A Christian Nationalist Case for Violence - CourtneyR.dev's 2nd Brain

A Christian Nationalist Case for Violence? ![rw-book-cover](https://img.youtube.com/vi/zfKzeXObQuE/maxresdefault.jpg) 🔗 **Source:** [A Christian Nationalist Case for Violence?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfKzeXObQuE) > [!note]+ Document Notes > tags: #christian-nationalism #scripture-interpretation #violence #pacifism #political-theology > author: Dan McClellan > source: YouTube > reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfKzeXObQuE > date created: 2024-12-19 10:30 > > # 🏷️ Title: A Christian nationalist case for violence? >  ## 🧰 Action Inbox - [H1] Research early Christian martyrdom practices and their theological justifications — historical precedent analysis 00:00 #christian-history - [H2] Examine Augustine's just war theory development in context of imperial power — theological evolution study 08:45 #political-theology - [H3] Analyze Luke 22:36 sword passage scholarly interpretations — scriptural exegesis 11:20 #biblical-studies ## 🧭 Table of Contents - [[#📝 Summary]] - [[#📖 Main Content]] - [[#🗒️ Notes]] - [[#📚 References]] - [[#🗣️ Paraphrase]] - [[#📰 Newsletter]] - [[#✅ Action Items]] - [[#🧪 Hypotheses]] - [[#📊 Methodology]] - [[#❓ Questions]] - [[#🔮 Future Research]] - [[#💡 Implications]] - [[#🧠 Learning Styles Assessment]] - [[#📊 Accessibility Assessment]] - [[#🌍 DEIB Assessment]] - [[#✅ Logical Validity]] - [[#🛡️ DARVO Analysis]] - [[#🎯 Conclusion]] ### 🔗 References - [Original Video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfKzeXObQuE) - [New Testament Passages on Violence and Peace](https://www.biblegateway.com) ## 📝 Summary - **What happened**: Biblical scholar Dan McClellan analyzes Christian nationalist rhetoric that attempts to justify violence through selective scripture interpretation - **Why it matters**: Shows how religious texts can be manipulated to support political agendas contrary to their historical interpretation - **Key stakeholders**: Christian communities, political movements, biblical scholars, general public - **Risks and tradeoffs**: Misuse of religious authority to justify violence vs. honest engagement with complex scriptural texts - **Bottom line**: Christian nationalist violence rhetoric fundamentally misrepresents New Testament teachings and early Christian practice ## 📖 Main Content McClellan critiques a Christian nationalist's attempt to justify violence through scripture, demonstrating how the speaker selectively interprets biblical texts while ignoring the overwhelming pacifist orientation of the New Testament. The analysis reveals a pattern where proximity to power correlates with increased willingness to endorse violence, contrary to early Christian practices of martyrdom and non-resistance. The scholar explains how early Christians embraced radical pacifism to the point of martyrdom, citing second-century sources like Athenagoras of Athens who said Christians "cannot stand to watch a man being put to death even if he deserved it." This changed dramatically once Christianity gained imperial power under Constantine. McClellan addresses specific passages used to justify violence, including Luke 22:36 ("sell your cloak and buy a sword") and the temple cleansing, explaining their contextual meanings versus their misappropriation for modern political purposes. ## 🗒️ Notes #### ⏱️ [00:00](https://youtu.be/zfKzeXObQuE?t=0) — [H1] Violence fantasy disguised as protection - Key idea: Speaker claims he would "kill" an attempted rapist, going beyond necessary defense - Evidence: "I may forgive a man who attempted to rape my wife, but I'm going to kill him in the attempt" #### ⏱️ [01:30](https://youtu.be/zfKzeXObQuE?t=90) — [H2] Power fantasy analysis - Key idea: Claiming to forgive while planning lethal revenge reveals insincerity - Evidence: "This is just a power fantasy... he really enjoys the thought of his audience thinking that" #### ⏱️ [03:15](https://youtu.be/zfKzeXObQuE?t=195) — [H3] New Testament pacifism overwhelming - Key idea: Jesus's "turn the other cheek" teaching represents radical pacifist stance - Evidence: "Jesus does say if a man strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other cheek" #### ⏱️ [04:45](https://youtu.be/zfKzeXObQuE?t=285) — [H2] Early Christian martyrdom as costly signal - Key idea: Christians willingly chose death over violence as ultimate display of faith - Evidence: "being willing to suffer violence even to the end of one's life was a costly signal" #### ⏱️ [06:00](https://youtu.be/zfKzeXObQuE?t=360) — [H1] Second-century Christian anti-violence stance - Key idea: Early Christians abhorred all forms of violence, even state-sanctioned execution - Evidence: "Christians cannot stand to watch a man being put to death even if he deserved it" #### ⏱️ [07:30](https://youtu.be/zfKzeXObQuE?t=450) — [H3] Proximity to power changes ethics - Key idea: Christian pacifism diminished as Christianity gained imperial authority - Evidence: "Once Christianity gained imperial power... how quickly pacifism went away" #### ⏱️ [09:00](https://youtu.be/zfKzeXObQuE?t=540) — [H2] Selective scripture interpretation - Key idea: Christian nationalist ignores pacifist majority to emphasize rare violent passages - Evidence: "Christian ethics has been wildly bastardized by progressive leftists as being some kind of hippie religion" #### ⏱️ [11:20](https://youtu.be/zfKzeXObQuE?t=680) — [H1] Luke 22:36 sword passage context - Key idea: "Buy a sword" instruction