Some recommended reading
Results from two new studies, plus critiquing how we talk about "Christian nationalism"
Greetings from the home stretch of yet another academic year. I’m wrapping up my eighth year of teaching at John Brown University, which doesn’t seem possible.
It’s a busy season here, but there are things to share. Before we get to the promised recommended readings, here’s some news from closer to home:
I have submitted what should be the final edits and annotations on Uneasy Citizenship to the editors at Cascade. The next step is approving the final page proofs, to be followed by indexing and (finally!) publication and release. It’s almost time to set the countdown at weeks rather than months. Stay tuned…
On Wednesday, April 17 John Brown University will be hosting a reception for the winners of an essay contest for area high school students, on the future of democracy and civic engagement. This contest was made possible with support from Pi Sigma Alpha, the National Political Science Honor Society. We’ll be notifying the winners in the next couple of days, and I’ll make sure to share photos of the event in the next couple of weeks.
I’m scheduled to review Aaron Renn’s new book Life in the Negative World for Christianity Today. Based on Renn’s widely read essay in First Things, the book expands on his framework and provides encouragement and strategies for Christians living in what Renn characterizes as an increasingly unwelcoming culture. The review should go live later this month.
And now, some recommended reading:
White Evangelicals Want Christian Influence, Not a ‘Christian Nation’ (Christianity Today) — Harvest Prude reports on a new study from the Pew Research Center, highlighting some interesting findings about what really constitutes “Christian nationalism”:
Most white evangelicals want a president who reflects their religious beliefs, believe the Bible should have some influence on US laws, and see the retreat of religion as a bad thing.
Yet they oppose adopting Christianity as an official religion and very few (8%) have a “favorable” view of Christian nationalism.
The study also finds that a majority of Americans (54 percent) report not ever hearing the term “Christian nationalism” in the first place.
How (Not) to Talk About ‘Christian Nationalism’ (Christianity Today) — Brad East argues that among those who do talk about Christian nationalism (positively or negatively), a more precise definition is needed.
The phrase has lost all substantive content. In nearly every conversation, it has little reference beyond those “stupid [sons of guns] whose political opinions are considerably to the right of mine.” Allegations of Christian nationalism can mean almost anything: Maybe the accused is a literal Nazi. Or maybe he’s just a lifelong Republican whose big issues are abortion and tax rates.
East doesn’t deny there is value to the term, so long as it is properly specified and fenced. And he provides some suggestions for doing just that. I found his conclusion especially strong:
“It’s not that [Christian nationalism’s] too strong a term. It’s that it’s too weak. A better option comes from the apostle Paul: All this is “another gospel” (Gal. 1:7). The political manifestations are only symptoms of this spiritual disease.”
People say they're leaving religion due to anti-LGBTQ teachings and sexual abuse (NPR) — Jason DeRose highlights results from a new Public Religion Research Institute study, on what contributes to a phenomenon known in sociological circles as “religious churning” — or, why people leave religious traditions. Some key findings:
“Around one-quarter (26%) of Americans now identify as religiously unaffiliated, a number that has risen over the last decade and is now the largest single religious group in the U.S.”
“About two-thirds (67%) of people who leave a faith tradition say they did so because they simply stopped believing in that religion's teachings. And nearly half (47%) of respondents who left cited negative teaching about the treatment of LGBTQ people.”
There’s a lot to dig into with studies like this, of course. But at the very least it provides some context for future research and conversations on these issues.
Civility In Polarized Times (Portman Center for Policy Solutions) — I recently learned that my friend Andy Lewis has a new role at the University of Cincinnati: Executive Director at the Portman Center for Policy Solutions. The Center, named for former U.S. Senator Rob Portman (R-OH), was founded “to encourage civility, bipartisanship and finding common ground to achieve policy solutions.”
One of the Center’s first events featured Portman and another former U.S. Senator, Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND). In this event, the two former colleagues discussed the importance of bipartisanship and civility in today’s political landscape.