be reconciled with the agenda of MAGA-Christianity. His writings dismantle the very fusion of religion and nationalism that many seek to justify by invoking his name.

Bonhoeffer’s legacy is not a call to culture war but a summons to costly discipleship, to a church that exists for others, to truth that resists manipulation, and to a God revealed in weakness and suffering love. To misappropriate Bonhoeffer for partisan battles is to silence the very witness for which he lived and died.

Bonhoeffer’s witness speaks clearly: Christianity is not about seizing control but about sharing in Christ’s suffering for the sake of the world. His life is a rebuke to those who would wield the Bible as a weapon of domination. If he speaks to us today, it is not to baptize the church's culture wars but to call us into a deeper, more sacrificial way of following Christ.

---

The Rise of Bonhoeffer

Bibliography

Here’s a bibliography of widely respected Bonhoeffer biographies and studies, followed by Eric Metaxas’s version for contrast. I’ve grouped them for clarity:

---

Respected Scholarly Biographies on Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Classic / Authoritative Biographies

• Eberhard Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer: A Biography (Fortress Press, rev. 2000; first German ed. 1967).

  • The definitive, monumental biography by Bonhoeffer’s close friend and student. Exhaustive, detailed, and indispensable.

• Ferdinand Schlingensiepen, Dietrich Bonhoeffer 1906–1945: Martyr, Thinker, Man of Resistance (T&T Clark, 2010).

  • A scholarly yet accessible biography, widely praised as the best modern single-volume study.

Accessible & Reliable Biographies

• Tripp Ruller, The Rise of Bonhoeffer, multi-series podcast

• Mary Bosanquet, The Life and Death of Dietrich Bonhoeffer (Harper & Row, 1969).

  • A concise, readable introduction for general readers.

• Victoria J. Barnett, For the Soul of the People: Protestant Protest Against Hitler (Oxford University Press, 1992).

  • Not exclusively a biography, but an excellent contextual study situating Bonhoeffer within the Confessing Church.

• Charles Marsh, Strange Glory: A Life of Dietrich Bonhoeffer (Knopf, 2014).

  • A well-written, literary-style biography. It stirred some debate among scholars for interpretation choices, but remains reliable and nuanced.

• Stephen R. Haynes, The Battle for Bonhoeffer: Debating Discipleship in the Age of Trump (Eerdmans, 2018).

  • Explores how Bonhoeffer is misappropriated in contemporary American politics, particularly by the religious right.

---

Bonhoeffer’s Own Writings (Essential for Biographical Insight)

• Letters and Papers from Prison (Fortress, various editions).

• The Cost of Discipleship (Nachfolge) (SCM/Fortress).

• Life Together (Gemeinsames Leben).

• Ethics.

These are crucial for letting Bonhoeffer “speak for himself” and provide an antidote to distorted portrayals.

---

Eric Metaxas’s Version (Popular but Problematic)

• Eric Metaxas, Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy (Thomas Nelson, 2010).

  • A New York Times bestseller, widely read in evangelical and MAGA-Christian circles.

  • Criticized by Bonhoeffer scholars for its selective interpretation, inaccuracies, and tendency to portray Bonhoeffer as an American-style evangelical culture warrior.

---

✅ Recommendation:

For depth and accuracy, start with Bethge or Schlingensiepen. For readability, Marsh is strong. For critique of misuse, Haynes is invaluable. Metaxas is useful only as an example of how Bonhoeffer has been co-opted.

Christians AGAINST Christian Nationalism - - or - - Why Constitutionalism is Better Than Church Law

Christians AGAINST Christian Nationalism

or

Why Constitutionalism is Better Than Church Law

by R.E. Slater

August 4, 2022

Sacrilege - "A gross irreverence toward a hallowed person, place, or thing."

Apparently I have more to say on the subject of Christian Nationalism and its blasphemy of Christ, the Church, the Christian faith in general, and God made into its idolatrous image. But instead of preaching or dissenting I will present judicial arguments and observations to its sacrilegious error and theocracy of dominionism meant to demean, pervert, and dehumanize societies of people.

