A Review as promised in "Vulgar title on prepub"

Thanks MJ, needed that.

MJ. Smith said:

Honest, I meant to ...

Thank you, MJ. Know you were also busy with all those bug threads (a thanks for those too).

Interesting. I read one of his previous books, and it wasn’t moderate at all. Perhaps one of the two is an outlier? 🤷‍♂️🤔

Thanks very much, MJ.

I appreciate your effort to review the book. But I find it a bit odd that people in the responses are taking some assertions ("common sense") and undefined terms ("Nationalist Christianity" or "liberals") for granted as an objective and sufficient explanation of where the book is coming from in an "Oh, guess that explains it" sort of way. Not that this is a fault in what you say, but in how people are taking it as a confirmation of what they assumed about the book or else as an adequate explanation of the author's presuppositions.

What, for instance, does the author think constitutes "Nationalist Christianity"? 

Further, what does the author think was "Nationalist Christianity" in the Reagan era? And does the author show any awareness of Christianity's relationship to governments prior to Reagan... Plymouth colony, Massachusetts? Anglican Church? Jimmy Carter? etc.

In other words, does the author  focus on Reagan because Republicans are the nail for his hammer or does he actually explain a focus on that specifically? (While there is something at this point in terms of organization for the subset of evangelicals, Thomas Kidd's Who is an Evangelical? demonstrates that evangelicals have always been politically engaged (p. 34, 43, etc.) and, further, that other Christian groups are just as entangled in politics (e.g., Latino and Black Protestants - pp. 128 and 145 respectively).   

On the Amazon summary, it says "Many people wonder how white Christians could not only support Donald Trump for president but also rush to defend an accused child molester running for the US Senate. In a 2017 essay that went viral, Miguel A. De La Torre boldly proclaimed the death of Christianity at the hands of white evangelical nationalists. He continues sounding the death knell in this book."

This suggests there is some connection between voting for Trump (which is then glossed as if the set of Christians who voted for Trump = the set of people who rushed to defend Roy Moore) "Nationalist Christianity". That alone demonstrates a lack of nuance and a lack of understanding of Christian political conservatives in American and various voting strategies. (Or, alternatively, a lack of nuance related to a prejudice which prevents them from accurately representing Christians conservatives.)

Further, does the author give us statistical data to show the correspondence between white evangelicals who voted for Trump and those that rushed to defend Roy Moore, such that his claim that this constitutes the death of Christianity is well-reasoned? 

Of course, it's possible that whoever is responsible for the summary quoted above is deficient in ways in which the author is not. But your review doesn't shed any clarity on that.

Several months ago I read Ben Howe's Immoral Majority and was disappointed at his inaccuracies and uncharitable broad brush painting, in which he often conflates evangelical Trump supporters with evangelicalism as a whole. Does this author also elide these groups? And does he elide all Christians who voted for Trump with a single mindset or motive ("Nationalist Christianity") or does he express awareness that Christians can have the same complex of political motives and voting strategies that non-Christians clearly have (e.g., Ben Shapiro--not a Nationalist Christian--who is Trump critical, was #NeverTrump, but has said that, as of now, he is voting for Trump)?

MJ. Smith said:

I'm not going to respond to your critique beyond two examples:

Sorry for any misunderstanding. I wasn’t critiquing your review, my first paragraph was critiquing responses to your review, that seemed to think it was doing something or answering questions  it wasn’t. I didn’t see that as a point of criticism of your review since I don’t think reviews have to take up any particular concerns that any particular reader might have.

The rest of my post is seeking clarification (e.g how does the author define “Nationalist Christianity”) and defends my rationale for wanting the clarification. No argument map required. 

Definitions are helpful for seeing where an author is coming from, what things he or she is taking for granted, or whether they’ve given serious thought to certain issues.

For instance, Thomas Kidd gives two definitions of evangelical, one simple and one more detailed. The simple definition is “the religion of the born again. … born again is the conversion experience that defines what it means to be an evangelical. The great English Methodist John Wesley wrote that conversion is ‘a thorough change of heart and life from sin to holiness; a turning.’ This turning, to evangelicals, is enabled by God’s power.” (Who is an Evangelical, p. 4). On the other hand, Ben Howe, in Immoral Majority, never gives a straight forward definition of “evangelical” (the closest he comes is by pointing to some evangelicals). (Other things Howe says, like “driven by its biblical principles” (p. 3) or making reference to “the biblical lessons of redemption, repentance, and the fallen nature of man” (p. 18) don’t really do the job).  

MJ. Smith said:

Please don't encourage those who have not read the book to turn this thread into another thread of speculation and illogic.

I think understanding how the author defines controversial terms that are sometimes used for rhetorical effect rather than cognitive content—like ”nationalism”— will undercut speculation, right? 

How does the author thinking “Nationalist Christianity” aligns with ethnic nationalism, civic nationalism, or (per the most recent defenses of Rich Lowry and Yarom Hazony) cultural nationalism?

And does the author ascribe this to any Christian who voted for Trump or only to some subset? 

 

Knowing this would help to avoid speculation and know if the author might himself be illogical (or at least not very nuanced).

In my view, a much better, more comprehensive, less pejorative way to address this matter than the aforementioned book can be found by thinking for oneself in the excellent Logos ME course: https://www.logos.com/product/129501/mobile-ed-ch241-the-history-of-christianity-in-the-united-states.    

Thanks, MJ. This gives me a better idea of the angle of approach of the author. 

It had occurred to me after submitting my last post that maybe the emphasis was on Christian rather than nationalist--and thus maybe things like Catholic Integralism might be the more relevant target. But it sounds like the author is concerned with the popular expressions.

MJ, thank you for providing a review and some follow-up explanatory notes on this work.

MJ. Smith said:

GaoLu said:

more comprehensive, less pejorative way to address this matter than the aforementioned book can be found by thinking for oneself in the excellent Logos ME course:

Have you read the book? The course looks interesting but I don't see much overlap.

No, I have not read the book.  I read the essay, and several excerpts and some quality reviews (which take some doing to find).  While those sources are not the full contents of the book, they were enough in my view to recommend the course, which does seem to overlap much of the same content in a sensitive, Christian, non-offensive way.  The course does not address "steps forward" as the book does.  The student is left to draw biblical conclusions on their own based on the knowledge they have acquired. 

The course is historical, however, throughout the course the context is typically the shifting and molding of Christian views as Christians interact with each other, with society, government, world events and shifting mores.  The course addresses, "How did we get here," and left me with a strong sense of "What shall we do now to re-orient toward a better future."  Issues of race and "white privilege" are well-woven through the course. The overlap of the book and course should be clear.

I have taken the full course including all the readings and more which is why I found meaningful overlap and why I suggest that the course will be compelling to those with interest in affairs of religion and society today in light of American history.  If you actually take the course I recommended above, I suspect the overlap would be clear and perhaps you would be inclined to write a review of it.