Thread: Evangelicals and fascism Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020061
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I was trying to decide if this thought fitted on any existing thread and thought maybe it was too much of a tangent.
So the background is that I have been thinking about the Holocaust, 1930s Germany and the contemporary rise of fascism.
Anyway, I was in an Evangelical church (small, non denom, typical of this area) this morning and the preacher was talking about the Beatitudes. He was being fairly direct but wasn't really a shouty Hell-and-Brimstone preacher.
At the end of a fairly ordinary half-baked discussion of the Beatitudes, he launched into a rant about the declining moral standards of society in particular focussing on gay marriage.
It is a long time since I've heard that kind of statement preached from the front, but it made me think about whether Evangelicals in particular leave themselves open to fascist tendencies because presumably a candidate who focuses on push button issues for Evangelicals (abortion, gay marriage) sounds more similar to the message from the front than one talking about protecting refugees.
As my wife said afterwards, this position is incoherent anyway - on one hand evangelicals talk about doing things that are "against the worldly way of things" and the importance of taking a personal conscience position. On the other hand they seem to think it is appropriate to use the state to enforce politically their religious view on everyone else.
I also wondered if we are seeing the beginning of a Bonhoeffer style Confessing church. It is hard to see gay marriage as more of a problem than fascism and Trumpism, in my opinion, even if you believe gay marriage is evil. Either we oppose fascism or we are appeasing it.
Thoughts?
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
I wouldn't have wanted to sit through that sermon mr. Cheesy.
We do seem to have entered a period in history where many folk are hell bent on calling each other nazis.
It really is quite difficult to see where things are headed at present. A lot of things are messing with a lot of people's heads and... (switching of the irony detector for a moment), mass internet communication doesn't appear to be helping much.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Mmm well I think fascism is quite well defined and people can legitimately call something fascism when it is fascism. Nazism is not a term I use because it has deeper implications even beyond fascism and one risks hyperbole by bandying it about.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by mr cheesy;
quote:
As my wife said afterwards, this position is incoherent anyway - on one hand evangelicals talk about doing things that are "against the worldly way of things" and the importance of taking a personal conscience position. On the other hand they seem to think it is appropriate to use the state to enforce politically their religious view on everyone else.
Which is why I'm an Anabaptist rather than that (actually rather less 'Bible-believing' ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
) kind of evangelical....
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Which is why I'm an Anabaptist rather than that (actually rather less 'Bible-believing' ) kind of evangelical....
1. Not sure anyone cares
2. Not sure that this really counts as a meaningful contribution to this topic anyway.
I am not an evangelical. That's got nothing to do with the OP either.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
I'm with Steve on this.
And I would also say that, in my experience, many evangelicals tend to prioritise "personal ethics" issues (including marriage etc.) above the wider ills of society (human rights abuses, political injustice, wealth inequality) which, to my mind, are more important. I'm not sure why that should be so, and of course it's not universal.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Mmm well I think fascism is quite well defined ...
Since it's been my experience that people have found it all to easy to trade 'fascist' about as a convenient insult, to take this discussion anywhere useful, I think you'll need to define exactly what you understand the words 'fascism' and 'fascist' to mean.
Do you mean:-
-Anything vaguely more right wing than you are?
-Being a follower of Mussolini?
-Conducting public affairs based on authoritarianism?
-Demagoguery as a substitute for a political philosophy?
-Enterprise being supported or otherwise depending on whether it furthers the state's goals?
Or what?
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
Ethics is by nature an interpersonal exercise. Morals are intrapersonal. The inability of evangelicals to tell the difference is responsible for a lot of the mess the Church of England is in now. It tries to do ethics as if they were really morals.
The substitution of moral for ethics in turn creates the quietism which becomes fascism when it fully embraces its own deep lack of concern for anything beyond its own boundaries, unless it has the exciting opportunity to condemn it for not resembling what is within them.
[ 29. January 2017, 16:06: Message edited by: ThunderBunk ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Yes, that's a fair challenge.
Wikipedia defines it better than I can, but I'd say in brief it is a tendency to believe that blame for society's ills can be put onto particular groups of people; that the solution is to have the "correct" people in charge and a tendency towards militarism, authoritarianism, violent crackdowns and the erosion of civil liberties.
Where it intersects with Evangelicals is that in the 1930s it drew popular support by appealing to causes which were on the minds of the respectable and the religious whilst at the same time punishing those defined as weak.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
The connection between Evangelicals and fascism is shown in Sinclair Lewis's "It Can't Happen Here" published in 1935.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
There are several definitions of fascism around, some of the 'here are eleven traits, pick any eight' variety.
I'd say you need a combination of populism, authoritarianism, and militarism.
Militarism is the glorification of war, and a desire to run the country as much as possible like an army.
Authoritarianism is the cult of a strong leader, and suppression of dissent.
Populism is an appeal to 'the people'.
Combined with authoritarianism, populism becomes a movement defining the people against various groups within society who are Not part of the people. It is anti-egalitarian although happy to attack elites that are opposed to its agenda. It's also anti-intellectual where the intellectual criticises the agenda.
Posted by roybart (# 17357) on
:
Attributed ( probably incorrectly ) to Sinclair Lewis: quote:
When fascism comes to America it will be carrying a flag and waving a cross.
Key phrase, it seems to me, is "to America." This may have to do with the USA'S distinct history and mix of cultures. I'm not so sure about European evangelicals
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
It horrifies me. My prayer today in church was that the church could be a witness to righteousness, rather than abetting evil. I immediately felt that this was not a prayer that was going to get an OK from above.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by roybart:
I'm not so sure about European evangelicals
I'm all but certain a significant number of French evangelicals will vote Marine Le Pen in both rounds of our forthcoming presidential election and do so through a combination of misplaced nationalism and "Christian" values.
Her niece, Marion Maréchal-Le Pen, is the grand-daughter of an Assemblies of God pastor not too far from where I live (although not protestant-friendly in her soundbites).
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I would suggest that any strongly held religious position could, under the right (or wrong) circumstances be channelled in an unhealthy or fascistic direction.
The RC Church in Franco's Spain for instance.
Or Pentecostalism under Rios Montt in Guatemala.
It's something we all have to be vigilant about.
What I'm also wary of, though, is the use of the term 'fascism' in a very loose sense.
I think we'd be better looking for alternative terms - 'extreme authoritarianism', 'extreme nationalism' etc ...
There's such a thing as 'Islamo-Fascism' of course characterised by extreme anti-Semitism and scarily fundamentalist approaches to issues of morality, sexuality and so on.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I absolutely believe there are fascist tendencies in many religious groups, but that wasn't what I was asking. Let's not get into whataboutery.
Incidentally, I think a "fascist tendency" is to give tacit support to fascists, one isn't necessarily a fascist oneself. I think overt evangelical fascists are rare.
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on
:
Mr Cheesy: quote:
it made me think about whether Evangelicals in particular leave themselves open to fascist tendencies because presumably a candidate who focuses on push button issues for Evangelicals (abortion, gay marriage) sounds more similar to the message from the front than one talking about protecting refugees
I have a number of issues with this.
1. Do you really believe that issues such as abortion, gay marriage are specifically Evangelical issue as opposed to Conservative Christian issues? I was not aware that either the RCC or the Orthodox churches are soft on these. So I think your argument should be framed in terms of socially conservative christians.
2. Most people would define Fascism as entailing the suppression of democracy, and would see the two evils twins as Communism (totalitarianism of the Left) and Fascism (ditto of the right). Where we have had fascist governments in Spain, Portugal, Venezuela etc, these have all been in Catholic countries and supported by the RCC, which means that Evangelicals were often given a hard time (e.g. in Franco's Spain) and are therefore pretty prejudiced against fascism, which they see as a Catholic aberration, generally conceded now as a thing of the past. I've never met any Evangelicals who are not strongly pro-democracy, especially if they are from a Dissenting tradition.
3. I do agree with you that Christians in general are stronger on private morality than political morality, and I think this is one area where Evos are weaker through standing aside from politics. Of course, from about 30-ish years ago, the US Republican party successfully politicised the Evo church, such that it is now associated in many minds with support of Trump, largely for the reasons you gave..
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
I have a number of issues with this.
1. Do you really believe that issues such as abortion, gay marriage are specifically Evangelical issue as opposed to Conservative Christian issues? I was not aware that either the RCC or the Orthodox churches are soft on these. So I think your argument should be framed in terms of socially conservative christians.
Whataboutery. I'm not asking about the Orthodox or RCC largely because I don't know anything much about them.
And no, I don't believe that all Conservative Evangelicals believe in influencing the law on gay marriage to try to get the whole country to conform to their norms.
quote:
2. Most people would define Fascism as entailing the suppression of democracy, and would see the two evils twins as Communism (totalitarianism of the Left) and Fascism (ditto of the right). Where we have had fascist governments in Spain, Portugal, Venezuela etc, these have all been in Catholic countries and supported by the RCC, which means that Evangelicals were often given a hard time (e.g. in Franco's Spain) and are therefore pretty prejudiced against fascism, which they see as a Catholic aberration, generally conceded now as a thing of the past. I've never met any Evangelicals who are not strongly pro-democracy, especially if they are from a Dissenting tradition.
Again I'm not getting into whayaboutery. I know plenty of Evangelicals who believe that the State should enforce their views on abortion and gay marriage and who are therefore anti-democracy in the sense of not accepting that they live in a plural society and not accepting that the State needs to be fair to everyone.
quote:
3. I do agree with you that Christians in general are stronger on private morality than political morality, and I think this is one area where Evos are weaker through standing aside from politics. Of course, from about 30-ish years ago, the US Republican party successfully politicised the Evo church, such that it is now associated in many minds with support of Trump, largely for the reasons you gave..
I'm not sure I said that. I said that Evangelicals often seem to want to spread their beliefs into wider society by political influence.
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on
:
Mr Cheesy: quote:
Again I'm not getting into whayaboutery.
Why then did you specifically question whether Evangelicals had these problems, as opposed to Chritians? Has you not done so I would not have pointed out that your argument doesn't really work as a specific critique of Evangelicals.
I don't know how well you understand evangelicals, given you admit you are not one. Neither am I but I was for many years.
It's easier to see problems in traditions that are not yours.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Why then did you specifically question whether Evangelicals had these problems, as opposed to Chritians? Has you not done so I would not have pointed out that your argument doesn't really work as a specific critique of Evangelicals.
Huh? No idea what that means.
quote:
I don't know how well you understand evangelicals, given you admit you are not one. Neither am I but I was for many years.
It's easier to see problems in traditions that are not yours.