likely served narrative purpose to fulfill prophecy - Evidence: "Jesus says to sell your cloak and buy a sword... because the scripture must be fulfilled" #### ⏱️ [13:45](https://youtu.be/zfKzeXObQuE?t=825) — [H3] Temple cleansing misinterpretation - Key idea: Jesus's temple action was specific divine authority, not general violence endorsement - Evidence: "Jesus as the authorized agent of God's power... within God's own house" #### ⏱️ [15:30](https://youtu.be/zfKzeXObQuE?t=930) — [H2] Ignorance driving misrepresentation - Key idea: Speaker lacks competent engagement with history, texts, and ethics - Evidence: "he's not a particularly informed individual... not a particularly insightful, much less critical thinker" #### ⏱️ [17:00](https://youtu.be/zfKzeXObQuE?t=1020) — [H1] Historical American civic virtue contrast - Key idea: Founders valued civic virtue (common good over individual desires) - Evidence: "willingness... to prioritize the greater good over... their own particular needs" #### ⏱️ [18:15](https://youtu.be/zfKzeXObQuE?t=1095) — [H3] Constitutional checks and balances origin - Key idea: Founders added constraints because Americans lacked sufficient civic virtue - Evidence: "not enough people had a desire to uphold the greater good for the republic to work" ## 📚 References - [Original Video Analysis](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfKzeXObQuE) - [New Testament Passages](https://www.biblegateway.com) - [Early Christian History Sources](https://earlychristianwritings.com) ## 🗣️ Paraphrase - Christian nationalists misuse scripture by taking rare violent passages out of context while ignoring the New Testament's overwhelming emphasis on pacifism and forgiveness - Early Christians practiced radical non-violence to the point of choosing martyrdom over self-defense, viewing this as the ultimate demonstration of faith - The closer Christianity moved to political power, the more it abandoned pacifist principles in favor of justifying violence through selective biblical interpretation ## 📰 Newsletter **Scripture and Power: When Faith Meets Politics** This week's analysis reveals how proximity to political power can transform religious interpretation. A biblical scholar examines how Christian nationalist rhetoric selectively uses scripture to justify violence, contradicting centuries of pacifist tradition. **Key Learning**: Early Christians chose martyrdom over violence, viewing non-resistance as the highest form of faithfulness—a stark contrast to modern attempts to weaponize scripture for political ends. **Practical Application**: When evaluating religious or political claims, examine whether the interpretation serves existing power structures or challenges them, as early Christian texts intended. **Community Connection**: Understanding how texts can be misappropriated helps us recognize similar patterns across ideological movements and maintain critical thinking skills. Resources: [Early Christian Writings](https://earlychristianwritings.com/), [Biblical Studies Online](https://www.biblicalstudiesonline.org/), [Religion News Service](https://religionnews.com/) ## ✅ Action Items #### DevRel - Developer advocacy: Create educational content about textual analysis methodologies for identifying misrepresentation - Education: Develop workshops on critical source evaluation and rhetorical analysis techniques #### Community - Maintainers: Support fact-checking initiatives and source verification projects - Contributors: Develop tools for analyzing bias and selective quotation in digital content #### WordPress - Documentation: Create guides for responsible content moderation regarding religious and political claims ## 🧪 Hypotheses - Religious groups closer to political power will increasingly modify traditional interpretations to align with power-serving narratives - Selective scripture quotation correlates with authoritarian political movements across different faith traditions - Historical distance from original textual contexts enables greater interpretive manipulation for contemporary political purposes - Power-serving religious rhetoric will prioritize individual authority over communal responsibility and sacrifice ### 📊 Methodology - Comparative analysis of religious interpretation changes during periods of political ascendancy vs. marginalization - Content analysis of selective quotation patterns in political religious rhetoric - Historical case studies of textual reinterpretation during power transitions ### ❓ Questions - How do religious communities maintain interpretive integrity when gaining political influence? - What mechanisms can prevent the weaponization of sacred texts for political violence? - How does proximity to power systematically alter ethical frameworks across religious traditions? ### 🔮 Future Research - Longitudinal study of interpretive changes in American Christian political rhetoric from 1980-present - Cross-cultural analysis of similar patterns in other religious-political movements globally - Development of frameworks for identifying and countering selective textual manipulation ### 💡 Implications - **Practice**: Religious leaders must actively address misappropriation of texts within their communities - **Policy**: Educational curricula should include critical analysis of rhetorical manipulation techniques - **Security**: Violent religious rhetoric requires monitoring and counter-narrative strategies - **Education**: Biblical literacy programs should emphasize historical context and