Good Faith Over Bad
Elevate decency and sense over domination
Yesterday, The Bulwark published an essay in which religion scholar Matthew D. Taylor described the political and social force of the extremist New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) movement within Christianity. Here are some highlights:
The NAR is the backbone of Christian Trumpism, offering not only theological rationales but supernatural prophecies to support Trump, and they have inspired other Christians to rally around the embattled former president, as well.
[...]
[Its faith leaders] are some of the key brokers of today’s evangelical alignment around Donald Trump. And in the chaotic season between the 2020 election and the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021, NAR leaders were enormously influential mobilizers who convinced many right-wing Christians to turn out for the storming of the United States Capitol.
[...]
These days, there is a lot of talk about Christian nationalism, a catchall term for a largely inchoate political theology that takes America to be a nation built by and for Christians. While Christian nationalist ideology has given rise to a variety of specific theological expressions and assumes a number of forms, politically, the NAR occupies the extreme end of the Christian nationalist spectrum. Proponents of NAR teaching believe that Christians need to “conquer” key positions of influence in society (often referred to as the “Seven Mountains of Societal Influence”) so that they can “reform” society into a Christian utopia. It is not hyperbole to call the NAR a Christian supremacist movement that is intent upon a spiritual takeover of society.
The prompt for Taylor’s essay, which shares insights from his forthcoming book, was the January 31 convening of the second annual National Gathering for Prayer and Repentance. Rep. Mike Johnson was a leader and organizer of this event both in its initial year and again now that he is speaker.
Read Taylor’s entire essay for profiles of some of the Gathering’s speakers. Among them are people who champion the notion that their understanding of religious law ought to trump (so to speak) the U.S. Constitution and who ginned up righteous religious anger among their followers and even appear to have joined with administration officials in planning violence on January 6.
In sum, as Taylor noted, Speaker Johnson “spent hours praying with the Christian leaders who did the most to encourage religious participation in what became the Capitol riot.”
To me, it is independently horrifying both (a) generally, that such a movement is so prevalent and powerful in our society and politics, and (b) specifically, that a leader of the movement is the Speaker of the House of Representatives, second in the line of succession to the presidency.
I shared Taylor’s essay and communicated this impression in a post in the private Facebook group Decent and Sensible Dialogue (new members welcome!). Another member of the group responded to my post as follows:
What’s horrifying is an ideology, which controls a large portion of the country, that believes anyone who prays and votes for the other party is a violent insurrectionist.
Every religion that proselytizes, i.e. every major religion except Judaism, seeks a spiritual takeover of society.
This article is hyperbolic and inflammatory.
I replied that this response itself appears to be “hyperbolic and inflammatory” and politely invited the other member to “make your case” – which the other member committed to do. I look forward to updating as to that in the comments section of this essay.
Meanwhile, I would like to express here some of the rebuttal that I anticipate making and also make a larger point.
I do not consider “anyone who prays and votes for the other party [to be] a violent insurrectionist” and I rather doubt that Matthew Taylor does either. It may suit demagogues to impute such an attitude and to stoke division and grievance by doing so. One need not credit such an imputation.
I strongly oppose those who, though they would not engage in violent insurrection themselves, are comfortable with or even support those who do engage in it. Such support and/or complacency is a marker of a great and dangerous sickness in our society. I would invite my interlocutor to state agreement or disagreement with my view.
One may stipulate for the purpose of this discussion that every major religion save Judaism contains text advocating the religion’s dominance over society. The point, however, is that adherents of a given religion need not seek to advance such an agenda. For instance, Russell D. Moore was a prominent leader of the Southern Baptist Convention before breaking with it and becoming editor of Christianity Today. In his 2023 book Losing Our Religion (among many other venues), Moore made very clear his opposition to the kind of Christian nationalism that is central to the NAR project. Similarly, David French (among many other prominent conservative Christians) has been very outspoken about what he perceives to be the corruption of conservative Christianity (see, for instance, a column from July 2023 and another from November 2023).
In the event my interlocutor comes through with a response (perhaps I will give a nudge), I likely will reply consistent with the points above.
The larger point I would like to make is with regard to the very practice of engaging in such decent and sensible dialogue. It is a theme to which I often return, including notably in an essay I published last November.
It is easy to give in to negative impulses that bubble up when one encounters someone espousing wrong-headed and dangerous views. Cathartic even! However, one better advances the cause of democracy by resisting such impulses. By all means, engage in the political process with fierce determination. Organize! Contribute! Speak up! Vote!
Also, though, as much as possible model civility and dignity. Rather than mirror that which you oppose, seek to draw support from those who would value the positive contrast you can demonstrate.
I will have more to say on this topic – and also about the danger of Christian nationalism – soon.
Great read, highly appreciated! I used to think these evangelical “folk” were just undereducated, basically ignorant, easily manipulated but wearing clown shoes. Now we have Pennywise and The Children of the Corn.
100%