I have been in and around various Evangelicals in Evangelical, Baptist and Charismatic Anglican circles for decades. I don't know everything there is to know about Evangelicals outside of the circles I have moved in, but I know what I know.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Sure, but I must admit I was also wondering why you were singling out evangelicals rather than conservative Christians of whatever stripe?
Was it because you happened to attend an evangelical church this morning?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
It's easier to see problems in traditions that are not yours.
Actually I'd say it's just the opposite. I know things about Orthodoxy that most of you non-O's have no idea about. Conversely Lamb Chopped could probably tell us things about the WI Synod that we otherwise wouldn't have even suspected.
It may be easier to condemn others' problems and justify our own, but it's far easier to see our own.
[ 29. January 2017, 18:39: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on
:
Mousethief: quote:
It may be easier to condemn others' problems and justify our own, but it's far easier to see our own.
Actually yes, I think that's correct, so I withdraw my comment.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel: Sure, but I must admit I was also wondering why you were singling out evangelicals rather than conservative Christians of whatever stripe?
Was it because you happened to attend an evangelical church this morning?
Err possibly but I don't see how that invalidates my thought.
Maybe other Conservatives seek to influence the law in this way, I have no idea. And I'm not really able to engage with that tangent.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Which is why I'm an Anabaptist rather than that (actually rather less 'Bible-believing' ) kind of evangelical....
1. Not sure anyone cares
2. Not sure that this really counts as a meaningful contribution to this topic anyway.
I am not an evangelical. That's got nothing to do with the OP either.
On 1) it seems that you do care (though of course negatively) that there are evangelicals who "think it is appropriate to use the state to enforce politically their religious view on everyone else". I'd have thought you ought to also care that there are evangelicals who take a different view to that and who might do so because they are more consistent with the Bible than the evangelicals you complain of.
On 2) As evangelicals who don't seek political enforcement of their views by the state are pretty much by definition 'anti-fascist' (and you know, as I do, the UK 'Hutterites' who fled Nazi German persecution), I'd have thought such evangelicals quite relevant to a thread on "Evangelicals and fascism" - and to its OP as well.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Time for my Jim Wallis story, I think.
Jim was brought up with conservative evangelicals, rebelled against that over both civil rights and Vietnam, but returned to the church in the early 70s, seeking to proclaim a much more radical understanding than the one he was taught. But as a result of his repentance, he and a couple of like minded young Christians used to get invitations to speak at conservative evangelical churches. They did not often get invited back, and this story might explain why.
He and his friends used to turn up at these churches with a Bible which had apparently been defaced. Sections were cut out of pages, whole chapters were missing. This Bible was a sorry, tattered mess.
The first act in the talk was to show this defaced bible, and the initial response was nearly always outrage. Then came the introductory kicker.
"This is Bible from which we have removed every reference to God's heart for the poor, the marginalised and oppressed, and what our response should be to them.
IS THIS YOUR BIBLE?"
And then, into the inevitable shock, they would quote from the missing passages to illustrate that both a personal and social concern for the poor, the oppressed and the marginalised was not an optional extra for people of faith, but a Divine imperative.
Now what evangelicals have in common is a high view of scripture. But for a whole lot of historical reasons, there is partial amnesia in many parts of evangelicalism about this widespread content in scripture. As others have indicated, for too many people, faith has become over-personalised, individualised, privatised. The worst form of this is the so-called "prosperity gospel", but there are milder versions of the same disease.
This is not a universal criticism. But it is a justifiable criticism, one that evangelicals need to hear.
Once you "get" that criticism, I do not see how it is possible for the changed understanding to co-exist with any kind of fascism.
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on
:
Barnabas:
Do you think that may be due to a sort of neo-Marcionism whereby the OT was rather relegated, which matters, as it is there that you find most of the social teaching.
This was particularly a feature of Dispensationalism, which is still influential, even if not believed as literally as it was by Schofield et al. Hence the evangelical retreat from politics with the view that the world was going to Hell in a handcart, and we just had to hunker down. There was no longer any christian nation and care for the poor tended to become limited to members of your religious group.
One thing with this was, that you didn't get your hand dirty, because once the Church involves with politics, it will get it wrong quite a lot of the time. My alma mater, the JWs, were like this, and it did mean that they did well in countries where other christians had collaborated, say with Franco or the Communists. But they exercise no imfluence for good in wider society.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
This was particularly a feature of Dispensationalism, which is still influential, even if not believed as literally as it was by Schofield et al. Hence the evangelical retreat from politics with the view that the world was going to Hell in a handcart, and we just had to hunker down. There was no longer any christian nation and care for the poor tended to become limited to members of your religious group.
Then Reagan came and, in the US at least, dragged the Evangelicals out of their hidey-hole and back into political activism, although only on two subjects.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
And I would also say that, in my experience, many evangelicals tend to prioritise "personal ethics" issues (including marriage etc.) above the wider ills of society (human rights abuses, political injustice, wealth inequality) which, to my mind, are more important. I'm not sure why that should be so, and of course it's not universal.
It was not of course always thus, given the importance of evangelicalism in the campaign to abolish the slave trade.
Looking at Wilberforce's campaign record, he was paternalistic - against measures to allow union representation for example, but for measures to reform factory conditions. Also, he helped found the RSPCA (Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals).
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Yes, I'd thought of Wilberforce. But I was thinking of "now".
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
anteater
I'm trying to avoid the "true Scotsman" excuse. Personally, I think the gospels are also packed full of moral imperatives about Christian behaviour to the poor, oppressed and marginalised. So I guess both cessationism and dispensationalism tend to place a greater emphasis on Pauline teaching re personal salvation and the imminence of the parousia. I don't think that is particularly Marcionite in outlook, rather an unbalanced view of both scripture and tradition taken as a whole.
The DH dimension of this has been discussed there, particularly with reference to Steve Chalke, whose radicalism re the gay issue and social responsibility has got him into hot water with many UK evangelicals. Personally I think Steve is more of a "true Scotsman" than his critics. But I'm in a minority.
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Which is why I'm an Anabaptist rather than that (actually rather less 'Bible-believing' ) kind of evangelical....
1. Not sure anyone cares
2. Not sure that this really counts as a meaningful contribution to this topic anyway.
I am not an evangelical. That's got nothing to do with the OP either.
Aaaaa...but you misunderstand what an Anabaptist is.
Way back nigh on 500 years ago, the European state you lived in automatically decided what your religion was. Even after the Reformation, state decided religion did not really change in most of Europe.
Now, lots of people rejected this, thus leading to dissenters and other groups. All those groups find their ultimate proto group in the first few Anabaptists, the people who rejected paedo-baptism and thus had to reject the state.
So, yes, as an Anabaptist, the idea that the state should decide what morality is maintained is fundamentally against our beliefs. Thus when anybody talks about the weirdness of such a view, we all generally say "Welcome to our world."
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I have been thinking about the Holocaust, 1930s Germany and the contemporary rise of fascism.
This is a quasi-Godwinian, ridiculously melodramatic ("Confessing Church" indeed; you don't have the faintest understanding of what Bonhoeffer was up against if you imagine it was remotely comparable to your situation) attempt to smear evangelicalism. on about the same adolescent level as calling one's parents or teachers "fascist".
You are just venting and self-dramatising.
All the references to "whataboutery" in the world don't constitute a wriggle-out from the facts that all the features of fascism enumerated are also true of communism, or that Christians have been anti-fascist and victims of fascism, or that when Christians have been involved in political tyranny, they have been just as likely to be RC or Orthodox as evangelical, making your target completely arbitrary.
quote:
a candidate who focuses on push button issues for Evangelicals (abortion, gay marriage) sounds more similar to the message from the front than one talking about protecting refugees.
I have heard far more about refugees than about abortion and gay marriage from the pulpit in my present and former evangelical churches.
And anyway, it is not an either/or situation, because the Bible teaches both social responsibility and personal morality.
quote:
they seem to think it is appropriate to use the state to enforce politically their religious view on everyone else.
All Christians, not just evangelicals, engage in politics in democracies to influence policy in their particular religiously-informed direction.
As for gay marriage, there is no single monolithic evangelical position.
It is possible for evangelicals to think it is silly and meaningless, and wrong theologically/morally, but at the same time support its legalisation on the same civil rights and pluralist grounds as freedom of religion (my own position, FWIW).
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
I don't doubt that, as you assert, you know what you know. You might like to read Robert Paxton's definition of fascism, part of which is in the wikipedia page you mention - part, but only part. That might help with your dealing with the question.
By Paxton's definition, only Mussolini's Italy was purely fascist. In the period between WWI and WW II, many of the governments of Spain, Portugal, Austria, Poland, the Baltic States, Rumania, Yugoslavia and Bulgaria all had strong elements of fascism. Greece did from time to time. None of these was a Protestant country. After WW II, the same could continue to be said of Spain and Portugal, along with Peronist Argentina . Batista's Cuba and most other Central and Southern American countries were old-fashioned military dictatorships. Even extending the description to all these though, you'd not call any Protestant or Evangelical.
So what you have to do is properly define what you mean by both fascist and evangelical, and in neither case use the word as a term of abuse.
FWIW, the only churches here which could be called politically conservative are the groups espousing the prosperity gospel, and they tend not to be concerned with social justice issues. The mainstream churches across the theological spectrum have been strong opponents of the policies of successive governments on refugees, and a range of other social issues. There is much greater disparity on SSM.
I have no idea what you mean by "Whataboutery".
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Many years ago I lived in Portugal and became friendly with an American evangelical missionary family who had arrived in the last year or two of the "Estado Novo" and lived through the 1974 Revolution.
They had arrived with the common American view that right-wing conservative politics and evangelicalism go hand-in-hand; they also had the strong American respect for political freedom. So it came as a shock to them to discover that the ruling regime was both right-wing and repressive; if you like, they experienced a kind of cognitive dissonance.
Matters came to a head when they witnessed riot police brutally breaking up a peaceful anti-Government rally. Although I think that they still held to a fundamentally conservative political mindset, and must have found some of the extreme left-wing parties that were active in late 70s Portugal very distasteful, they remained firmly anti-fascist and committed to the democratic ideal.
Interestingly, folk from their organisation who arrived post-1974 and who witnessed only the inevitable political chaos which followed the Revolution found it hard to understand their point of view.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
So, yes, as an Anabaptist, the idea that the state should decide what morality is maintained is fundamentally against our beliefs. Thus when anybody talks about the weirdness of such a view, we all generally say "Welcome to our world."
Yes. I am aware that anabaptists exist who say that they're not evangelicals (some who say that they were never really part of the Reformation and are therefore not Protestants at all).
In this instance I do actually believe that Anabaptists have something to say to the Evangelical tendency I've described* because they're arguably closer to the Evangelicals (if not actually Evangelical) than most others - my main issue with the reply to Steve Langton was that he was giving a one-line "yes, this is why I'm an anabaptist *smiley face*" stock answer.
*although the history of German Mennonites suggests that when fascism comes, anabaptists were not immune to appeasement either.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
This is a quasi-Godwinian, ridiculously melodramatic ("Confessing Church" indeed; you don't have the faintest understanding of what Bonhoeffer was up against if you imagine it was remotely comparable to your situation) attempt to smear evangelicalism. on about the same adolescent level as calling one's parents or teachers "fascist".
It's not Godwin because I didn't say Evangelicals were Nazis, and I've not even said they are Fascist. I've actually said that there are few open fascist Evangelicals. The point is that the tendency to look to law change on a few hot issues leaves Evangelicals open to electoral pitches on those issues which leads to tacit support for fascism.
And I'd also say that you appear to know little about fascism given that it is always a gradual process. I know a reasonable amount both about how fascism develops and how Bonhoeffer opposed it from the beginning, even before it became obvious how awful it was going to get.
quote:
You are just venting and self-dramatising.
Thanks.
quote:
All the references to "whataboutery" in the world don't constitute a wriggle-out from the facts that all the features of fascism enumerated are also true of communism, or that Christians have been anti-fascist and victims of fascism, or that when Christians have been involved in political tyranny, they have been just as likely to be RC or Orthodox as evangelical, making your target completely arbitrary.
No I don't think it is arbitary for several reasons. First, it may well be the case that the Orthodox in some places are tacit supporters of fascism. I'm not talking about that because I don't know - if you want to talk about it, open a new thread with your knowledge and I'll be interested to read the discussion.
In the countries where most of us are from - primarily the USA, the UK - Evangelicals are a far bigger force than Communists or the Orthodox. It may be true that the Roman Catholics are a stronger force still in the places where we live, I don't know. If you know, start another thread and talk about it if you want to.
The whataboutery (if you don't know what it means, look it up) is an effort to deflect discussion from a specific topic onto a more general topic by saying "ah yes, but what about.." What about nothing. I'm not here talking about anything else than Evangelicals and their susceptibilty to fascism.
quote:
I have heard far more about refugees than about abortion and gay marriage from the pulpit in my present and former evangelical churches.
Interesting and good to know.
quote:
And anyway, it is not an either/or situation, because the Bible teaches both social responsibility and personal morality.
Yes, I see what you are saying here, but as I've described above, there is a tendency within Evangelicalism to equate the one with the other on push-button issues. So we have campaign groups like the Christian Institute in the UK (who I believe have quite a lot of support within a certain section of British Evangelical churches) who campaign to influence the law on those issues.
quote:
All Christians, not just evangelicals, engage in politics in democracies to influence policy in their particular religiously-informed direction.
No they don't. As suggested above, an example of the Anabaptists come to mind who do not believe in the state as a moral actor and thus do not seek to have it enforce their values.
Although I suppose you do highlight an interesting point; if one is an anti-State Anabaptist, is not campaigning, marching, protesting trying to change the state's views? I wonder what the justification for that is.
quote:
As for gay marriage, there is no single monolithic evangelical position.
Correct. I said this above.
quote:
It is possible for evangelicals to think it is silly and meaningless, and wrong theologically/morally, but at the same time support its legalisation on the same civil rights and pluralist grounds as freedom of religion (my own position, FWIW).
Correct, I said that as well.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I don't doubt that, as you assert, you know what you know. You might like to read Robert Paxton's definition of fascism, part of which is in the wikipedia page you mention - part, but only part. That might help with your dealing with the question.
By Paxton's definition, only Mussolini's Italy was purely fascist. In the period between WWI and WW II, many of the governments of Spain, Portugal, Austria, Poland, the Baltic States, Rumania, Yugoslavia and Bulgaria all had strong elements of fascism. Greece did from time to time. None of these was a Protestant country. After WW II, the same could continue to be said of Spain and Portugal, along with Peronist Argentina . Batista's Cuba and most other Central and Southern American countries were old-fashioned military dictatorships. Even extending the description to all these though, you'd not call any Protestant or Evangelical.
I don't accept Paxton's definition and I don't accept that a country can be Protestant or Evangelical. Either way, that's irrelevant because I'm not specifically talking about the country but about the kinds of languages and habits that some Evangelicals habitually use which make them open (to an electoral pitch, let's say) to extreme right-wing politics.
If you don't want to use the word fascist, fine, call it hard right or whatever you like. Why did so many Evangelicals vote for Trump and look to be voting for Le Pen when they otherwise seem to display few attractive Christian characteristics? Could it be because they're promising to do something about the few push-button issues that Evangelicals habitually hear in church?
quote:
So what you have to do is properly define what you mean by both fascist and evangelical, and in neither case use the word as a term of abuse.
I'm not using Evangelical as a term of abuse. I'm using fascist in a narrow, and I believe accurate, sense.
quote:
FWIW, the only churches here which could be called politically conservative are the groups espousing the prosperity gospel, and they tend not to be concerned with social justice issues. The mainstream churches across the theological spectrum have been strong opponents of the policies of successive governments on refugees, and a range of other social issues. There is much greater disparity on SSM.
That's interesting to know.
quote:
I have no idea what you mean by "Whataboutery".
Look it up.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Why did so many Evangelicals vote for Trump and look to be voting for Le Pen when they otherwise seem to display few attractive Christian characteristics? Could it be because they're promising to do something about the few push-button issues that Evangelicals habitually hear in church?
Clearly that must be true to a point - but I think it is not only unfairly lumping all Evangelicals into the same religious and political mind-set but suggesting that they must all be politically naive. Some will be, but not all. And I suspect that American and French Evangelicals will think differently to British ones, having a different history and living in a different social context.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Clearly that must be true to a point - but I think it is not only unfairly lumping all Evangelicals into the same religious and political mind-set but suggesting that they must all be politically naive. Some will be, but not all. And I suspect that American and French Evangelicals will think differently to British ones, having a different history and living in a different social context.
I clearly didn't say all Evangelicals, and I'm not talking even about the evangelicals outside of the circles in which I've lived the past decades. There may be a large number of Evangelicals out there who either are not making faith statements about gay marriage and abortion or are not seeking to have those faith statements become law. I have no idea.
But I think those Conservative Evangelicals who use this language are a large consistuency in the USA and UK. I don't know how big they are in France or elsewhere.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Why did so many Evangelicals vote for Trump and look to be voting for Le Pen when they otherwise seem to display few attractive Christian characteristics? Could it be because they're promising to do something about the few push-button issues that Evangelicals habitually hear in church?
Marine Le Pen's position on Dead Horse issues is not entirely clear, but she seems to be pro-choice and not against gay marriage.
She actually appears to be more liberal than the mainstream right-wing François Fillon on these issues.
I suspect the enthusiasm of some evangelicals for her is more to do with immigration, law and order, and the nostalgia for a France of a bygone era.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Marine Le Pen's position on Dead Horse issues is not entirely clear, but she seems to be pro-choice and not against gay marriage.
She actually appears to be more liberal than the mainstream right-wing François Fillon on these issues.
I suspect the enthusiasm of some evangelicals for her is more to do with immigration, law and order, and the nostalgia for a France of a bygone era.
Interesting, I stand corrected.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
mr cheesy, despite your response to me, you really have not defined your terms yet. To say that you're using the term "fascism" as equivalent to "hard right" does not take matters far. You've made no attempt to give an explanation of evangelical.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
mr cheesy, despite your response to me, you really have not defined your terms yet. To say that you're using the term "fascism" as equivalent to "hard right" does not take matters far. You've made no attempt to give an explanation of evangelical.
I'm not entirely sure what the problem is: I'm talking about churches which identify themselves as Evangelical and which engage in political posturing on dead-horse issues from the front and via political groups like the Christian Institute.
I fully appreciate that Evangelicals are a wide group who define themselves in different ways, however there seems to me to be a cross-cutting group of Evangelicals who think it is appropriate to campaign to change the law on (for example) gay marriage - because they have a conscience position on what "real marriage is" - and who therefore may be attracted to a far-right or fascist candidate who says they are going to do something about it.
I don't think it matters exactly how they're defining Evangelical. In this context, I think what matters is how their views are expressed at the front and the extent to which they think their identity is defined by opposition to gay marriage (and a small number of other issues) in the political sphere.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
In this context, I think what matters is how their views are expressed at the front and the extent to which they think their identity is defined by opposition to gay marriage (and a small number of other issues) in the political sphere.
Yes, I think that's right. But I have no idea as to the proportion this group represents of all those who self-identify as "Evangelical", nor if they can be specifically linked with any church polity (?Baptist, ?FIEC, ?New Church for example).
[ 30. January 2017, 09:11: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Yes, I think that's right. But I have no idea as to the proportion this group represents of all those who self-identify as "Evangelical", nor if they can be specifically linked with any church polity (?Baptist, ?FIEC, ?New Church for example).
Yes, I don't know that either.
I think the role of the Evangelical Alliance is interesting in all of this. On the one hand they've taken quite a strong line on Steve Chalke and gay marriage. And they've certainly got workers whose role it is to engage with politics at Westminster and elsewhere.
But I don't see them overtly pushing a political agenda to change the law on (say) abortion and gay marriage. Maybe I'm wrong to think that.
I wonder if they're contributing to that ecosystem, however. Maybe they're upping the anti within those churches who are most engaged with their work and message - and as a result those same churches may also be involved in more direct political activity via the Christian Institute and others. I've seen the two things going alongside each other, but I don't know how widespread that might go.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
I think I would say a couple of things here.
1. I do believe that the EA is encouraging the churches within their constituency to get more involved in politics generally. They certainly tried hard to get folk engaged in the EU Referendum and the last General Election without (as far as I remember) "pushing" any politial line.
2. Same-sex marriage and (I suspect to a lesser extent) abortion are both toxic and divisive subjects for evangelicals. This means presumably that the EA has to read very carefully when it talks about them!
3. I think there are other Evangelical organisations (I'm thinking of "Care for the Family" but I may be strong) which may be more actively encouraging Christians to lobby about these matters along traditional lines.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
2. Same-sex marriage and (I suspect to a lesser extent) abortion are both toxic and divisive subjects for evangelicals. This means presumably that the EA has to read very carefully when it talks about them!
I think they are pretty clearly against both, aren't they? The French equivalent, the CNEF, certainly is.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Thank you - we're now getting somewhere. There is apparently a strong link between such churches in the US and the new right of politics. I've not seen any such links in the UK and most certainly they're not here. Even the staunchly evangelical Moore College Anglicans would take a liberal approach to questions such as admission of refugees, and our treatment of them. Not for abortion or SSM - but advocacy for/against them is not linked to the left or right in politics.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think they are pretty clearly against both, aren't they? The French equivalent, the CNEF, certainly is.
I think they are, but I don't think the EA goes the next step and suggests that the law should be changed therefore to ban gay marriage and abortion. There are a number of other groups who do.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
This should probably be in Dead Horses... ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
[ 30. January 2017, 09:58: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
So, yes, as an Anabaptist, the idea that the state should decide what morality is maintained is fundamentally against our beliefs. Thus when anybody talks about the weirdness of such a view, we all generally say "Welcome to our world."
Yes. I am aware that anabaptists exist who say that they're not evangelicals
That's not what I said.
I was commenting specifically on the issue you quoted and only that.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
quote:
I said: Yes. I am aware that anabaptists exist who say that they're not evangelicals
That's not what I said.
I was commenting specifically on the issue you quoted and only that.
I perhaps should have said "I am also aware that.."
I was not intending to suggest that you did say that, I was simply pointing out that there are anabaptists who say that they are not Evangelicals and some who say that they're not Protestant.
I possibly should have quoted Steve Langton to make this point, I apologise for confusion.
But yes, I'm very aware of the anabaptist position on this and no I don't think it is a particularly helpful contribution to say "ah, but I'm an anabaptist" given that they're arguably not Evangelicals anyway.
[ 30. January 2017, 11:17: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
All the references to "whataboutery" in the world don't constitute a wriggle-out from the facts that all the features of fascism enumerated are also true of communism, or that Christians have been anti-fascist and victims of fascism, or that when Christians have been involved in political tyranny, they have been just as likely to be RC or Orthodox as evangelical, making your target completely arbitrary
Christianity should be stronger proof against the persecution of others, instead of jumping into bed with oppressors as willingly as it has.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
I think that one of the characteristics of fascism is nationalism or some similar group identity. If it's national it will probably be a narrowed nationalism that excludes those who look, behave or sound different.
Whatever the prized group is, it will be affirmed with menace and violence against others, and especially against those who are only slightly different, and those who are different but live alongside the prized group. Uncovering those who do not truly belong will be done with great enthusiasm.
I think that this sort of exaggerated group identity thinking is a familiar human trait. Probably we all share it to some extent. In the past it has sometimes been a feature of Evangelical Christianity and of some Charismatic churches, too. There was a tendency to police the limits of acceptable doctrine. The unsound would be unmasked and excluded. The sound would know each other by the dog whistle language they shared and by gatherings that strongly affirmed identity.
But I don't think the Evangelical and Charismatic are the same now. They are more diverse, open and capable of being self-critical.
Perhaps the group think was the result of feeling themselves to be a precarious minority.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Perhaps the group think was the result of feeling themselves to be a precarious minority.
I think there are some who still see themselves in this way, and are quick to raise the cry of "We're being persecuted for our beliefs" when in fact they're not.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Perhaps the group think was the result of feeling themselves to be a precarious minority.
I think there are some who still see themselves in this way, and are quick to raise the cry of "We're being persecuted for our beliefs" when in fact they're not.
The erosion of privileged status is often seen as persecution.
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
I'm in a whiny, snarly mood tonight after watching the news a few hours ago. Self knowledge leads to self control...
I don't know much about evangelical christianity, and I know less and less about the United States, except that there are some very brave people there and I'm feeling a bit upset for them.
Hang on, I just realised that I was about to criticise Mr Cheesey for doing something I did in the US Election thread before the election. Only in my case I condemned the whole of White America for Trump, a little broad-brush. In my defence I was not coping at the time.
It's just not fair to target a whole class of people, and 'posing the question' is just doing it in a passive-aggressive way.
Love, support, prayer, tears, maybe cash? Not sure if they need cash, the Americans. Maybe Woody Guthrie? I hope folk comes back. I love folk.
[ 30. January 2017, 12:44: Message edited by: simontoad ]
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I have been thinking about the Holocaust, 1930s Germany and the contemporary rise of fascism.
This is a quasi-Godwinian, ridiculously melodramatic ("Confessing Church" indeed; you don't have the faintest understanding of what Bonhoeffer was up against if you imagine it was remotely comparable to your situation) attempt to smear evangelicalism. on about the same adolescent level as calling one's parents or teachers "fascist".
You are just venting and self-dramatising.
It's clearly a ridiculous comparison, and yet it keeps presenting itself. America is nothing like 1930s Germany, but still, each new thing that happens is another step in that horribly familiar direction. On this day in January 1933 Hitler was installed as Chancellor, but he was just the vulgarian leader of an inexplicably popular minority government. A few weeks after the Reichstag burned he had complete control and the opposition was destroyed. Of course, we aren't going to see anything like that. Are we? Threats to national security? Protests becoming riots? Perhaps a war or threat of a war .. emergency powers, enabling act, hey presto!
Melodramatic or what!? But there is something of the spirit of the 1930s around. I don't see events then being any sort of guide to events now, but we saw the unexpected fragility of institutions and of balance, the corruptibility of human nature, a hideous delight in strength, and, as a footnote, the almost total failure of the Church. (The Confessing Church, by 1939 was, I believe, only 5% of the Evangelical Church, and by 1945 prisoner Bonhoeffer was no longer on the prayer list.)
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Perhaps the group think was the result of feeling themselves to be a precarious minority.
I think there are some who still see themselves in this way, and are quick to raise the cry of "We're being persecuted for our beliefs" when in fact they're not.
The erosion of privileged status is often seen as persecution.
Indeed. And that even applies to Nonconformist Christians who have a history of genuinely being persecuted and discriminated against.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
by mr cheesy;
quote:
my main issue with the reply to Steve Langton was that he was giving a one-line "yes, this is why I'm an anabaptist *smiley face*" stock answer. *although the history of German Mennonites suggests that when fascism comes, anabaptists were not immune to appeasement either.
On the first bit, "guilty as charged" - though I intended and expect to say more than just that quick one-liner....
On the second, it is sadly true that the German Mennonites were misled and gave Hitler more approval than they should have. This was partly because they were looking at early stages when the full evil of Nazism was not yet apparent (and many more people in Germany and world-wide were equally misled), and partly because the history of the treatment of Russian Mennonites under Communism bulked larger in their sight, so Hitler's opposition to the Communists seemed important to them. They were wrong; ideally they should have known better. They weren't exactly alone in that mistake.
I think in Canada/USA where Og comes from, there is probably a significant line between the traditional Anabaptists and Evangelicals who they may regard as "neo-Constantinian" - the US 'Religious Right' for example. Things are less clear here in the UK because Mennonites have deliberately not set out to become yet another separate denomination over here but have set up a 'Mennonite Centre' (currently in Birmingham) which, along with the UK's own "Anabaptist Network" and many like-minded groups, makes Anabaptist ideas available. Thus people like myself who do identify as 'Anabaptist' are generally also involved in ordinary evangelical congregations - in my case BU Baptist - and see ourselves as also part of the wider UK evangelical community - where there is a long-standing tradition of inter-denominational cooperation.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Steve - please do not use the "C"-word (even with "Neo-" in front of it). It really does rub people up the wrong way!
[ 30. January 2017, 16:11: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Steve - please do not use the "C"-word (even with "Neo-" in front of it). It really does rub people up the wrong way!
Sorry BT - but did you really want the long-winded stuff I'd have had to go through to avoid said 'C-word'?
And actually the 'C-word' is pretty much relevant here. Or at least, whatever word is used, the 'state church' business is. mr cheesy's OP is about Evangelicals and Fascism and the desire to impose Christian morality by state power - and essentially it is those of a 'state church' mind-set, including the RCC and Orthodox as well as Evangelicals, who are subject to that temptation.
Evangelicals who believe the Bible are likely (to say the least) to disapprove of SSM and abortion; but it's those who have the state church mindset (or are muddled about it) who will want to use state power to impose their ideas, and thus are open to the temptations represented by fascist-style movements.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Hmmm ... I think there is still a line between those who "want to use state power to impose their idea" and those who support the idea of a State Church itself.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I kinda agree with SL but kinda don't. I don't think many Evangelicals really believe in Constantinian style states, and yet they do believe that the state should be lobbied to impose "correct" values on everyone else via laws.
And, since we are talking about Anabaptists, I doubt that the German Mennonites supported Hitler because they were believers in Constantinianism but for flatter, more base reasons.
Interestingly, Mennonites have a pretty crappy record of appeasing tyrants.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Hmmm ... I think there is still a line between those who "want to use state power to impose their idea" and those who support the idea of a State Church itself.
I'm afraid this is where the line is these days. There are very few anywhere who want a specific 'State Church' in the old style. But there are quite a few who want a more general "Christian country" without a specific 'established' church, as eg the USA 'Religious Right', and many Protestants in Northern Ireland whose ideas were often described by opponents as 'fascist'. The situation described in the OP looks to me like that kind of thing.
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Hmmm ... I think there is still a line between those who "want to use state power to impose their idea" and those who support the idea of a State Church itself.
Agreed. Some people want a state that imposes a form of Christian behavior on everybody, Christians and non-Chistians alike. They see this as a way to deal with a world that is evil.
This is the triumph of a theology that prioritizes a full commitment to look at personal behavior and worshiping in order to get better at personal behaviour over worshiping with a full commitment and changing behaviour to become better at worshiping. The important part of Christianity for these people is how you live, not how you honour God.
Forcing everybody to practice in a particular church is no longer relevant.
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
..
Interestingly, Mennonites have a pretty crappy record of appeasing tyrants.
Well you spend a hundred years or so watching your fellow adherents burnt alive in, for example, brass bulls, by Lutherans and Catholics alike, because they didn't do what the state wanted and you learn to accept a place to live without worrying too much about what the head honcho does as head honcho - mostly because every head honcho has their issues so what's the point. Heck, it wasn't until 30 or so years ago that major Reformation historians stopped calling Anabaptists dangerous.
Its only really been in the last 50 years some Mennonites have moved away from 400+ years of being quiet on the land.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It is a long time since I've heard that kind of statement preached from the front, but it made me think about whether Evangelicals in particular leave themselves open to fascist tendencies because presumably a candidate who focuses on push button issues for Evangelicals (abortion, gay marriage) sounds more similar to the message from the front than one talking about protecting refugees.
It should be remembered that the Jim Crow South had a lot of markers of fascism (palingenesis, white supremacism, anti-Communism, a parallel state-like system that dispensed summary 'justice', etc.) and that the whole edifice was infused with Evangelicalism. Student of fascism David Neiwert makes a fairly convincing argument that the Ku Klux Klan is actually the world's first fascist organization. Given all that, a more relevant question might be whether Evangelicals are still open to fascist tendencies.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Come on, Og, executions of Anabaptists didn't go on for 'hundreds of years' ...
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
a more relevant question might be whether Evangelicals are still open to fascist tendencies.
Any group that thinks it exclusively has the "truth" and thinks everyone should share that "truth" is open to being oppressive.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Its only really been in the last 50 years some Mennonites have moved away from 400+ years of being quiet on the land.
You might want to tell that to the Nazi-loving Mennonites of South America, Germany, Canada and elsewhere.
The idea that all Mennonites were quietist Amish minding their own business whilst everyone else fell into fascism is utter bunk. Bizarrely the Mennonites were some of those most attracted to the claims of fascists.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
a more relevant question might be whether Evangelicals are still open to fascist tendencies.
Any group that thinks it exclusively has the "truth" and thinks everyone should share that "truth" is open to being oppressive.
True, but not all forms of oppression are fascism.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Bizarrely the Mennonites were some of those most attracted to the claims of fascists.
I do not find it bizarre in the slightest. The German assistance to the Mennonites bought their loyalty. This is an all too human trait and no philolosophy is inherent proof against it.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I kinda agree with SL but kinda don't. I don't think many Evangelicals really believe in Constantinian style states, and yet they do believe that the state should be lobbied to impose "correct" values on everyone else via laws.
This isn't any kind of C-word. It's straight up theocracy, which is a very different (and altogether scarier) beast.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I do not find it bizarre in the slightest. The German assistance to the Mennonites bought their loyalty. This is an all too human trait and no philolosophy is inherent proof against it.
It is bizarre when you consider what it is that they claim is the centre of the faith. I'm pretty sure that wasn't just uncovered in the last 60 years but was a real thread in their theology going back to their foundation story.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
True, but not all forms of oppression are fascism.
Agreed. But I think we focus too closely on certain forms of oppression, leaving the door open for denial of oppression because it doesn't fit particular definitions.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I do not find it bizarre in the slightest. The German assistance to the Mennonites bought their loyalty. This is an all too human trait and no philolosophy is inherent proof against it.
It is bizarre when you consider what it is that they claim is the centre of the faith. I'm pretty sure that wasn't just uncovered in the last 60 years but was a real thread in their theology going back to their foundation story.
Hypocrisy, thy name is human. Anything devised by people is subject to our foibles. I've nothing against Anabapists, I simply think their superiority cant* is nonsense.
*Obviously not all Anabaptists. Just those who think it is proof against corruption.
Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Come on, Og, executions of Anabaptists didn't go on for 'hundreds of years' ...
I think Og actually said only "a hundred years or so" rather than hundreds of years for the executions - though lesser persecution definitely went on far longer in many places.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I suppose what I'm saying is that one could make an argument that Anabaptists supporting fascism and Nazism was fundamentally discordant with their status as a historical peacechurch.
I think there is a much harder argument in saying that a tendency towards a focus on push-button dead-horse topics isn't somehow the centre of most Evangelical's understanding the way their faith is to be lived.
Hitler had to persuade the Mennonites to act out of sync of their own theology and culture. With the Evangelicals, I suggest he just had to get them to act out the logical extreme of their own hardline rhetoric.
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Come on, Og, executions of Anabaptists didn't go on for 'hundreds of years' ...
About 150 or so.
Allow me to introduce you to what was, for about 300 years, the second most important book to be read by Mennonites.
PDF Version
or
the wikipedia page
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The idea that all Mennonites were quietist Amish minding their own business whilst everyone else fell into fascism is utter bunk. Bizarrely the Mennonites were some of those most attracted to the claims of fascists.
Did I say all? And did I say this was true during the 30's and 40's?
Quiet on the land was pretty much the watchword until the 1920's. And the assumption that all Mennonites followed your examples and supported fascism in the 30's and 40's is patently false.
I'm talking about the choice to acquiesce to the state. If your history, including pretty much the only book you read but the Bible, is rife with persecution by the State, and you hear from the pulpit the principle of keeping quiet, then..yes...you will acquiesce. I would point out that this didn't always go all that well (see Russia).
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Did I say all? And did I say this was true during the 30's and 40's?
Quiet on the land was pretty much the watchword until the 1920's. And the assumption that all Mennonites followed your examples and supported fascism in the 30's and 40's is patently false.
I'd be very surprised if the majority of Mennonites and Anabaptists (in North America and Europe if nowhere else) were not already urbanised by the 1930s.
I didn't say that they all supported fascism. That's clearly not the case. But there was a strong Nazi supporting element within the body of Mennonites - which few now want to deny was a fundamental part of the early 20th century Mennonite experience in Europe and North America.
quote:
I'm talking about the choice to acquiesce to the state. If your history, including pretty much the only book you read but the Bible, is rife with persecution by the State, and you hear from the pulpit the principle of keeping quiet, then..yes...you will acquiesce. I would point out that this didn't always go all that well (see Russia).
That's quite a romantic way of looking at Mennonites which has little bearing on the way that their communities grew in South America in the 1920s and 1930s and Hutterites developed communities in Canada in the late 19 century.
In both of those cases, the communities were rooted in refugees from Russia and Germany - and yet they developed forms of self-government which was always at arms length from the rest of society. Very little government acquiesing in evidence.
[ 30. January 2017, 20:17: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on
:
And don't get me started on how we really shouldn't use a High School essay awarded via the Manitoba Historical Society as proof of anything - it wouldn't past muster in a 2nd year history course.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Its only really been in the last 50 years some Mennonites have moved away from 400+ years of being quiet on the land.
You might want to tell that to the Nazi-loving Mennonites of South America, Germany, Canada and elsewhere.
The idea that all Mennonites were quietist Amish minding their own business whilst everyone else fell into fascism is utter bunk. Bizarrely the Mennonites were some of those most attracted to the claims of fascists.
Mennonites are a diverse group in western Canada. There are progressive (Mennonite Central Committee) and highly conservative (Old Colony, Haldeman) groups, with nearly no-one resembling Amish. Hutterites are a different group and about the closest to Amish in appearance, but appearances are deceiving: they use up-to-date production technology and vehicles etc.
In my home province of Saskatchewan, there are more Mennonites than Anglicans. The singling out of particular denomination for pro-fascist views tells a deceptive story Mr. Cheesey. Mennonites were and are parts of racist societies and reflect the attitudes of the places in which they live. The KKK had a huge membership in Sask in the 1920s and 30s, with racism being a generally accepted fact, just like everywhere. That's no excuse, but it is a bit more complicated than you suggest.
Christians betrayed the principles and teachings of the Founder in all societies of the age, and they are at it again.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
OK. Well anyway, it is a documented fact.
See this in The Mennonite and many academic articles about it: https://themennonite.org/window-antisemitism-nazism-among-mennonite-north-america-part-1/
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on
:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
I'd be very surprised if the majority of Mennonites and Anabaptists (in North America and Europe if nowhere else) were not already urbanised by the 1930s.
They were not.
quote:
I didn't say that they all supported fascism. That's clearly not the case. But there was a strong Nazi supporting element within the body of Mennonites - which few now want to deny was a fundamental part of the early 20th century Mennonite experience in Europe and North America.
See my remarks about trusting that MB historical paper as anything.
quote:
That's quite a romantic way of looking at Mennonites which has little bearing on the way that their communities grew in South America in the 1920s and 1930s and Hutterites developed communities in Canada in the late 19 century.
Really? Can't talk about Hutterites (not my specialty sociology wise nor historically nor my own knowledge and experience base). BUT, having talked to leaders who left South America after WWII (some of them helped lead the church I joined in the 80's) and in talking with sociologists who have studied the Belize and Paraguayan groups you talk about, they indicate that trying to avoid being involved with the state (acquiescing in other words) was pretty much what they all wanted. Which is one reason why so many left the Chaco eventually.
quote:
In both of those cases, the communities were rooted in refugees from Russia and Germany - and yet they developed forms of self-government which was always at arms length from the rest of society. Very little government acquiescing in evidence.
I'm confused. Your point was about acquiescing to Fascsim. Now your saying they didn't?
Which is it?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The singling out of particular denomination for pro-fascist views tells a deceptive story Mr. Cheesey. Mennonites were and are parts of racist societies and reflect the attitudes of the places in which they live. The KKK had a huge membership in Sask in the 1920s and 30s, with racism being a generally accepted fact, just like everywhere. That's no excuse, but it is a bit more complicated than you suggest.
Christians betrayed the principles and teachings of the Founder in all societies of the age, and they are at it again.
The links between Mennonites and Nazis are a documented fact. If anyone is "singling" Mennonites out it is their own historians who have dug over this ground.
Anyway, if you don't mind, I'd like to get back to discussing Evangelicals now - if you want to discuss Mennonites and fascism, start your own thread to do so.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
I'm confused. Your point was about acquiescing to Fascsim. Now your saying they didn't?
Which is it?
The Mennonite colonies of South America desired to be their own states and have their own laws and customs quite separate from the wider South American society. The support for Nazis seems strongest in these groups - quite why I don't know.
I appreciate Hutterites are quite different, I have never heard that they had any association with Nazis however they have very isolationist tendencies in Canada.
The one thing neither group does is willingly submit to the national authorities any more than they have to.
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
OK. Well anyway, it is a documented fact.
See this in The Mennonite and many academic articles about it: https://themennonite.org/window-antisemitism-nazism-among-mennonite-north-america-part-1/
Facts? In History? As even the writer of that paper said in a class I took, history is all about interpretation. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Anyways...thanks for that link. Now THERE's something I wish I could sink my teeth into a bit more and read that dissertation - I glanced at it once way back when.
[Tangent]
I studied under Frank Epp at university. I was seriously wanting to work with him on my honours thesis and was looking forward to a life in academia....then he died and my world went in a very different direction.
I heard him talk about this aspect of things back then. I'd like to see what he, in 1965, was basing his opinion of how that magazine reflected Manitoba 1930's Mennonite thinking.
Good food for thought.
Thanks.
[/tangent]
I stand by my reflection that prior to the 30's, the Quietist movement was pretty standard in Anabaptism.
I stand by my reflection that Anabaptism was affected by 150 years of state persecution and thus has historically and theologically avoided wanting the state to take a role in morality.
And I stand by my reflection that started all this that when somebody states that it seems weird to want the state to take a role in morality that as an Anabaptist, I say "welcome to my world".
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Sure, Og, Anabaptists were persecuted. No-one is saying otherwise.
But one minute you seem to imply that this went on for about 400 years and then you knock it back to around 150. Of course, even if it'd lasted one year that would have been a year too long ...
Of course, the degree of persecution varied in intensity and waxed and waned according to circumstances.
And yes, there is something very attractive in the Anabaptist witness but it can topple over into a kind of censorious sentimentality ... But each Christian tradition has its good, bad and indifferent sides.
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sure, Og, Anabaptists were persecuted. No-one is saying otherwise.
But one minute you seem to imply that this went on for about 400 years and then you knock it back to around 150. Of course, even if it'd lasted one year that would have been a year too long ...
..
150 odd years of persecution - followed by 250 years of keeping looking at all that to try to figure out how to live which led to the point I really only wanted to make about finding the whole "the government should act Christian" thing weird.
Agree on your point about sentimentality.
[ 30. January 2017, 21:21: Message edited by: Og: Thread Killer ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Sure, and Anabaptist influence is now spreading beyond its original base - I've come across people from a range of backgrounds who cite figured like Wink, Yoder and Hauerwas ...
Persecution does tend to shape things in both positive and negative ways. The whole medieval pantheon of Saints and Martyrs derived from hagiographies from periods of Roman persecution and the 'white martyrdom' of monasticism.
One could argue that the later experience of the Anabaptists mirrored on a micro scale, that which happened across the Early Church in the first few centuries.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The links between Mennonites and Nazis are a documented fact. If anyone is "singling" Mennonites out it is their own historians who have dug over this ground.
You included Canadian Mennonites, and you did not include documentation other than the essay. So this at the level of your opinion, not fact on the basis of what you posted.
quote:
Cheesy:
Anyway, if you don't mind, I'd like to get back to discussing Evangelicals now - if you want to discuss Mennonites and fascism, start your own thread to do so.
No. You started this aspect. You don't get to dismiss it. Unless you admit you failed to make our point. O have you conceded your failure to make you point?
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
The Confessing Church, by 1939 was, I believe, only 5% of the Evangelical Church, and by 1945 prisoner Bonhoeffer was no longer on the prayer list.
Probably unnecessary, but just to be on the safe side in case anyone isn't aware, capital E "Evangelical" in this context is synonymous with Protestant, rather than with small e "evangelical".
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
hatless,I think KC is right about German Evangelical, 1939 vintage. I remember having something like this conversation with Lutheranchik way back, when the same point came up.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The point is that the tendency to look to law change on a few hot issues leaves Evangelicals open to electoral pitches on those issues which leads to tacit support for fascism.
This is drawing a very long bow indeed, and you have failed to demonstrate that there is any substance to it.
quote:
And I'd also say that you appear to know little about fascism given that it is always a gradual process. I know a reasonable amount both about how fascism develops and how Bonhoeffer opposed it from the beginning, even before it became obvious how awful it was going to get.
You obviously don't understand the immense differences between post-WWI Weimar Germany and the emergence of the Nazis, even in the early years, and the situation today.
You are teetering on the edge of historicism, which is very different to history.
quote:
In the countries where most of us are from - primarily the USA, the UK - Evangelicals are a far bigger force than Communists or the Orthodox.
You have missed the point , which is that just about anything characteristic of fascism can also be demonstrated from communism, which means that you might just as well warn that evangelicals are going communist as going fascist.
As for numbers, the US is a special case, but I have read a figure of 3% for the number of evangelicals in the UK. and that percentage would be about the same here in Australia.
quote:
The whataboutery (if you don't know what it means, look it up) is an effort to deflect discussion from a specific topic onto a more general topic by saying "ah yes, but what about.."
What I do know about accusations of "whataboutery" is that they can constitute an arbitrary attempt to enforce tunnel vision and prevent mention of other relevant material.
Posted by wabale (# 18715) on
:
A strong fascist movement needs its rallies. I don't think Evangelical rallies, in the UK at any rate, quite make it. That said I have once or twice thought, but not very seriously, that an evening meeting at Spring Harvest had disturbing elements. There was one year when the lighting display featured these columns, and I was reminded of the columns of light thoughtfully provided for the Nuremburg Rally by Albert Speer. Then there's the fact the meetings are carefully scheduled to start at twilight, when one's critical faculties are at their lowest. 'Lifting arms up in praise' can look awfully reminiscent of something rather more sinister. Then there are the lines in the choruses repeated over and over again. Actually one meeting attended by several thousand was compeered by a tory MP, but that's about as right-wing as it got, and I think if any politics had been mentioned one or two Anglicans might have stayed but all the Non-conformists would have immediately walked out to the chorus 'we are all individuals'. So I don't think a fascist leader would get much response from this lot at any rate.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Now what evangelicals have in common is a high view of scripture. But for a whole lot of historical reasons, there is partial amnesia in many parts of evangelicalism about this widespread content in scripture.
It may be partial amnesia, but I do feel that at least some of it is deliberate ignoring or re-contextualising things along certain lines. I was reminded of this today reading this:
https://itself.blog/2017/01/30/the-bible-will-not-save-us/
"On issues of social justice, the guiding concept is the “necessary evil.” Oh sure, it would be nice to be able to welcome everyone into our country, but in this fallen world, etc., etc. By contrast, on issues of sexual morality (and here I include abortion), no compromise is possible"
And I think the conclusion of that post may be uncomfortably close to home.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I suspect the truth is that however much (some) Evangelicals want to paint themselves as bible-believers, the reality is that they don't actually seem to believe it.
If one really believes in the "body of Christ" and really believed that there is "no Jew, no Greek", then it is hard to argue that a Somali or Iraqi Christian is anything less than close family. If we really believe - even in a narrow Evangelical sense* - that our Lord wants us to care for the "least of these", it is impossible to argue that we have no responsibility to protect them from oppression and torment. It isn't possible to live as British or American citizens and argue that what we have is ours and the rest of you can fight the wolves for bread if we truly believe that our status is to be defined by who we are in Christ rather than where we were born.
Others are not immune from these stark contradictions, but then few others make bold statements about their "belief in the bible".
*ie the sense that Matthew 25 is talking about other Christian believers
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
hatless,I think KC is right about German Evangelical, 1939 vintage. I remember having something like this conversation with Lutheranchik way back, when the same point came up.
Yes, that's right. It was the name of the Protestant churches in Germany. It might be clearer to call them Lutherans. They were not particularly evangelical in style or theology.
The Confessing Church, which did have a more evangelical feel with a simple, Christocentric statement of faith and a more austere and radical ethos, came about largely in response to the Aryan Clause. This forbade people with non-Aryan ancestry (a Jewish parent or grandparents) from taking certain posts, including that of pastor. 'You can't choose your clergy' provoked resistance within the churches. There was very little protest on behalf of other groups (they came for the trade unionists ..).
Yesterday I read that Steve Bannon, in 2015 I think, said he thought there were too many Asian and Middle Eastern CEOs in Silicon Valley, and, thinking about the consequences of trying to do something about this, that the USA is more than an economy.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
This could be helpful.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
You obviously don't understand the immense differences between post-WWI Weimar Germany and the emergence of the Nazis, even in the early years, and the situation today.
You are teetering on the edge of historicism, which is very different to history.
You obviously don't take much heed of the warnings about the emergence of fascism written by those who lived through it. Such as this at the US Holocaust Museum,
quote:
You have missed the point , which is that just about anything characteristic of fascism can also be demonstrated from communism, which means that you might just as well warn that evangelicals are going communist as going fascist.
You haven't actually read what I've written. Fascism is a different beast than Communism, for the simple reason that it appeals to people's sense of strength and belief that a small group of strong leaders will turn the country back to the right direction.
Communism clearly has a lot of faults, but it is never going to appeal to people who are looking for a strong leader to exact their theology in public.
Fascism is bad. Communism doesn't have to be as bad, although often is. There is almost zero threat of Evangelicals being taken up with rampant Leninist or Stalinist Marxism because it is the antithesis of much of Evangelical teaching.
quote:
As for numbers, the US is a special case, but I have read a figure of 3% for the number of evangelicals in the UK. and that percentage would be about the same here in Australia.
I don't know about Australia, but in the UK and US the Evangelicals have a particular position of privilege and influence that by far outweighs other groups.
quote:
What I do know about accusations of "whataboutery" is that they can constitute an arbitrary attempt to enforce tunnel vision and prevent mention of other relevant material.
Yes, right, by saying that I can't discuss something because I don't know enough about it, I'm clearly preventing mention of it. As I said, if you want to talk about Roman Catholics and fascism or the Orthodox and fascism go ahead. I can't contribute because I know nothing about it.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
This could be helpful.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
... I don't know about Australia, but in the UK and US the Evangelicals have a particular position of privilege and influence that by far outweighs other groups. ...
I can't comment on the US, but if you think that is so in the UK, your dislike of evangelicals is distorting your objectivity.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I can't comment on the US, but if you think that is so in the UK, your dislike of evangelicals is distorting your objectivity.
Ookay, so you don't believe that Evangelicals have more privilege and presence in society than particular Muslim denominations, Progressive Jews, Mahayana Buddhists etc?
I'd agree that the Church of England as a whole has a lot more visibility than Evangelicals, but the Evangelicals punch well above their weight of numbers.
I don't know how the RCC compares.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Now what evangelicals have in common is a high view of scripture. But for a whole lot of historical reasons, there is partial amnesia in many parts of evangelicalism about this widespread content in scripture.
It may be partial amnesia, but I do feel that at least some of it is deliberate ignoring or re-contextualising things along certain lines. I was reminded of this today reading this:
https://itself.blog/2017/01/30/the-bible-will-not-save-us/
"On issues of social justice, the guiding concept is the “necessary evil.” Oh sure, it would be nice to be able to welcome everyone into our country, but in this fallen world, etc., etc. By contrast, on issues of sexual morality (and here I include abortion), no compromise is possible"
And I think the conclusion of that post may be uncomfortably close to home.
Excellent link. I was also struck by this quote.
quote:
The situation is much worse on the conservative side. I grew up in that environment and remained in it as an alienated college student, and there is one thing about conservative Christian culture that is absolutely certain: if you mention the moral teachings of Jesus, they will literally laugh at you. I have seen it a hundred times. Presenting Jesus’s teachings as an actual guideline to what you should actually do is the mark of a theologically naive rube — all the more so if you believe it’s a guide to specifically political action.
I think that may be the heart of the real disease and its theological root is to be found in a particular understanding of "total depravity". In the original Calvinist understanding, it was an assertion that our reasoning and moral senses were, like the rest of creation, tainted by sin. But it has evolved into an understanding that we cannot place any trust in our individual reasoning and moral sense. What was meant as an indicator of our fallibility has been taken further. We must be saved; we must turn to the bible for answers.
The fact that our turning to scripture means an application of our reasoning and sense of morals seems to get lost somewhere in that journey. The net effect is a kind of anti-nonconformism, a reliance on trustworthy "sound" teachers and preachers. Individual conscience and the freedom to dissent are not much taught anywhere these days. Dissent seems to have been corrupted into something like this. "We know we don't believe that".
There seem to be a lot of easily-led sheep out there in the US evangelical constituency, to judge from the voting figures. Here's an interesting quote from the Wiki article on nonconformism, which I used recently in another thread.
quote:
Historians distinguish two categories of Dissenters, or Nonconformists, in addition to the evangelicals or "Low Church" element in the Church of England. "Old Dissenters," dating from the 16th and 17th centuries, included Baptists, Congregationalists, Quakers, Unitarians, and Presbyterians outside Scotland. "New Dissenters" emerged in the 18th century and were mainly Methodists. The "Nonconformist Conscience" was their moral sensibility which they tried to implement in British politics. The "Nonconformist conscience" of the Old group emphasized religious freedom and equality, pursuit of justice, and opposition to discrimination, compulsion, and coercion. The New Dissenters (and also the Anglican evangelicals) stressed personal morality issues, including sexuality, temperance, family values, and Sabbath-keeping.
Personally, I'm an Old Dissenter, which is one of the reasons I get so cheesed off with herd-like behaviour and thoughtless obsessions about "hot button issues". My forebears got burned for their stroppiness and independent-mindedness. There is a "heretical imperative" (a willingness to question) in the application of Christian conscience which is not at all heresy. Rather, it is a proper use of our God-given freedoms.
Perhaps my "partial amnesia" was too generous? Maybe the real issue is the loss of encouragement of the value (not infallibility) of independent thought and individual conscience. As one of my old nonco friends in my local congo put it, "If God can speak through an ass, He can certainly speak through you. Mind you, there may be some braying mixed in there!"
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
Yay. I'm an Old Dissenter. I'm not sure whether this is nature or nurture, or a form of theological Lamarckism involving both. (Brought up Congregationalist, later a Quaker. Grandparent level Congregationalist, but the cousinry includes Quakers that I didn't originally know about. I wasn't taught much about dissenting habits in the church, so have to have absorbed it somewhere else.)
My sister, and I may have mentioned this elsewhere, went to a meeting as a student where those who didn't join in the enthusiastic stuff were focussed on, and people on the doors were making it difficult to leave. She made a certain comparison about the situation which matches the thread title.
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I can't comment on the US, but if you think that is so in the UK, your dislike of evangelicals is distorting your objectivity.
Ookay, so you don't believe that Evangelicals have more privilege and presence in society than particular Muslim denominations, Progressive Jews, Mahayana Buddhists etc?
I really don't believe that. What is the evidence that evangelicals are punching above their weight in public life? Seeing as evangelicals can't really agree on the application of Scripture to politics on anything but a few motherhood and apple pie issues, I'm not sure even how testable your hypothesis is.
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I suspect the truth is that however much (some) Evangelicals want to paint themselves as bible-believers, the reality is that they don't actually seem to believe it.
...
Some, not much, and certainly not all.
Just like every other religious group.
E.g
Daily Mail (yes Daily Mail) article about priest in New York putting out a Pro Trump weird meme
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on
:
OK, I've thought about this over night:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
I'm confused. Your point was about acquiescing to Fascsim. Now your saying they didn't?
Which is it?
The Mennonite colonies of South America desired to be their own states ....
No.
What they asked for is to have their own schools and own colonies with laws related to military service not apply to them. Much as Anabaptist and Mennonite groups have asked for since some of them went to Prussia in the 1700's.
That's not having their own states.
Ur torquing this argument really far for weird reasons that seem to be along the lines of "MENNONITES CAN BE BAD!" As I would say on twitter.
Dude....I know that. I'm not Mennonite because Mennonites are perfect. I'm Mennonite because the underlying theology makes sense to me.
I'm going to disengage - not worth arguing when the discussion is based on select texts to prove that certain people are more open to fascism.
Given what I'm reading almost daily about pretty much EVERY Christian group in the US having people who think Trump is the best thing going on in the world, this discussion is pointless finger pointing.
No one group is more susceptible.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
And the comments - why do I read them? I don't know which are worst, the ones who think it was funny, and the ones who think the antis should do it.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by wabale:
That said I have once or twice thought, but not very seriously, that an evening meeting at Spring Harvest had disturbing elements.
There is no substantive difference in the methodology between faith/community building in a mainstream religion and indoctrination in a cult. I'm not equating Christianity with cults, I do think there is a difference in outcome and intent. Generally.
But it does show the potential for manipulation.
On paper, evangelicals should be more prone to extremist ideology, and I do think this could be generally true. However, on paper, Anabaptists should be more proof against such and history shows this not to be as true as it should.
Reality can be more complicated, than rhetoric, obviously.
But the ideology behind "this is the way" is more potentially dangerous than "this is a way".
But then I would think that.
Posted by wabale (# 18715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I suspect the truth is that however much (some) Evangelicals want to paint themselves as bible-believers, the reality is that they don't actually seem to believe it.
...
Some, not much, and certainly not all.
Just like every other religious group.
It takes a lot of (interesting) time to define 'fascism', 'Evangelical', and to decide what country we're talking about. With regard to the UK, I have never heard the sentence 'the Prime Minister is doing this to appeal to Evangelical Christians'. That said, I don't particularly like the Christian Institute.
There is one type of Evangelical pitch from the front which does concern me, however. Holy Trinity Brompton had a Christian leaders' conference at the Albert Hall a few years ago. One of the speakers was the CEO of a company that was notorious for the way it was handling the takeover of various public installations and services, and the way it was running some of them. Perhaps it was simply the brief he was given, but he proceeded to give a talk about how he balanced his spiritual and business life. Absolutely nothing about the ethics of business. Warm audience reaction. Tacit acceptance of the unacceptable face of capitalism.
But it is, I think, part of the wider problem that Christians, and not necessarily Evangelicals, forget they are Christians once they've left home and are in the workplace.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I'm an Old Dissenter, which is one of the reasons I get so cheesed off with herd-like behaviour and thoughtless obsessions about "hot button issues"... There is a "heretical imperative" (a willingness to question) in the application of Christian conscience which is not at all heresy. Rather, it is a proper use of our God-given freedoms.
I'm with you (and I've preached about this). But I think that many churches/Christians who come from that tradition actually know nothing about it. But it's a precious and important heritage, ad I find that many of my Baptist friends are far too inclined (as you mention) to simply look for what is "sound" and uncontroversial.
[ 31. January 2017, 12:35: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
My parents had, in the 30s, been involved with a tremendously active Congregational Church - Boys Brigade, G&S productions, and loads of education in their faith.
They went back for a visit in, probably, the 80s, and found worship songs from projection and an American style of preaching which was not deep, and felt that it had lost its roots.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
I was flicking through a book on right-wing politics and religion in Europe, and it said that British evangelicalism and the British right wing were not a good fit.
The issue seems to be that evangelicalism here is very weak when compared to the rest of the society (note that the church that mentioned in the OP was described as 'small), and politicians make no serious attempt to court the evangelical vote. Evangelicals don't expect any serious political party to focus on 'evangelical' interests, so why would they pick a party for evangelical reasons?
Moreover, far right groups such as the BNP are only Christian in a broad cultural sense, and are unable to cash in on Christianity as a vital faith. The working class constituency of such groups is probably also a barrier to influences from organised religion.
The nationalism inherent in fascism is another problem for British evangelicalism, which now relies considerably on ethnic minority members for its own numerical strength. In London, where most churchgoers are now black, it would be political suicide for a 'fascist' leader to expect churchgoers to buy into Aryan rhetoric, or whatever. In fact, they'd be more likely to visit an African megachurch and burble on about 'shared values'!
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Two thoughts.
1. Evangelicalism has two (at least) separate roots in Britain (or, to be more precise, England). One is Anglican and the other Nonconformist. Both come with different assumptions vis-a-vis the State, the class system, politics and the "status quo".
2. At every election there are candidates from "Christian" parties - presumably rightish-wing Evangelical and concentrating on moral issues rather than (say) economics. Despite the high hopes of those involved, these never gain many votes. Clearly British Christians see politics in a different light to our American friends.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
1. Evangelicalism has two (at least) separate roots in Britain (or, to be more precise, England). One is Anglican and the other Nonconformist. Both come with different assumptions vis-a-vis the State, the class system, politics and the "status quo".
Though a fair amount of church goers of both stripes have been exposed to the 'other side' such that you get non-conformist thoughts circulating in Anglican circles and more Erastian thoughts circulating in some non-conformist circles (some of the newer charismatic groups tend to go in this direction).
There is of course the establishment approach of both some much more traditional Anglican churches, as well as a kind of nouveau-establishment approach of churches like HTB which can sometimes seem to be rather comfortable with the idea of secular power. In that perhaps they are to the older style establishment approach, as Blairism is to Conservatism (ISTR Blair spoke at an HTB event some years back).
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
My non conformism runs deep. In political belief and spiritual perspective, as well as in public behaviour.
My ancesters fought under Cromwell in the New Model Army. Just before the First World War, A Great Grandfather left a job as a shepherd when he refused to bring his son to work on the Farm for the (Church Warden) farmer. {It was a case of "either he comes or you go." He went).
AFAIK they were independents. The ones I did know were rather to the left of centre, some extremely so.
Some British Evangelicals will be right wing - the HTB lot/New Wine are probably Tory lite/Cameronesque, reflecting their socio economic make up. Some will be more extreme and they often keep their heads below the parapet.
Now it might be equally interesting to explore the link between Catholics and Fascism. We have WW" to pick over there and perhaps a reflection on the RCC's position vis a vis the IRA.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
British Catholicism has traditionally been associated with left wing politics, hasn't it?
These days its numbers are being boosted by immigration, which suggests that a fascist-level focus on Britishness or Englishness wouldn't get very far.
Posted by wabale (# 18715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Some British Evangelicals will be right wing - the HTB lot/New Wine are probably Tory lite/Cameronesque, reflecting their socio economic make up. Some will be more extreme and they often keep their heads below the parapet.
This could be about right, though the HTB conference I went to, which had both Tony Blair and the CEO I mentioned, had a lot of vicars, but not necessarily their congregations. While I think socio-economic background is sometimes more telling than the denominational names we bear, so too is what you might call 'cast of mind'. There's a Ted Talk that goes into this, by Jonathan Haidt (an American) - 'The moral roots of liberals and conservatives' where he identifies factors like Harm/Care, Authority/Respect and other principles we regard as important. I particularly like the example he gives of what dogs liberals and conservatives prefer. More practically useful are his tips on how these different groups can talk to each other – I wouldn't like to think people are doomed to stay in their moulds without changing.
Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on
:
This has been a fascinating read thus far.
My 2p worth?
Whenever churches preach endlessly about sin and personal salvation....without..... addressing the wider world that we all live in....there will continue to be a disconnect in the outworking of that faith.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
The modern American Evangelical Movement got started with the US Supreme Court decision Brown v Wade, which began the process of school desegregation. All of the sudden many white southern churches began pulling their kids out of public schools and setting up all white private schools. When the Internal Revenue Service ruled that they could not be tax exempt because they were discriminating, they banded together to form the National Evangelical Association under the likes of Jerry Falwell.
So, the Evangelical movement does have a racist background--and still does. It also retreated into other reactionary social policies. It's constant aversion to progress has set it us to support the fascist policies of the alt right under the leadership of Steve Bannon and Donald Trump.
Adolf Hitler was able to co-opt the state church because of its doctrine that the prince could do nothing wrong. Trump and Brannon likewise are co-opting the Evangelical movement because of their reactionary stances. That is why he was able to garner 80+% of the Evangelical vote
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ethne Alba:
This has been a fascinating read thus far.
My 2p worth?
Whenever churches preach endlessly about sin and personal salvation....without..... addressing the wider world that we all live in....there will continue to be a disconnect in the outworking of that faith.
Fred Clark argues that this is a deliberate feature, not an accidental bug, of Evangelicalism:
quote:
Christendom never described itself as “biblical civilization” until the 17th century. For the previous 16 centuries of Christianity, the Bible did not play such a role in the way that Christians and “Christian civilization” identified and imagined itself. Such an idea just wasn’t available or possible before then. The transformation of Christendom from “Christian civilization” into “biblical civilization” was not a thing that could have happened until after the printing press and the widespread availability of non-Latin translations.
And as soon as such a thing became possible — as soon as the English-speaking colonists who would later become “Americans” first had the opportunity to redefine themselves and begin to identify as “biblical” Christians — it began to be shaped by the nearly concurrent rise of the institution of slavery.
The King James Version of the Bible was completed in 1611. The first African slaves were imported into Jamestown in 1619. “Biblical” Christianity and the idea of “biblical civilization” grew up alongside slavery. The latter shaped the former, and the two things have been inextricably intertwined ever since.
The invention of “biblical” Christianity and of the idea of “biblical civilization” was for the purpose of accommodating slavery. That may not have been its exclusive purpose, but it was an essential function of the thing. It was a concept shaped and designed and tailored so that it could and would defend and perpetuate slavery.
So it goes back a lot farther than Gramps49 suggests. See also.
Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Ethne Alba:
This has been a fascinating read thus far.
My 2p worth?
Whenever churches preach endlessly about sin and personal salvation....without..... addressing the wider world that we all live in....there will continue to be a disconnect in the outworking of that faith.
Fred Clark argues that this is a deliberate feature, not an accidental bug, of Evangelicalism:
quote:
...
The invention of “biblical” Christianity and of the idea of “biblical civilization” was for the purpose of accommodating slavery. That may not have been its exclusive purpose, but it was an essential function of the thing. It was a concept shaped and designed and tailored so that it could and would defend and perpetuate slavery.
So it goes back a lot farther than Gramps49 suggests. See also.
Yeah...uh...no.
Sometimes its good to remind people there was this whole 80 year period before Jamestown when this thing called the Reformation was going on. It involved things other then the KJV. And it did involved what we would recognise as evangelicalism.
Its not always about the US.
[ 31. January 2017, 21:22: Message edited by: Og: Thread Killer ]
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by wabale:
More practically useful [Jonathan Haidt's] are his tips on how these different groups can talk to each other – I wouldn't like to think people are doomed to stay in their moulds without changing.
But politics isn't really what prevents British Christians from talking to each other, AFAICS. Not party politics, anyway.
If British evangelicals change their minds on SSM, abortion or anything else, it's hard to see what party politics or allegiance will have to do with that. More relevant, I suspect, is the surrounding secular culture, and whether church leaders and members gradually fall in line with that - or not.
And if posh evangelicals vote Tory, aren't they probably doing so because they're posh, not because they're evangelical?
I haven't heard anything about evangelicals voting LibDem just because the party's current leader could be counted as one of their number. You're more likely to come across atheists online grumbling about his God-bothering and his alleged homophobia!
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by wabale:
There's a Ted Talk that goes into this, by Jonathan Haidt (an American) - 'The moral roots of liberals and conservatives' where he identifies factors like Harm/Care, Authority/Respect and other principles we regard as important.
There are elements of Haidt's Moral Foundations that are both incomplete and problematic, however the general approach does have a bearing on this thread. If I can summon up the time/energy at some point I might start another thread along these lines.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
You obviously don't take much heed of the warnings about the emergence of fascism written by those who lived through it. Such as this at the US Holocaust Museum,
All the points on that list have been characteristic of various forms of communism, including state-controlled churches.
quote:
Fascism is a different beast than Communism, for the simple reason that it appeals to people's sense of strength and belief that a small group of strong leaders will turn the country back to the right direction.
That has been precusely the appeal of communism in a number of instances - strong leadership which will take the country in the right direction.
quote:
Communism clearly has a lot of faults, but it is never going to appeal to people who are looking for a strong leader to exact their theology in public.
If by theology, you mean conservative sexual morality, as you appear to do, then communist regimes have consistently enforced a stern sexual puritanism, from Stalin and Mao and Kim Il Sung and Pol Pot, to Castro's persecution of gays.
Conversely, fascist regimes have often tolerated a great deal of "permissiveness".
Hitler and Mussolini both 'lived in sin" with partners, with Mussolini quite actively promiscuous - as were Nazi leaders such as Goering and Goebbels, and powerful signature bodies such as the SS disregardful of "bourgeois" morality.
Franco's regime was strict in this area, but then Franco was arguably not so much a fascist as an authoritarian reactionary who co-opted the Falange for his own purposes (the opposite of Hitler, a radical, nihilist fascist who co-opted conservative forces which he despised for his own purposes).
quote:
I don't know about Australia, but in the UK and US the Evangelicals have a particular position of privilege and influence that by far outweighs other groups.
Really?
Details, please.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
I'm certainly curious to hear how evangelicals in the UK have power, presumably political power, that outweighs that of other groups.
Maybe in some areas they're able to swing by-elections, or something. But the same could be said for Muslims or non-churchgoing Anglicans elsewhere.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
I don't know about Australia, but in the UK and US the Evangelicals have a particular position of privilege and influence that by far outweighs other groups.
Really?
Details, please.
Well there's Focus on the Family, which has a great deal of political power. Just off the top of my head.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
IMO this article is optimistic. Their stand is, alas, by no means unanimous, the biggest holdout being the weaselly Franklin Graham.
Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on
:
I'm British. AFAIK (and i'm open to correction on this!) in the UK we have not had the American history of evangelical leaders cosy-ing up to political leaders and openly attempting to turn their heads and hearts. Neither have we had noted evangelical church leaders attempting to influence their congregations on specific political matters.
Whenever UK church leaders venture into party political territory, there is a gentle rumble in the pews.
America is a whole other place, with a totally separate history. We speak the same language but round about there the similarity stops.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I wouldn't say that UK evangelicals punch above their weight in the public/political sphere - but I do think their influence is greater than their actual numbers - but often in areas that aren't a 'big deal' - such as the popularity of contemporary worship songs across a wider constituency than their original evangelical base.
One could argue that schemes like Street Pastors show a positive influence emanating from within evangelicalism - and I'd certainly suggest that it does - even though I'd distance myself from some of the language and assumptions deployed.
I do detect a somewhat right-ish, Brexit-y tinge to some corners of independent evangelicalism here in the UK. Anyone ever had the misfortune to watch a clip of Revelation TV on You Tube?
![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
That's all Daily Mail style, 'Woe! Woe! Woe! We used to be such a Christian nation ... look at King Alfred defeating the Danes ...' and so on.
But no, I don't think there's any imminent danger of a lurch towards fascism within UK evangelicalism.
I can't speak for the US but from what I can see things don't look very good over there ... not very good at all ...
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on
:
Nope haven't watched...and for the good of my soul......maybe i won't!
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I do detect a somewhat right-ish, Brexit-y tinge to some corners of independent evangelicalism here in the UK. Anyone ever had the misfortune to watch a clip of Revelation TV on You Tube?
That's all Daily Mail style, 'Woe! Woe! Woe! We used to be such a Christian nation ... look at King Alfred defeating the Danes ...'
Well, at least in some charismatic circles, this isn't entirely new is it? It tends to go along with the importing in of the prophetic tropes of American Charismaticism (the EU as the Beast's Empire, EU symbols influenced by Satanism and so on), merges the older styles charismaticism's love of certain dictators who had successfully played the Christian card (Marcos being the most obvious example).
Simultaneously, there is a kind of New-Rightism of the kinds of Third Wave groups that are built around millennials - perhaps as a reaction against popular trends in society.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
No, it's not entirely new, but from observation, I've seen it gain a foothold in places that wouldn't have been as susceptible to it 20 to 30 years ago.
Posted by Callan (# 525) on
:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
If by theology, you mean conservative sexual morality, as you appear to do, then communist regimes have consistently enforced a stern sexual puritanism, from Stalin and Mao and Kim Il Sung and Pol Pot, to Castro's persecution of gays.
Conversely, fascist regimes have often tolerated a great deal of "permissiveness".
Hitler and Mussolini both 'lived in sin" with partners, with Mussolini quite actively promiscuous - as were Nazi leaders such as Goering and Goebbels, and powerful signature bodies such as the SS disregardful of "bourgeois" morality.
Franco's regime was strict in this area, but then Franco was arguably not so much a fascist as an authoritarian reactionary who co-opted the Falange for his own purposes (the opposite of Hitler, a radical, nihilist fascist who co-opted conservative forces which he despised for his own purposes).
I'm not aware of an instance where churches have supported communism because of the official stance of the communist party on sexual morality. But the Catholic Church signed concordats with Mussolini and Hitler and actively supported Franco during the civil war. The failure of German Lutheranism - notwithstanding heroic exceptions - to oppose National Socialism is also well known. Insofar as Christians succumb to the totalitarian temptation they tend to support regimes of the authoritarian right, rather than left.
Where I would agree with you is that communist regimes have been every bit as abhorrent as fascist regimes and that evangelicals, considered globally, would not be the first port of call for a fascist looking to drum up recruits. On the other hand we have just seen 81% of white evangelicals voting for a white nationalist as US President. I think that a thread on this phenomenon as opposed to a thread on evangelicals and fascism based on one sermon opposing gay marriage might have been more interesting.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Yes, indeed, Callan and also with a lot more to 'go at'. How about starting such a thread?
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0