I begin with the following observations:

• The God many Christians worship is a God of love to all people without distinction of gender, sex, race, creed, culture, or ethnic.

• This God is a just God and not a God who is unjust.

• A God whom the Christian faith has grossly distorted over its many histories of inquisitions, crusades, apartheidism, and authoritarian hunger for theocratic control over all men, women, nations, and beliefs (currently known as Christian nationalism).

• Much of the Old Testament - and Jesus' actions against the religion of his day - spoke against a faith in God gone deeply bad. Whose ways, means, views, rites, and shriveled heart defiled God, making him want to puke in the presence of their sacrifices.

To the God who is altogether larger than our imaginations of his loving, holy being, we speak out once again against a church gone bad.

R.E. Slater

August 4, 2022

* * * * * * * * *

Christians Against Christian Nationalism

organization link

As Christians, our faith teaches us everyone is created in God’s image and commands us to love one another. As Americans, we value our system of government and the good that can be accomplished in our constitutional democracy. Today, we are concerned about a persistent threat to both our religious communities and our democracy — Christian nationalism.

Christian nationalism seeks to merge Christian and American identities, distorting both the Christian faith and America’s constitutional democracy. Christian nationalism demands Christianity be privileged by the State and implies that to be a good American, one must be Christian. It often overlaps with and provides cover for white supremacy and racial subjugation. We reject this damaging political ideology and invite our Christian brothers and sisters to join us in opposing this threat to our faith and to our nation.

As Christians, we are bound to Christ, not by citizenship, but by faith. We believe that:

• People of all faiths and none have the right and responsibility to engage constructively in the public square.

• Patriotism does not require us to minimize our religious convictions.

• One’s religious affiliation, or lack thereof, should be irrelevant to one’s standing in the civic community.

• Government should not prefer one religion over another or religion over nonreligion.

• Religious instruction is best left to our houses of worship, other religious institutions and families.

• America’s historic commitment to religious pluralism enables faith communities to live in civic harmony with one another without sacrificing our theological convictions.

• Conflating religious authority with political authority is idolatrous and often leads to oppression of minority and other marginalized groups as well as the spiritual impoverishment of religion.

• We must stand up to and speak out against Christian nationalism, especially when it inspires acts of violence and intimidation—including vandalism, bomb threats, arson, hate crimes, and attacks on houses of worship—against religious communities at home and abroad.

• Whether we worship at a church, mosque, synagogue, or temple, America has no second-class faiths. All are equal under the U.S. Constitution. As Christians, we must speak in one voice condemning Christian nationalism as a distortion of the gospel of Jesus and a threat to American democracy.

* * * * * * * * *

The Constitution is a progressive document. Both in its day and now in the present. It is a legal document defending and protecting the rights and liberties of all people. It intends to bring freedom and equality to all classes, sexes, genders, faiths, and cultures.

By the Constitution's very nature its is politically progressive and something liberals should be talking up a great deal more in the face of the ever more constrained view from the right speaking originalism, textualism, and faux arguments leading away from an ever expanding and deepening Constitutional society.

Even the Constitution's foundation was, and is, based upon the Declaration of Independence. They together, taken in force, but admit one thing - an expanding narrative of freedom, equality and justice for all at all times and in all places.

Textual (faux)Originalism does not. It moves in the direction of authoritarian control by any political mechanism, most recently, again, by the Church's boundless enthusiasm for legalism, excluding doctrinnaires, obsequious self-love, and self-righteous promotion - if not self-centered condemnations.

All in all, better an equitable and fair civil law than any church theocracy claiming to be of God when its meanness of love and spiteful virtues is anything but of God or God's love.

- R.E. Slater

* * * * * * * * *

The principal difference between conservative justices then and conservative justices now is that the conservatives of 30 years ago were practical. They didn't like abortions, but they understood that no society in history had successfully prevented them. They understood that criminalizing doctors who can perform the procedures safely only leads to unsafe, unregulated procedures. They understood that pregnant people will seek control over their own bodies, whether or not the state or the courts or the church acknowledges their bodily autonomy. But such practical-minded conservative justices were replaced by shameless political ideologues and, more recently, by religious zealots — indoctrinated, vetted and even prepped for perjury by the Federalist Society.