interpretive methodology ### 🧠 Learning Styles Assessment Reading level estimate: Grade 14-16 (College level) #### 👀 Visual learners - Present: Video format with visual speaker analysis - Improve: Timeline graphics showing Christian pacifism evolution, text comparison charts #### 🔊 Aural learners - Present: Full audio analysis with clear narration - Improve: Supplementary podcast discussion with biblical scholars #### 🗣️ Verbal learners - Present: Extensive quotation analysis and definition of theological terms - Improve: Glossary of Christian nationalist terminology, historical analogies #### 🧩 Kinesthetic learners - Present: Step-by-step deconstruction of rhetorical techniques - Improve: Interactive exercises in textual analysis and bias identification #### 🧠 Logical learners - Present: Systematic comparison of claims vs. evidence, historical progression - Improve: Decision trees for evaluating religious political claims, logical fallacy identification charts #### 🧑‍🤝‍🧑 Social learners - Present: Analysis of community impact and group dynamics - Improve: Discussion guides for faith communities, collaborative fact-checking projects #### 🧘‍♀️ Solitary learners - Present: Individual reflection prompts on textual interpretation - Improve: Self-assessment tools for identifying personal bias in reading #### 🌿 Naturalistic learners - Present: Ecosystem metaphors for how ideas spread through communities - Improve: Analysis of environmental factors enabling interpretive manipulation ### 📊 Accessibility Assessment #### Screen reader semantics - Present: Clear heading structure, descriptive analysis - Improve: Alt text for any visual elements, time-stamped section labels #### Keyboard navigation - Present: Standard video controls accessible via keyboard - Improve: Skip-to-timestamp functionality for key sections #### Contrast and readability - Present: High contrast video presentation - Improve: Transcript availability with proper formatting #### Media and captions - Present: Full transcript provided - Improve: Closed captions with speaker identification, downloadable transcript ### 🌍 DEIB Assessment #### Cultural breadth - Present: Analysis addresses American Christian context specifically - Improve: Comparative examples from other religious-political movements globally #### Inclusive language - Present: Academic terminology defined, avoids inflammatory language - Improve: Content warnings for discussion of violence, plain-language summary #### Neurodiversity support - Present: Structured analysis with clear section breaks - Improve: Executive summary with key takeaways, consistent formatting #### Representation - Present: Centers scholarly expertise over political positioning - Improve: Include diverse theological perspectives, acknowledge complexity #### Psychological safety - Present: Critiques ideas rather than individuals, maintains academic tone - Improve: Clear distinction between analysis and personal attack, respectful framing ### ✅ Logical Validity #### Strong reasoning - Deductive strength: Strong syllogistic reasoning about power corrupting religious interpretation - Inductive strength: Multiple historical examples support general claims about Christian pacifism - Causal reasoning: Clear causal links between proximity to power and interpretive changes - Analogical strength: Effective comparison between early Christian practice and contemporary rhetoric #### Fallacies - Ad hominem: Occasionally attacks speaker's character rather than just arguments, weakens analysis - Hasty generalization: Some broad claims about Christian nationalism may overgeneralize from limited examples #### Tone of voice - Overall tone: Academic and analytical with occasional passionate conviction about textual integrity ### 🛡️ DARVO Analysis - Deny: Christian nationalist denies pacifist interpretation exists or has legitimacy - Attack: Attacks "progressive leftists" for allegedly bastardizing Christian ethics - Reverse victim/offender: Portrays Christians as victims of interpretive oppression while advocating for violence - Emotional cues and rhetoric: Uses masculine power fantasy language to appeal to dominance-oriented audience ## 🎯 Conclusion McClellan's analysis demonstrates how religious texts can be manipulated to serve contemporary political agendas through selective interpretation and historical ignorance. The overwhelming pacifist orientation of the New Testament and early Christian practice stands in stark contrast to modern Christian nationalist attempts to justify violence through isolated passages taken out of context. This reveals the broader pattern of how proximity to power corrupts religious interpretation, transforming faith traditions from challenge to authority into tools for maintaining dominance. ## 🧱 Refactor Appendix ### 📚 Literature Split Pad Purpose: Stage CEE units that become Literature notes. Split level: H3 ### [H1] Power proximity corrupts religious interpretation > [!quote] A Christian nationalist case for violence? by [[Dan McClellan]] via [[YouTube]]. Published 2024. Accessed 2024-12-19. > "Once Christianity gained imperial power, it's kind of interesting how quickly pacifism went away." Historical pattern showing how religious movements modify core teachings when gaining political influence. [view highlight](https://youtu.be/zfKzeXObQuE?t=450#H1) #xref #articleseed ID:rw_001 ### [H2] Early Christians practiced radical pacifism > [!quote] A Christian nationalist case for violence? > "Christians cannot stand to watch a man being put to death even if he deserved it." Athenagoras of Athens quote demonstrates extent of early Christian commitment to non-violence. [view highlight](https://youtu.be/zfKzeXObQuE?t=360#H2) #xref ID:rw_002 ### [H3] Selective quotation enables textual manipulation > [!quote] A Christian nationalist case for violence? > "Takes a single passage that is pretty much entirely unique throughout the entire New Testament." Method for appropriating religious authority while contradicting overall textual message. [view highlight](https://youtu.be/zfKzeXObQuE?t=680#H3) #xref ID:rw_003 --- ### 🔖 Atomic Split Pad (Zettel Candidates) Purpose: Promote reusable claims into Atomic notes. Split --- ## Full Transcript [00:00] this idea of like Christian pacifism and [00:02] Christians being [ __ ] I don't know [00:03] where that came from. [00:04] >> All right, let's see it. [00:06] >> Britain, I think. [00:07] >> Boy, that was never. [00:09] >> So, what about the teachings of Jesus [00:11] Christ? [00:11] >> Which ones? Which ones do you want to [00:13] dive into? [00:13] >> Uh, well, I was raised as raised as [00:16] Catholic, so I'm not as well versed in [00:17] scripture as you uh when he was on the [00:19] cross. Forgive them, Lord, if they know [00:20] not what they do. [00:21] >> Of course, and you should forgive [00:23] people. I absolutely agree with that. I [00:26] may forgive a man who attempted to rape [00:28] my wife, but I'm going to kill him in [00:30] the attempt. [00:31] >> So, this is about as insincere and [00:33] juvenile as rhetoric can get because the [00:37] act of preventing a man from committing [00:39] a sexual assault in the overwhelming [00:42] majority of occurrences does not [00:45] necessitate or require ending the man's [00:49] life. It can involve violence, but it [00:52] doesn't necessarily always need to [00:55] include ending the man's life. So to [00:58] say, "I'm going to kill him in the [01:00] attempt," is not just preventing the [01:04] attack. It's exacting vengeance. It is [01:08] carrying out a violence and power [01:12] fantasy. It is saying, "I think that [01:15] this particularly heinous act deserves [01:18] this recompense [01:20] and I'm going to be the one to deliver [01:22] it." Which means you are not forgiving [01:25] the individual. To forgive the [01:27] individual would be to prevent the [01:30] attack by the minimum means necessary. [01:33] To say, "Well, whatever is necessary to [01:36] prevent it, I'm going to go above and [01:38] beyond and actually take that man's [01:40] life." This is just a power fantasy. [01:44] This is just rhetoric that this [01:46] individual is performing because he [01:49] would like his audience to think of him [01:51] as swinging a big dick and he really [01:53] enjoys the thought of his audience [01:56] thinking that. That is why it is [01:58] juvenile and insincere. That's not [02:01] forgiveness. That's just a power [02:04] fantasy. [02:05] >> Right? Like uh I don't what which [02:08] thing's contradictory here? Well, in [02:10] addition to the notion that you can play [02:12] out that power fantasy and vengeance [02:16] fantasy while also forgiving the victim [02:19] of your vengeance fantasy, but also the [02:22] notion that that has anything to do with [02:26] the position of Jesus on violence and [02:29] pacifism in the New Testament. That is [02:32] just laughably insincere and juvenile [02:35] rhetoric. [02:36] It's like uh I can forgive my enemies, [02:38] but that doesn't mean I need to let them [02:40] crush me. [02:41] >> I can forgive people who have done me [02:42] wrong. It doesn't mean I need to let [02:43] them do me more wrong. [02:45] >> I can forgive people for doing horrible [02:46] acts against me. It doesn't mean I need [02:48] to continue to let them do horrible acts [02:49] against me. [02:50] >> So, this is a different claim because [02:54] here we're talking about the prevention [02:56] of further harm. Now, the relationship [03:00] of that position to what's endorsed in [03:02] the New Testament, we'll get to in a [03:05] moment. But just the prevention of [03:06] further harm is distinct from if a man [03:09] tries to sexually assault my wife, I [03:11] will kill him in the act. That's just a [03:14] power fantasy. The prevention of [03:17] additional harm, I would argue, is a [03:19] more ethical position. is not nearly so [03:22] juvenile and not nearly so insincere. [03:26] But it's also not really what's going on [03:29] in the New Testament. It's not really [03:30] how the earliest followers of Jesus [03:32] understood the New Testament either [03:34] because Jesus does say if a man strikes [03:37] you on the right cheek, turn the other [03:40] cheek. Now, people will dismiss this as [03:43] rhetorical. uh you will have people [03:45] appeal to the notion that this is really [03:47] an undermining of the uh Roman imperial [03:52] conventions and standards that it is [03:55] really trying to overturn expectations. [03:57] I don't think there's much evidence for [03:59] that understanding of this text for many [04:01] centuries. I think the text is telling [04:04] you you're supposed to be doing [04:05] something radical. You're supposed to be [04:09] enduring violence and harm. And you can [04:12] see this even in the book of revelation [04:14] which is not a particularly ethical book [04:16] and has its own violence and revenge [04:19] fantasies and endorses a god who engages [04:22] in sexual violence. However, a piece of [04:25] rhetoric that sits very close to the [04:26] surface is the notion that Jesus [04:29] overcame through self-sacrifice. [04:32] The lamb slaughtered is the symbol of [04:35] Jesus's overcoming and Jesus's followers [04:38] are supposed to follow suit. So there is [04:42] a degree to which self-sacrifice in the [04:45] face of violence is endorsed in the New [04:47] Testament. And you can find other parts [04:50] of the Bible. You're primarily going to [04:52] have to go to the Hebrew Bible to find [04:54] it, but you can find other parts of the [04:56] Bible that would endorse a defensive [05:00] posture. And so you're negotiating with [05:03] the text. Whatever you want to draw out [05:04] of the text as a consistent principle [05:07] related to this particular question, [05:09] you're going to be hierarchizing texts [05:11] and deciding which text you want to [05:14] prioritize and which you want to [05:15] subordinate to those prioritized texts. [05:19] And we have in early Christianity people [05:22] who would willfully go to martyrdom, who [05:26] would go offer themselves intentionally [05:29] for martyrdom rather than just sit at [05:32] home and let other people be martyed and [05:35] put their piety and their faith on [05:38] display. So being willing to suffer [05:41] violence even to the end of one's life [05:44] was a costly signal. The most costly [05:48] signal. It was a way to give up your [05:50] life to put on display to others how [05:52] faithful you were up to and including [05:55] allowing your family to be killed as [05:58] well. And early Christians also abhored [06:01] violence on the part of the state and on [06:04] the part of others. You have Athanagaras [06:06] of Athens for instance in the second [06:08] century CE saying that Christians cannot [06:10] stand to watch a man being put to death [06:13] even if he deserved it. That's how much [06:15] they hated violence. That's how much [06:17] they loved their neighbor. That's how [06:18] much they cared about human life. So in [06:23] the New Testament, in the early [06:25] Christian reception and interpretation [06:27] of the New Testament, pacifism up to and [06:30] including giving up your own life is [06:33] endorsed. Now, I'm not saying that's [06:36] correct. I don't think that is correct. [06:39] And early Christians quickly changed [06:41] their mind. You had a number of [06:43] authorities saying, "Let's pump the [06:44] brakes a little bit. We're losing a lot [06:47] of our people because of this. This is [06:49] not helping us at all. People just [06:51] putting on display their piety doesn't [06:54] really help the situation. And it's not [06:57] just with pacifism and violence. You [07:00] also had people who were literally [07:01] interpreting Jesus's statement about how [07:04] the real ones are going to make [07:05] themselves Unix for the kingdom of [07:07] heaven. You had Christian men castrating [07:10] themselves. And by the time of Nika, you [07:13] have these canon laws saying no one is [07:16] fit for the clergy who has castrated [07:18] himself. So again, they were saying, [07:20] "Whoa, let's pump the brakes on these [07:22] displays of piety." Practically, they [07:25] don't make an awful lot of sense. Now, [07:28] that is not saying we're going to [07:30] uncover the true meaning of what Jesus [07:32] said. It's saying the application of [07:34] what Jesus said needs some curation. We [07:37] are going to fiddle with this a little [07:39] bit. And interestingly enough, the [07:42] degree to which pacifism and a [07:44] willingness to sacrifice one's own self [07:47] and one's family rather than engage in [07:51] violent defense [07:53] is modulated by the proximity to power. [07:58] Once Christianity gained imperial power, [08:01] it's kind of interesting how quickly [08:03] pacifism went away and how quickly we [08:06] decided, okay, violence is okay in some [08:09] cases. And then we get the Augustian [08:11] doctrine of just war. And I think [08:14] there's a better ethical undergirling [08:17] for things like just war and defensive [08:20] actions. So I'm not saying this radical [08:23] pacifism up to and including giving up [08:25] your own life and the life of your [08:27] family. rather than engage in violent [08:29] defense is most ethical or is correct. [08:33] We've got to negotiate with that one way [08:35] or another. But the notion that this is [08:39] an endorsement or an authorization of [08:42] saying I'm going to end the life of any [08:45] man who tries to sexually assault my [08:47] wife is pretty silly. that is going [08:50] above and beyond reasonable [08:53] interpretations of the application of [08:56] what Jesus was talking about in the [08:58] Gospels to just basically divesting the [09:01] Jesus of the Gospels with all of his [09:03] content and wearing his skin like a [09:06] suits to endorse whatever your own [09:08] personal perspective is. This is just [09:11] saying, well, Jesus says I can be a [09:13] monster if I want to. This is Jordan [09:15] Peterson's attempts to make meekness [09:18] into just belligerent raging violence [09:21] that is controlled so that it can be set [09:24] free in the circumstances where it is [09:26] necessary. This is again laughably [09:29] insincere and juvenile rhetoric. This is [09:31] just a power fantasy that wants to [09:33] leverage and appropriate the authority [09:35] of Jesus to authorize and validate that [09:39] insincere and juvenile power fantasy. [09:42] This is the worship of power because [09:45] this is a Christian nationalist who [09:47] perceives a close proximity between [09:50] Christianity and power and wants to [09:52] exploit the opportunity to wield that [09:55] power. This is a small man thinking [09:58] small thoughts, speaking small rhetoric [10:00] just to try to make himself feel bigger. [10:04] >> Christian ethics has been wildly widely [10:06] bastardized by progressive leftists as [10:08] being some kind of like hippie religion. [10:09] It is definitely not and never has been [10:12] and I don't know where that came from. [10:13] >> Well, mainly from a competent grasp of [10:16] Christian history and ethics. [10:19] >> Yes, it's true. The teachings of Jesus [10:21] Christ are very heavy on loving your [10:23] neighbor and understanding forgiveness [10:25] and understanding the mode of sin and [10:27] that most people are going to engage in [10:28] sin. So, we need the forgiveness of [10:30] Jesus Christ for that. That's true. But [10:32] it's not a pacifistic religion and it [10:35] never has been a p Jesus told one of his [10:37] disciples to sell a cloak and buy a [10:38] sword. [10:39] >> So here we see what texts are given more [10:41] weight in this individual's negotiations [10:44] with the text because the New Testament [10:47] overwhelmingly [10:48] asserts emphasizes demands peace and [10:53] forgiveness and nonviolence. But we go [10:56] to one passage, Luke 22:36, where Jesus [11:00] says to sell your cloak and buy a sword. [11:02] And then he goes on to say, because the [11:04] scripture must be fulfilled that says he [11:06] was found among the lawless. And then [11:09] Peter says, well, we've got two swords [11:11] here. And Jesus says, it is enough. And [11:15] most scholars would say this is to [11:17] facilitate the brief skirmish that [11:19] breaks out when Jesus is arrested. and [11:22] the sword is used to cut off one of the [11:26] officials ears and Jesus then stops the [11:28] violence immediately. And so that [11:31] fulfills the scripture that he was [11:33] counted among the lawless. And so most [11:35] scholars would say this rather unique [11:37] rather out of character advocacy for [11:40] carrying illegal weapons was probably [11:44] just intended to tell that story in a [11:47] way that fulfills prophecy. So, the [11:50] author of the Gospel of Luke has [11:52] probably received this tradition of a [11:54] sword being used in retaliation at [11:57] Jesus's arrest and then tells the story [12:00] in a way that has Jesus say, "Oh, by the [12:02] way, we've got this situationally [12:04] emergent need for a couple of swords. [12:07] Let's get a couple of swords." And in [12:09] that way, we fulfill this prophecy as [12:12] well. So that takes this potentially [12:16] uncharacteristic violence and subsumes [12:18] it within this prophecy about Jesus [12:21] being counted among the lawless. So in [12:24] absolutely no way, shape or form [12:26] whatsoever is this an endorsement by [12:28] Jesus or by the author of the Gospel of [12:30] Luke of violent retaliation against [12:34] authority. The authors of the New [12:36] Testament are overwhelmingly writing [12:38] from a minoritized and largely oppressed [12:42] position. So they don't really have the [12:45] luxury of being able to advocate for [12:48] violence. Again, it's proximity to power [12:52] that allows violence to be endorsed. And [12:54] they are pretty far away from power. And [12:57] what this particular Christian [12:59] nationalist is showing is that the [13:02] closer that Christianity is to power, [13:05] the more it's going to worship that [13:06] power and the more it's going to endorse [13:09] the mechanisms for achieving and for [13:12] maintaining that power. And in this [13:14] instance, specifically violence. So this [13:17] individual takes a single passage that [13:20] is pretty much entirely unique [13:22] throughout the entire New Testament and [13:24] holds it up to subordinate all of the [13:27] other advocation for peace and [13:29] nonviolence to it and saying no this [13:32] allows me to endorse violence because [13:36] this individual perceives a proximity to [13:39] power that they would like to exploit. [13:41] So that demonstrates they are [13:43] negotiating with the text in order to [13:46] let the text authorize and endorse the [13:49] position they already had when they came [13:51] to the text. Endorse their prior, [13:54] endorse their advocacy for violence, [13:56] their nationalism. It is just [13:58] appropriating the authority of scripture [14:01] to authorize, validate, and endorse [14:04] their own right-wing authoritarianism [14:07] and juvenile violence fantasies. [14:10] But these were not pacifists. Jesus ran [14:12] money changers out of a temple that with [14:14] a braided uh cord that he made out of [14:16] leather and whipped them out of the [14:18] temple. So overwhelmingly the New [14:21] Testament is pacifist in its [14:23] orientation. But this is another example [14:25] of taking a minority position, in fact a [14:29] rather idiosyncratic received tradition [14:32] and pushing it to the front of the line [14:33] and suggesting that this govern how we [14:35] interpret any of the puditive pacifist [14:38] rhetoric that we find throughout the [14:40] majority of the rest of the New [14:41] Testament. So again, this is [14:43] demonstrating that this process of [14:46] negotiation is motivated by a desire to [14:49] find authorization for a prior [14:52] positionality. Specifically, I want to [14:55] be a monster. I want to be violent. I [14:57] want to play out these juvenile revenge [15:01] vengeance uh power fantasies. Because [15:04] when you look at the way that the [15:06] cleansing of the temple is represented [15:08] and contextualized in the gospels, it is [15:10] represented as Jesus as the authorized [15:13] agent of God's power and authority [15:15] exercising that authority within God's [15:18] own house is another situationally [15:22] emergent need for a specific action that [15:25] Jesus alone has the authority to [15:29] fulfill. So again, this is not an [15:32] endorsement of violence. This is a [15:35] specific received tradition that the [15:37] gospel authors worked into their [15:39] narrative in a way that allowed them to [15:42] represent that tradition that people [15:44] knew about without actually suggesting [15:47] it endorses violence. And once again, [15:49] the notion that it does endorse a [15:51] violent predisposition conflicts with [15:54] the overwhelming majority of the rest of [15:56] the New Testament conflicts with the [15:58] broader position of the authors of the [16:00] New Testament visav violence and [16:03] pacifism. Overwhelmingly, the authors of [16:05] the New Testament advocate for [16:07] nonviolent resistance to this imperial [16:12] power that is oppressing them and that [16:14] vastly outnumbers them. So they realize [16:16] they don't really have a chance by [16:18] advocating for violence. And so the only [16:21] time that they do actually represent [16:23] violence is Jesus himself exercising his [16:27] divine authority within his father's own [16:30] house. Jesus is not going out and doing [16:33] this to Romans because the New Testament [16:36] authors know better than to suggest, [16:39] hey, you should go out and be violent [16:41] against Romans as well. They know that's [16:43] a losing battle. So, this is an attempt [16:47] to try to configure the rhetoric of the [16:50] New Testament in a way that allows you [16:54] to authorize and endorse your own [16:56] violent power fantasies with the New [16:59] Testament and it is overturning what the [17:02] authors are actually trying to do with [17:04] these stories in the process. [17:05] >> So, like I don't I don't know where the [17:07] idea of pacifism came from. [17:09] >> So, this individual doesn't know where [17:10] this came from because he's not a [17:12] particularly informed individual. He's [17:14] not a particularly insightful, much less [17:16] critical thinker. He's not a [17:18] particularly competent engager with the [17:20] history or the text or the ethics [17:22] because this whole conversation is about [17:24] advocating for this notion that the US [17:26] is and always has been and should return [17:28] to being a more decidedly Christian [17:30] nation. But he has to wildly [17:33] misunderstand, misrepresent, and [17:35] caricature the history, the texts, and [17:37] the ethics in order for his rhetorical [17:41] performances to land with the target [17:43] audience because it's a particular brand [17:45] of right-wing authoritarian and social [17:47] dominance orientation Christianity for [17:50] which he's advocating, which doesn't [17:51] really line up with the enlightenment [17:55] era Christianity of the founders to the [17:58] degree it can be called Christian. and [18:00] he's advocating directly over and [18:02] against a lot of the moral character of [18:05] the foundation of the United States that [18:08] he is suggesting is the foundation we [18:11] need to return to. For instance, the [18:14] discussion that led into this particular [18:16] clip that I found on Twitter was the [18:18] question of where rights come from and [18:20] how they are enforced and a secular [18:22] state has no other choice but to use [18:24] force uh if you're not using God. And [18:27] then the question is asked, well, how do [18:30] you using scripture or God assert your [18:32] right to not wear a face mask during a [18:34] global pandemic? And he responds, oh [18:37] well, you have to use force and the [18:38] scriptures allow you to use force. [18:41] That's when we get into the conversation [18:43] that I am responding to. However, if you [18:47] go back and look at the founding of the [18:49] nation, uh, you had the states [18:52] themselves. And earlier in the clip, [18:54] this individual talks about how the [18:56] states were Christian states and they [19:00] had official state religions and that [19:03] slowly went away, but that should be the [19:06] standard. Well, okay. Let's look in the [19:08] late 18th century when in a bunch of [19:11] outbreaks of yellow fever, states [19:13] imposed very strict regulations to try [19:18] to mitigate the spread of yellow fever, [19:20] including quarantining, including having [19:22] checkpoints, including restricting [19:25] travel, keeping people in their towns, [19:28] not allowing them to leave. There were [19:30] all kinds of oppressive measures that [19:32] went well above and beyond what happened [19:35] during CO. But this individual is [19:38] saying, "Well, I need to use force to [19:40] assert my right to not follow those [19:43] restrictions." Well, that is advocating [19:45] directly against the kind of Christian [19:49] state religion that you're trying to [19:51] advocate for returning to. Additionally, [19:54] when you look at the founders, they [19:57] liked this idea of civic virtue, which [20:00] referred to a willingness and a [20:02] discipline and an ability on an [20:04] individual's part to prioritize the [20:07] greater good over and against their own [20:11] particular needs and desires where the [20:13] circumstances put the two at odds with [20:16] each other. And it was the revolutionary [20:20] war that led folks like Washington and [20:22] others to realize we do not have enough [20:24] civic virtue in this nation for the [20:27] republic to function the way that we [20:29] want it to. And this is one of the [20:31] reasons that there were a lot more [20:32] checks and balances placed in the [20:35] constitution because they realized that [20:37] not enough people had a desire to uphold [20:40] the greater good for the republic to [20:42] work the way they expected a republic to [20:45] work. And so by saying, well, I've got [20:49] to use force to assert my right to not [20:51] wear a mask. This individual is [20:53] rejecting civic virtue, is saying, I'm [20:55] not for that. My individual needs and [20:58] desires take priority over the greater [21:01] good. So in attempting to try to build [21:06] up this performative case for Christian [21:09] nationalism and specifically a [21:11] belligerently mindless and stupid [21:14] right-wing authoritarian and social [21:16] dominance orientation brand of Christian [21:18] nationalism, this individual is doing [21:21] the same thing with the history of the [21:24] US that it is doing with the scriptures. [21:28] In other words, ignoring, divesting the [21:30] scriptures of their content and their [21:33] history in order to appropriate them as [21:36] the proof text, appropriate the skin to [21:39] wear as the authorization of your own [21:42] individual needs and desires and [21:44] identity politics. They're doing that [21:45] with the history of the nation as well. [21:47] Divesting the US of its history, of its [21:51] moral character in order to wear its [21:54] skin just to authorize and validate and [21:58] proof text your own understanding of [22:01] what it should mean to be a Christian [22:03] nation. So again, this person doesn't [22:05] know where this is coming from because [22:07] they're not particularly wellinformed. [22:08] They're not a particularly insightful, [22:10] much less critical thinker. And they're [22:12] not a particularly competent engager [22:14] with the history or the text or the [22:17] ethics. They're just performing this [22:19] rhetoric as a proxy for an argument [22:22] because it has convinced them in their [22:25] naivity. [22:27] And they know that it will convince the [22:29] target audience, which just like them [22:31] just wants the states to do their own [22:34] personal bidding and work the way they [22:36] would like it to work. irrespective of [22:39] what others think. And this is just not [22:42] an intelligent or an informed way to go [22:44] about this discussion. And the fit for [22:47] this video, it is Rick and Morty.  📄 **Full text:** ![[Full Document Contents/Articles/A Christian Nationalist Case for Violence.md|A Christian Nationalist Case for Violence? by YouTube]] ## Highlights - The lamb slaughtered is the symbol of Jesus's overcoming and Jesus's followers are supposed to follow suit. So there is a degree to which self-sacrifice in the face of violence is endorsed in the New Testament. And you can find other parts of the Bible. You're primarily going to have to go to the Hebrew Bible to find it, but you can find other parts of the Bible that would endorse a defensive posture. And so you're negotiating with ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kqw32203m8fzn7pttc9fkfvh)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted - in a way that has Jesus say, "Oh, by the way, we've got this situationally emergent need for a couple of swords. Let's get a couple of swords." And in that way, we fulfill this prophecy as well. So that takes this potentially uncharacteristic violence and subsumes it within this prophecy about Jesus being counted among the lawless. So in absolutely no way, shape or form whatsoever is this an endorsement by Jesus or by the author of the Gospel of ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kqw3221sg46p7yrvntmwd2yx)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted - and pushing it to the front of the line and suggesting that this govern how we interpret any of the puditive pacifist rhetoric that we find throughout the majority of the rest of the New Testament. So again, this is demonstrating that this process of negotiation is motivated by a desire to find authorization for a prior positionality. Specifically, I want to be a monster. I want to be violent. I want to play out these juvenile revenge ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kqw3223s7eztg91rhj310kd4)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted - house. Jesus is not going out and doing this to Romans because the New Testament authors know better than to suggest, hey, you should go out and be violent against Romans as well. They know that's a losing battle. So, this is an attempt to try to configure the rhetoric of the New Testament in a way that allows you to authorize and endorse your own violent power fantasies with the New Testament and it is overturning what the ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kqw3225sdjtztvjn1fd2q8n5)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted