A Conversation Worth Having
Christian Nationalism Seen Through Two Very Different Sets of Eyes
Too distracted by an endless barrage of paperwork to notice that a podcast I was “listening” to had ended, YouTube transitioned immediately into another which, while not one to which I’m subscribed, captured my attention almost immediately.
Christian Nationalism
No matter your individual definition or understanding of this term, it is undeniable that it is one of the most polarizing phrases uttered within contemporary American politics. And, like all politics, it spills over into areas of every day life. It’s no wonder then that two measly words are able to generate such intense emotions from all corners of electorate.
Having spent much of my life following politics closely, at times from positions within the mechanisms themselves, I’ve kept abreast of this latest trend as closely as anyone else. What I’ve found most challenging is the absence of good faith interaction between the two ‘camps’ wherein ideas can be evaluated, common ground groped for, and direct challenges made to inconsistencies or perceptional prejudices. If one views the term positively, there are media outlets a-plenty that will feed you a veritable smorgasbord of validating commentary. Likewise, if one sees nefarious danger—or, as former president Joe Biden stated practically every time he found himself in front of a camera, an existential threat—ample venues of carefully curated opinion is also available to flood the senses.
We are living in a remarkably tribal age in which media is so abundant we can largely partition ourselves off from any viewpoint contrary to our own. This is exacerbated by the algorithmic prioritization of what content we encounter and the frequency of that encounter. Much ado Congress made of TikTok, at the end of the day it is an algorithm that curates content it correlates as matching one’s initial video selections. Watch three cat videos in a row after having skipped past other miscellany offerings and TikTok naturally assumes that is the type of content you want and it will account for 80% or more of your feed in no time.
What is increasingly missing from this cacophony of noise is actual conversation. Not one-sided arguments that debate a straw man, but actual, live, face-to-face discussion between individuals holding opposing views.
The days of Crossfire (CNN) and Hannity & Colmes (FOX News) are tragically long gone.
Or so I thought…
Below is a video of a moderated conversation between two Biblical scholars, Pastor Doug Wilson (a Calvinist, representing the ‘pro’ position) and Dr. Mike Bird (an Anglican, taking up the ‘con’ position). Not only was it refreshing to see opposing sides actually face one another to hash out their differences, but the collegial, good-natured, friendly tone of the discussion was a bit mesmerizing.
Two very different men with two exceedingly divergent points of view. YET, they maintained civility, treated one another (if not one another’s perspectives) with respect, sought some semblance of common ground on which arguments could be built, and appeared to genuinely enjoy the experience.
Admittedly, including Christian Nationalism in the subtitle of this Substack was a shameless ploy to grab your attention. Yet while my theatrics were indeed disingenuous, they were not false. Christian Nationalism is the subject of the video, after all. But ultimately that’s not why I suggest you view it. My motive is far less partisan. Rather, it is a simple longing for a time when people saw isolation against opposing views as cowardice. A time when hearing it from the horses mouth held greater sway than the commentary of my allies. Enjoy!