- Salon

* * * * * * * * *

[P]rogressives have not been fighting originalism; we have been fighting fauxriginalism. Fauxriginalism distorts the meaning of the Constitution, often by focusing selectively on some parts of the document, rather than by looking at the text, history, and values of the whole Constitution. Conservatives like to claim that originalism leads them to conservative results, but that's because they too often give a cramped meaning to the Constitution's text and ignore the constitutional history and values that help elucidate what that text means. In truth, conservatives have been a bit like the kid in our grade school class who delivered a book report, but who had only read the first chapters of the book — and didn't even read them that carefully.

- Praveen Fernandes

* * * * * * * * *

As utilized by the so-called conservatives on the current court, textualism and originalism have become ways to muzzle the voice of the Constitution and keep it from rising from its draped featherbed to address the pressing issues of our own time.

- Salon

* * * * * * * * *

The original Christian nationalists were the KKK. Today (White) Christian Nationalism = White Supremacy without a whole lot of difference between the pagan Jesus now to the horrific Jesus then.

As a (Jesus) Christian, all radical Christian nationalists are anathema, acriminous aberrations, and very blasphemy to the "God of Love" we worship in Christ Jesus. The Jesus Christian faith stands apart from this Christianized sectarian gospel of hate and division.

- R.E. Slater

* * * * * * * * *

Christian Nationalism Is On The Rise | Ayman

July 29, 2022

The religious right has been around for a long time. But in recent years, a new kind of public, political expression of religion has grown increasingly common: Christian nationalism. But what do Christian nationalists really stand for and where is the movement headed? Amanda Tyler, lead organizer of Christians Against Christian Nationalism, joins Ayman to discuss.

* * * * * * * * *

Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett
(Photo illustration by Salon/Getty Images)

How the Supreme Court's "fauxriginalists"

are warping the Constitution

Salon link

Right-wing justices claim they're delving for true meanings

beneath the Constitution. It's another Big Lie

by Kirk Swearingen

July 29, 2022

Maybe you've seen the editorial cartoon by Bruce MacKinnon that depicts Lady Justice being held down and muzzled by well-dressed thugs from the GOP.

It was drawn in response to Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing, during which Republican senators were working hard to brush away the testimony of Christine Blasey Ford about Kavanaugh's character (or lack thereof), but the instantly classic cartoon can easily stand apart from the specific circumstances of its creation — Lady Justice being assaulted by white male members of the Republican Party.

In a recent interview with Ezra Klein for his podcast, legal scholar Larry Kramer discusses how liberals, after a series of progressive decisions by the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren, began to rely too much on the courts and too little on politics, while the right methodically mounted a political counterrevolution, one that included redeployment of the judicial review philosophy known as "originalism."

Constitutional textualists — who formerly claimed to be wedded to the letter of the law — became originalists (or was it the other way around?), delving beneath the text itself for deeper meanings, sometimes in search of the founders' intent and sometimes to ascertain (as they claimed) how the text would have been understood by reasonable people at the time it was written. People, say, like the town blacksmith or the chandler chasing a chicken in the street, who would likely have given little thought to, say, the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection under the law, even in terms of the big issues of their time.

The truth is that so-called modern originalists or textualists, like the late Justice Antonin Scalia or his intellectual heirs Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett, also feel free to roam much farther afield than that, seeking justifications for their favored interpretation in English common law and philosophy.

As utilized by the so-called conservatives on the current court, textualism and originalism have become ways to muzzle the voice of the Constitution and keep it from rising from its draped featherbed to address the pressing issues of our own time (when, you know, our beds are often ordered online because we heard about them on a podcast).

But is the use of the term "originalism" by Scalia and his acolytes itself actually disingenuous?

That's the argument of Praveen Fernandes of the Constitutional Accountability Center, who suggests that a true originalist approach to interpreting the Constitution would not provide conservative results, because the document is, on the whole, remarkably progressive. Instead, Fernandes says, judicial conservatives distorting the meaning of the Constitution by practicing fauxriginalism:

[P]rogressives have not been fighting originalism; we have been fighting fauxriginalism. Fauxriginalism distorts the meaning of the Constitution, often by focusing selectively on some parts of the document, rather than by looking at the text, history, and values of the whole Constitution. Conservatives like to claim that originalism leads them to conservative results, but that's because they too often give a cramped meaning to the Constitution's text and ignore the constitutional history and values that help elucidate what that text means. In truth, conservatives have been a bit like the kid in our grade school class who delivered a book report, but who had only read the first chapters of the book — and didn't even read them that carefully.

I'm reminded that we used to joke about something we called the "scholarly bluff," where you regurgitate a quote from a recognizable (but perhaps not too recognizable) name to end an argument. We laughed about it because it was so simple — and so effective. Your quote might not actually support your argument, and you might not even have gotten it right. But people tended to back down in the face of such seeming erudition.

Given that the overtly anti-federalist Federalist Society was itself disingenuously named, it figures that it would get behind a disingenuous form of originalism. In a recent column for the Nation, Elie Mystal writes that the nature of conservative justices began to change after 1992, when fundamentalist Christians were deeply disappointed by the Planned Parenthood of Southern Pennsylvania v. Casey ruling:

The principal difference between conservative justices then and conservative justices now is that the conservatives of 30 years ago were practical. They didn't like abortions, but they understood that no society in history had successfully prevented them. They understood that criminalizing doctors who can perform the procedures safely only leads to unsafe, unregulated procedures. They understood that pregnant people will seek control over their own bodies, whether or not the state or the courts or the church acknowledges their bodily autonomy.

But such practical-minded conservative justices were replaced by shameless political ideologues and, more recently, by religious zealots — indoctrinated, vetted and even prepped for perjury by the Federalist Society.

Mystal likens the extremists on the current court to an invasive species that was purposely introduced into a local ecosystem to address some specific problem, but then ran amok. Now that they have thoroughly devoured Roe v. Wade, they're eager to turn their attention to other prey, such as the separation of church and state. Mystal says affirmative action is next.

The only solution, he writes, is for Democrats to meet the challenge by changing the nature of the court. "After 1992, Republicans engineered a new breed of conservative justice. The rest of us must create a new kind of Supreme Court before it's too late."

On Klein's podcast, Kramer notes a few ways the court could be changed to reduce the effect of the ideology of individual justices. He also asserts that the Constitution is a progressive document, something liberals should be talking up a great deal more in the face of the ever more constrained view from the right.

As used by so-called conservatives, "textualism" and "originalism" are tools to muzzle the Constitution's true voice, and prevent it from addressing the issues of our time.

How progressive is it really? According to scholar Garry Wills, the Establishment Clause alone was a defining miracle of the U.S. Constitution. As James Madison wrote in his "Memorial and Remonstrance" statement on church and state, disestablishment both protected the free expression of religion and protected all citizens from the use of "Religion as an engine of Civil policy." In a letter to Madison, Thomas Jefferson argued that as the earth belongs to the living, any constitution (not just ours) was a living document, something that needed to be updated frequently as society evolved.

As for the ideological and religious warriors on the current court (who would make Madison shudder), do yourself a favor and listen to the entire podcast. Two quotes from Kramer stood out for me:

"If the founding generation had been originalists, we wouldn't be here," and "The only way you can be an originalist is to be a really, really bad historian."

Unless you believe, that is, that the Constitution is indeed a progressive document and that a truly originalist interpretation demands an expansive view of the founding principles of the framework. As Kramer says, conservatives should never have been allowed to occupy the Constitution and claim it as their totem, the same way they have done for so long with the flag and the concept of patriotism. Supporters of the ongoing Big Lie about the 2020 election and the Jan. 6 insurrection cannot claim patriotism; those who are fine with the Confederate flag being paraded through the Capitol cannot claim allegiance to our nation's actual flag.

It's all been an endless con, since the days of Ronald Reagan, in service to giving more to the wealthy and big corporations while dividing the citizens from one another, mostly over culture-war issues the powerful don't much care about. (Americans used to be proud to mind their own business.)

Now the idea is to "flood the zone" with nonsense in order to keep the public from noticing our nation's astonishing levels of income inequality, to dumb children down further, to install permanent minority rule and to shut down the American experiment once and for all.

As both Mystal and Kramer note, we need to work toward a new kind of Supreme Court, one less dominated by political ideology and religious dogma. That won't be easy, but if we don't, MacKinnon's tragic vision of Lady Liberty will be all too accurate — with the dire human costs afflicting many generations to come.

* * * * * * * * *

Image: Illustration by Mallory Rentsch / Source Images: Cameron Smith /
 Mohammad Aqhib / Unsplash / Reza Estakhrian / Getty Images

What Is Christian Nationalism?

CT link

An explainer on how the belief differs from other forms of 

nationalism, patriotism, and Christianity.

by Paul Miller

February 3, 2021

You’ve probably seen headlines recently about the evils of Christian nationalism, especially since December’s Jericho March in Washington, DC, and since a mob of Trump supporters—many sporting Christian signs, slogans, or symbols—rioted and stormed the US Capitol building on January 6.

What is Christian nationalism, and how is it different from Christianity? How is it different from patriotism? How should Christians think about nations, especially about the United States? If nationalism is bad, does that mean we should reject nationality and national loyalty altogether?

What is patriotism, and is it good?

Patriotism is the love of country. It is different from nationalism, which is an argument about how to define our country. Christians should recognize that patriotism is good because all of God’s creation is good and patriotism helps us appreciate our particular place in it. Our affection and loyalty to a specific part of God’s creation helps us do the good work of cultivating and improving the part we happen to live in. As Christians, we can and should love the United States—which also means working to improve our country by holding it up for critique and working for justice when it errs.

What is nationalism?

There are many definitions of nationalism and an active debate about how best to define it. I reviewed the standard academic literature on nationalism and found several recurring themes. Most scholars agree that nationalism starts with the belief that humanity is divisible into mutually distinct, internally coherent cultural groups defined by shared traits like language, religion, ethnicity, or culture. From there, scholars say, nationalists believe that these groups should each have their own governments; that governments should promote and protect a nation’s cultural identity; and that sovereign national groups provide meaning and purpose for human beings.

What is Christian nationalism?

Christian nationalism is the belief that the American nation is defined by Christianity, and that the government should take active steps to keep it that way. Popularly, Christian nationalists assert that America is and must remain a “Christian nation”—not merely as an observation about American history, but as a prescriptive program for what America must continue to be in the future. Scholars like Samuel Huntington have made a similar argument: that America is defined by its “Anglo-Protestant” past and that we will lose our identity and our freedom if we do not preserve our cultural inheritance.

Christian nationalists do not reject the First Amendment and do not advocate for theocracy, but they do believe that Christianity should enjoy a privileged position in the public square. The term “Christian nationalism,” is relatively new, and its advocates generally do not use it of themselves, but it accurately describes American nationalists who believe American identity is inextricable from Christianity.

What is the problem with nationalism?

Humanity is not easily divisible into mutually distinct cultural units. Cultures overlap and their borders are fuzzy. Since cultural units are fuzzy, they make a poor fit as the foundation for political order. Cultural identities are fluid and hard to draw boundaries around, but political boundaries are hard and semipermanent. Attempting to found political legitimacy on cultural likeness means political order will constantly be in danger of being felt as illegitimate by some group or other. Cultural pluralism is essentially inevitable in every nation.

Is that really a problem, or just an abstract worry?

It is a serious problem. When nationalists go about constructing their nation, they have to define who is, and who is not, part of the nation. But there are always dissidents and minorities who do not or cannot conform to the nationalists’ preferred cultural template. In the absence of moral authority, nationalists can only establish themselves by force. Scholars are almost unanimous that nationalist governments tend to become authoritarian and oppressive in practice. For example, in past generations, to the extent that the United States had a quasi-established official religion of Protestantism, it did not respect true religious freedom. Worse, the United States and many individual states used Christianity as a prop to support slavery and segregation.

What do Christian nationalists want that is different from normal Christian engagement in politics?

Christian nationalists want to define America as a Christian nation and they want the government to promote a specific cultural template as the official culture of the country. Some have advocated for an amendment to the Constitution to recognize America’s Christian heritage, others to reinstitute prayer in public schools. Some work to enshrine a Christian nationalist interpretation of American history in school curricula, including that America has a special relationship with God or has been “chosen” by him to carry out a special mission on earth. Others advocate for immigration restrictions specifically to prevent a change to American religious and ethnic demographics or a change to American culture. Some want to empower the government to take stronger action to circumscribe immoral behavior.

Some—again, like the scholar Samuel Huntington—have argued that the United States government must defend and enshrine its predominant “Anglo-Protestant” culture to ensure the survival of American democracy. And sometimes Christian nationalism is most evident not in its political agenda, but in the sort of attitude with which it is held: an unstated presumption that Christians are entitled to primacy of place in the public square because they are heirs of the true or essential heritage of American culture, that Christians have a presumptive right to define the meaning of the American experiment because they see themselves as America’s architects, first citizens, and guardians.

How is this dangerous for America?

Christian nationalism tends to treat other Americans as second-class citizens. If it were fully implemented, it would not respect the full religious liberty of all Americans. Empowering the state through “morals legislation” to regulate conduct always carries the risk of overreaching, setting a bad precedent, and creating governing powers that could be used later be used against Christians. Additionally, Christian nationalism is an ideology held overwhelmingly by white Americans, and it thus tends to exacerbate racial and ethnic cleavages. In recent years, the movement has grown increasingly characterized by fear and by a belief that Christians are victims of persecution. Some are beginning to argue that American Christians need to prepare to fight, physically, to preserve America’s identity, an argument that played into the January 6 riot.

How is Christian nationalism dangerous to the church?

Christian nationalism takes the name of Christ for a worldly political agenda, proclaiming that its program is the political program for every true believer. That is wrong in principle, no matter what the agenda is, because only the church is authorized to proclaim the name of Jesus and carry his standard into the world. It is even worse with a political movement that champions some causes that are unjust, which is the case with Christian nationalism and its attendant illiberalism. In that case, Christian nationalism is calling evil good and good evil; it is taking the name of Christ as a fig leaf to cover its political program, treating the message of Jesus as a tool of political propaganda and the church as the handmaiden and cheerleader of the state.

How is Christianity different from Christian nationalism?

Christianity is a religion focused on the person and work of Jesus Christ as defined by the Christian Bible and the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds. It is the gathering of people “from every nation and tribe and people and language,” who worship Jesus (Rev. 7:9), a faith that unites Jews and Greeks, Americans and non-Americans together. Christianity is political, in the sense that its adherents have always understood their faith to challenge, affect, and transcend their worldly loyalties—but there is no single view on what political implications flow from Christian faith other than that we should “fear God, honor the king” (1 Pet. 2:17, NASB), pay our taxes, love our neighbors, and seek justice.

Christian nationalism is, by contrast, a political ideology focused on the national identity of the United States. It includes a specific understanding of American history and American government that are, obviously, extrabiblical—an understanding that is contested by many historians and political scientists. Most importantly, Christian nationalism includes specific policy prescriptions that it claims are biblical but are, at best, extrapolations from biblical principles and, at worst, contradictory to them.

Can Christians be politically engaged without being Christian nationalists?

Yes. American Christians in the past were exemplary in helping establish the American experiment, and many American Christians worked to end slavery and segregation and other evils. They did so because they believed Christianity required them to work for justice. But they worked to advance Christian principles, not Christian power or Christian culture, which is the key distinction between normal Christian political engagement and Christian nationalism. Normal Christian political engagement is humble, loving, and sacrificial; it rejects the idea that Christians are entitled to primacy of place in the public square or that Christians have a presumptive right to continue their historical predominance in American culture. Today, Christians should seek to love their neighbors by pursuing justice in the public square, including by working against abortion, promoting religious liberty, fostering racial justice, protecting the rule of law, and honoring constitutional processes. That agenda is different from promoting Christian culture, Western heritage, or Anglo-Protestant values.

Paul D. Miller is a professor of the practice of international affairs at Georgetown University and a research fellow with the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission.