Charlie, what is your definition of "Christian Nationalism?" I spent some time last weekend looking into this and Homeland Security, secular writers and Christian writers have descriptions, but none matched. What was consistent is use of the term in a derogatory fashion by journalists. What is your definition of Christian Nationalism?
Thank you for asking. This is my definition with some commentary: Christian nationalism in America is the belief that the nation should be a Christian theocracy (rule by the God of Christianity, cosmically, and via his authorities) and, by extension, a theonomy (rule by biblical law or selected biblical principles and values). In practice, it functions as a political ideology that merges Christian faith with America’s democratic, constitutional Republic—distorting and ultimately reinventing both in the process. Most unique is CN adherent's confession of Jesus Christ as Lord while ignoring his clear direction to live counter to Christian nationalism. This is the heartbreaking irony that is difficult to digest. Jesus taught that the kingdom of God advances through transformation, not conquest; spiritual renewal, not social control; through love and service; through truth and witness, not violence or coercion; through peace, not retribution. And this just touches the surface of the calling to live in coherence and congruence with his ways of being and doing. As he said, so clearly: “My kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36).” Other references: Matthew 13:31–32, Luke 17:20–21, John 13:35, Acts 1:8, Matthew 5:9. Notably, Christians can live in accordance with Christ’s teachings and serve in government as part of our overall calling to care for people and the planet. But serving out of love soli deo gloria is not the same as infiltration, or notions of returning America to a subjective opinion of its godly roots, or declaring that America has unique favor from God among the nations. I think I would close with an acknowledgement that Christian Nationalism is an evolving movement, and it has several different Christian sects invested in it (for their reasons and agenda). For example, if we get under the hood of their theology, I think we'll find unique differences between Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Russell Vought, or between Secretary of War Pete Hegseth's connections to Doug Wilson (CREC) (which began as Reconstructionism) and the New Apostolic Reformation’s Seven Mountain Mandate (which goes back to 1975 and used to belong to Campus Crusade and YYAM), though it is essentially the same Dominionist idea today: Christians should take dominion and influence over seven cultural spheres/mountains: religion, family, education, government, media, business, and arts/entertainment. Regarding the latter, in 1990 I received a phone call from a highly decorated, iconic musician in a genre not affiliated with Christian music. He was calling to invite me to a prophetic cultural project called the Seven Mountain Mandate. A prophet (I believe it was Paul Cain or someone similarly connected to Mike Bickle in Kansas City) was coming to Nashville to pray and prophesy over a select group of musicians to take dominion over the musical part of the entertainment business. I was already very familiar with this movement and declined. That was 35 years ago.
Thanks for this entire reflection, Charlie! Your insights cast a slant of light across a lifelong conundrum that I can't help but keep at the forefront of my teaching, my creative life, and my relationships...or try to. I keep working at it--it's all I know to do--imperfect though my attempts may be.
I keep coming back to this:
"When we believe our reality is reliable and our neighbor’s is not, we’re likely to end up at epistemic closure....This is where the door of communication shuts, and competing realities can no longer engage in dialogue (unless the individuals involved are inquisitive, respectful, empathetic, and willing to keep knocking and talking)."
"When we believe our reality is reliable and our neighbor's is not...the door of communication shuts."
While there may not always be a way to open a shut door, I find I can't stop wanting communication, a door cautiously opened just a crack by curiosity that invites us to to lean in and listen, to experience a spark of wonder in another person. The simple question, "What's it like in your world?" is all we need to start, yet what a dangerous question that is when we feel so protective or our own constructed and fought for realities.
I think of pieces I've been impacted by and have sometimes had conversations about with my students that continue to inform how I live. Fran Peavey's "Us and Them." Chimamanda Adichie's "The Danger of a Single Story." Celeste Headlee's "10 Ways to Have a Better Conversation." J.R. Jamison's memoir "Hillbilly Queer" and his wonderful community building work through The Facing Project.
I think, too of Thomas Merton and his experience in Louisville, recognizing "that we could not be alien to one another even though we were total strangers" and the yearning I feel every time I read the sentence, "There is no way of telling people that they are all walking around shining like the sun."
Yet we are all, each of us, all the time, "walking around shining like the sun."
Thanks for your added perspective, and for framing with language that helps me better understand this present moment while working, always, for ways to build community, keep the doors open when I can.
Dawn, thank you for so thoughtfully contributing. You also modeled for us right up front that you make no claim to a one and done fixed accuracy. My friend Steven Garber has a book coming out with the underlying big idea of the "proximate." A word I have found so helpful. Which is just shorthand for: "imperfect though my attempts may be." This epistemic humility does crack the door a bit. Your other inspirations flesh it out further. I also hope we the people can extend the generosity form this starting place to: "Now I'm going to say some things I have strong convictions about" and not have it stall the dialogue. Appreciate you. Here's to open doors once shut!
"Proximate"--yes, this is a helpful word, and resonant. I've noted Steve Garber's book comes out in January. His lyrical essay approach sounds like just the right approach. Appreciate the dialogue you've started here, and your manner of engagement.
Sadly we have replaced evangelism with Christian nationalism. Instead of telling the good news of Christ, we are supporting movements and political agendas that speak of Christ in a positive manner but don't offer hope or salvation. If you look at the history of nationalism it never ends well. Especially for those that follow Christ.
Thanks for the comment Tom. Sam told me he saw you with Peter Case the other day. I had to give him the history and links between Peter, Steven Soles, Victoria Williams and Buddy and Julie. Peace.
Hi Charlie, thank you for taking the time to post this and care enough to share your concerns. Before I leave my comments, I want you to know I respect you and take your thoughts seriously even if I may disagree.
That being said- i do want to push back a little on the Trump narrative. Before I get turned off, im not a crazy Trump supporter, and didn't vote for him in his first presidential election. (I abstained as i couldn't vote for either candidate.)
When you speak of truth, lying and fact checkers, and that Trump has normalized lying, you do know that the main stream media lies as much or more than Trump ever has. Ive been fact checking the fact checkers from the early 2000's. I found that much of the time they were not quoting legit sources, but many times a left leaning publication like the Onion, the Gaurdian, and opinion pieces from the NY Times, or Washington Post.
When someone did a duvet on Snopes, all the fact checkers were extremely left wing and some were former Democratic party employees.
Not completely objective.
During covid I read and studied articles from all over the nation, and found reoccurring lies and bias, hidden truth from main stream media writers. I confronted many and posted their inconsistencies and saw some retractions and article changes. Not mistakes but obvious lies or misinformation.
My point for pushing back is not to be argumentative or combative. I just want say that there is a bigger problem than just Trump. When we have a media that lies to the degree that they are an extension of the DNC, we have an issue. People are fed up with all the lies overall which is why the trust in media is at an all time low.
Thanks for making me think. Hopefully this comes across as a dialog and not a fight.
Darren, thank you. It does come across as dialogue and not fight. I so appreciate it. Here's my take. If we (us yes, but the global royal we too) are going to lock arms and work our way back to decency and shared meaning, we must recover the classical definition of argument: an argument is a reasoned presentation of ideas intended to demonstrate the truth or validity of a claim. It’s not about quarreling or coercion, but about offering premises, theories, or reasons that logically support a conclusion—then inviting others to consider the coherence and soundness of that reasoning. I don’t care what it is named, argument, riffing, whatever we can agree on. But we do need the foundation to present contrasting ideas in public. So that’s my first thought. Secondly, I think we all need a refresher course in the contexts of speaking and writing, acknowledging they are not equal in their ability to hold space for serious discussion that may become complex (which is why I left social media and only write here on Substack, yet clearly, the community on Substack has found its sweet spot now as to how much text people will tolerate—and I’m pretty sure my post exceeded it). This means people scan. Yes, scanning is a cultural norm. But we better not scan an airline pilot’s manual and expect to fly. I feel the same about serious writing and discussion in public. Thirdly, part of my whole language/meaning/literacy triad is that our reading comprehension game must improve. We have so many forces in culture reducing this triad and even declaring it unnecessary over against acquired power, image, or slogan. I’m not one of them. I truly do want to recover language and shared meaning even if we disagree. Being stuck in disagreement bears no fruit. So, even with these few observations about the process of us having substantive dialogue, we all need a bit of a public agreement. It might go something like this. If the writer has been more responsible than not, tackled a wide range of topics—maybe they are a published author and so on—I think we should give them the benefit of the doubt when a Substack post isn’t a book chapter or a book itself. This is what I mean by understanding context. So, I want to learn to do this better. Move from “gotcha!” to “there likely wasn’t space to tackle all these merited but tangential paths to follow.” Which leads me to yes, I completely agree regarding the bias of news and reporting. I also agree that I have many biases (including all the ones I have yet to discover). Also, it is not a small thing for me to admit right up front that I’m a student, writing to process and understand—even if my understanding is partial or contingent. Because you have been so big-hearted, you’re exactly the kind of reader I would hope to take this confession seriously. I write knowing that my understanding of pretty much anything, other than how to improvise over a Dm chord is partial and contingent. I’m super idealistic and naive sometimes, but I really do hope people will read what I write in the context I reveal to them. If I’ve been a reasonably honest good-will actor, I just have this expectation of respect—the way you were respectful. The same good intent goes with the Trump passage. Yes, I hold to this conviction that he is, in a sense a pioneer/type/major figure in our epistemic collapse, but look at what I wrote: “I don’t know if Donald J. Trump (citizen and president) is most responsible for this epistemic collapse (without letting anyone on the socio-political spectrum off the hook—including myself).” I’m not excluding anything or anyone from blame, including myself, but I am focusing on the president for my reasons as a writer and citizen—it’s not even the focus of the post. Because you are a goodwill participant with me now (thank you), based on the definition of argument, now it’s your turn. If you’d like, take my tri-modal language analysis of Donald Trump the citizen and president and persuade me through evidence that my 3 point thesis is flawed. Thank you again for your comment and kindness.
Wow Charlie, everyone on the planet needs to read this. How transformative would our world be if we all followed this philosophy & lived this truth as you have articulated. You are indeed a shining light in the tunnel of life. (I hope not a train about to mow me down)
Charlie, thank you for taking a deep dive into our current state of incoherence. Your critique of the moment we are in, and your call to shared meaning, shared commitment, dialogue, respect, and genuine relationship, is a breath of fresh air. Thank you, as well, for drawing a distinction between the clear message and teachings of Jesus and the ways in which those teachings have been distorted toward ends that are contrary to those very teachings. We need light to overcome darkness. Thank you for shedding some with this post.
Thanks, Charlie. The actual net effect of rejecting dialogue and the pursuit of consensus is chaos and a dictatorship. I applaud your courage and clarity.
...Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!...Is 5:20 ESV
Thanks for this well expressed summary, Charlie. Here in Canada we are experiencing the same concerns --- although I believe we are less polarized. Back in the seventies Christian communities got in the habit of only reading books and listening to music curated by their Christian bookstores, publishers, record labels, radio broadcasts, schools, and churches. In doing so, many lost the tendency to question what they were reading. They let others do their thinking for them, unlike the Bereans (Acts 17:11). We have those on the right shouting down those most qualified to speak on certain issues. We also have those on the left rewriting history or demonizing historic figures for not having had 21st-century values. Surely we should still be able to consider both the good and bad of past (and present) political leaders and of our societies. Unfortunately the influence of American Christian Nationalism ironically crosses the border into Canada too. We don't want to be the 51st state, and are feeling the economic bullying of the Trump administration. I appreciate the apologies I've received from some of the American poets in my series.
Charlie - Thanks for thinking out loud in front of us. And in such a thorough manner. Id really like for you to meet my friend in Nashville, soon to be retired Bishop Todd Hunter. He is a student of Dallas Willard. I think the two of you are simpatico and smart enough to understand each other :-) I also liked your Dmin reference.
Thank you, Charlie, for your insights about the current epistemic collapse . . . and especially for offering a way through. These words of yours I take to heart: "All I can say, all I can pray, is God, family, community, help me! I don’t want to be a competing reality. I don’t want to choose a side (or sides)."
Well said, Charlie. I’ve been feeling similarly over the past many years, but without the physical community around me. And I’ve found this piece quite encouraging. A couple of the other authors I’ve found encouraging are Paul Kingsnorth (his new book, Against The Machine, is quite encouraging), and Esther Lightcap Meek (her epistemological throughput all of her writing is spectacular). Thanks for the encouragement!
Thank you Michael for the comment and encouragement. I will check out Kingsnorth. My seminary epistemology guides were Dr. Steven Garber and Dr. Esther Lightcap Meek—gateway source being Michael Polanyi's tacit knowledge. :-)
Oh my, Charlie! Just like your song lyrics... I'll be chewing on this one for the rest of my life!
I've learned from your music over my past 4 decades as a believer. There is a never-ending wealth of growth available to ask who are willing to listen and meditate on the truth your lyrics contain.
I've been struggling for years with this whole issue common reality. The coexisting alternate "realities" my nine adult children exhibit is mind-boggling for me. There is no shared definition of good and evil - only an overwhelming self-absorption that defies true communication.
Thank you for giving me this stabilizing input!
Lesli (in fellowship at Warehouse in the late 80s)
Leslie, good to hear from you. Amazing that all these decades have passed so quickly—yet not! Nevertheless, Warehouse in the house! I'm glad to hear the post was stabilizing. Your, "The coexisting alternate "realities" my nine adult children exhibit is mind-boggling for me." likely hits close to home for many. Thank you for your vulnerability. Peace to you and keep listening. I hope you've heard the song at the very end of this post from the latest Every Kind of Uh-Oh.
Charlie, what is your definition of "Christian Nationalism?" I spent some time last weekend looking into this and Homeland Security, secular writers and Christian writers have descriptions, but none matched. What was consistent is use of the term in a derogatory fashion by journalists. What is your definition of Christian Nationalism?
Thank you for asking. This is my definition with some commentary: Christian nationalism in America is the belief that the nation should be a Christian theocracy (rule by the God of Christianity, cosmically, and via his authorities) and, by extension, a theonomy (rule by biblical law or selected biblical principles and values). In practice, it functions as a political ideology that merges Christian faith with America’s democratic, constitutional Republic—distorting and ultimately reinventing both in the process. Most unique is CN adherent's confession of Jesus Christ as Lord while ignoring his clear direction to live counter to Christian nationalism. This is the heartbreaking irony that is difficult to digest. Jesus taught that the kingdom of God advances through transformation, not conquest; spiritual renewal, not social control; through love and service; through truth and witness, not violence or coercion; through peace, not retribution. And this just touches the surface of the calling to live in coherence and congruence with his ways of being and doing. As he said, so clearly: “My kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36).” Other references: Matthew 13:31–32, Luke 17:20–21, John 13:35, Acts 1:8, Matthew 5:9. Notably, Christians can live in accordance with Christ’s teachings and serve in government as part of our overall calling to care for people and the planet. But serving out of love soli deo gloria is not the same as infiltration, or notions of returning America to a subjective opinion of its godly roots, or declaring that America has unique favor from God among the nations. I think I would close with an acknowledgement that Christian Nationalism is an evolving movement, and it has several different Christian sects invested in it (for their reasons and agenda). For example, if we get under the hood of their theology, I think we'll find unique differences between Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Russell Vought, or between Secretary of War Pete Hegseth's connections to Doug Wilson (CREC) (which began as Reconstructionism) and the New Apostolic Reformation’s Seven Mountain Mandate (which goes back to 1975 and used to belong to Campus Crusade and YYAM), though it is essentially the same Dominionist idea today: Christians should take dominion and influence over seven cultural spheres/mountains: religion, family, education, government, media, business, and arts/entertainment. Regarding the latter, in 1990 I received a phone call from a highly decorated, iconic musician in a genre not affiliated with Christian music. He was calling to invite me to a prophetic cultural project called the Seven Mountain Mandate. A prophet (I believe it was Paul Cain or someone similarly connected to Mike Bickle in Kansas City) was coming to Nashville to pray and prophesy over a select group of musicians to take dominion over the musical part of the entertainment business. I was already very familiar with this movement and declined. That was 35 years ago.
Thanks for this entire reflection, Charlie! Your insights cast a slant of light across a lifelong conundrum that I can't help but keep at the forefront of my teaching, my creative life, and my relationships...or try to. I keep working at it--it's all I know to do--imperfect though my attempts may be.
I keep coming back to this:
"When we believe our reality is reliable and our neighbor’s is not, we’re likely to end up at epistemic closure....This is where the door of communication shuts, and competing realities can no longer engage in dialogue (unless the individuals involved are inquisitive, respectful, empathetic, and willing to keep knocking and talking)."
"When we believe our reality is reliable and our neighbor's is not...the door of communication shuts."
While there may not always be a way to open a shut door, I find I can't stop wanting communication, a door cautiously opened just a crack by curiosity that invites us to to lean in and listen, to experience a spark of wonder in another person. The simple question, "What's it like in your world?" is all we need to start, yet what a dangerous question that is when we feel so protective or our own constructed and fought for realities.
I think of pieces I've been impacted by and have sometimes had conversations about with my students that continue to inform how I live. Fran Peavey's "Us and Them." Chimamanda Adichie's "The Danger of a Single Story." Celeste Headlee's "10 Ways to Have a Better Conversation." J.R. Jamison's memoir "Hillbilly Queer" and his wonderful community building work through The Facing Project.
I think, too of Thomas Merton and his experience in Louisville, recognizing "that we could not be alien to one another even though we were total strangers" and the yearning I feel every time I read the sentence, "There is no way of telling people that they are all walking around shining like the sun."
Yet we are all, each of us, all the time, "walking around shining like the sun."
Thanks for your added perspective, and for framing with language that helps me better understand this present moment while working, always, for ways to build community, keep the doors open when I can.
Dawn, thank you for so thoughtfully contributing. You also modeled for us right up front that you make no claim to a one and done fixed accuracy. My friend Steven Garber has a book coming out with the underlying big idea of the "proximate." A word I have found so helpful. Which is just shorthand for: "imperfect though my attempts may be." This epistemic humility does crack the door a bit. Your other inspirations flesh it out further. I also hope we the people can extend the generosity form this starting place to: "Now I'm going to say some things I have strong convictions about" and not have it stall the dialogue. Appreciate you. Here's to open doors once shut!
"Proximate"--yes, this is a helpful word, and resonant. I've noted Steve Garber's book comes out in January. His lyrical essay approach sounds like just the right approach. Appreciate the dialogue you've started here, and your manner of engagement.
Sadly we have replaced evangelism with Christian nationalism. Instead of telling the good news of Christ, we are supporting movements and political agendas that speak of Christ in a positive manner but don't offer hope or salvation. If you look at the history of nationalism it never ends well. Especially for those that follow Christ.
Thanks Charlie. Good words for bad times.
Thanks for the comment Tom. Sam told me he saw you with Peter Case the other day. I had to give him the history and links between Peter, Steven Soles, Victoria Williams and Buddy and Julie. Peace.
Yes, I told them about our get-together last year. It was good to see them.
Peace to you and Andi.
"When persuasion dies, power fills the vacuum."
Nicely put
Thanks ACP, caught a break!
Hi Charlie, thank you for taking the time to post this and care enough to share your concerns. Before I leave my comments, I want you to know I respect you and take your thoughts seriously even if I may disagree.
That being said- i do want to push back a little on the Trump narrative. Before I get turned off, im not a crazy Trump supporter, and didn't vote for him in his first presidential election. (I abstained as i couldn't vote for either candidate.)
When you speak of truth, lying and fact checkers, and that Trump has normalized lying, you do know that the main stream media lies as much or more than Trump ever has. Ive been fact checking the fact checkers from the early 2000's. I found that much of the time they were not quoting legit sources, but many times a left leaning publication like the Onion, the Gaurdian, and opinion pieces from the NY Times, or Washington Post.
When someone did a duvet on Snopes, all the fact checkers were extremely left wing and some were former Democratic party employees.
Not completely objective.
During covid I read and studied articles from all over the nation, and found reoccurring lies and bias, hidden truth from main stream media writers. I confronted many and posted their inconsistencies and saw some retractions and article changes. Not mistakes but obvious lies or misinformation.
My point for pushing back is not to be argumentative or combative. I just want say that there is a bigger problem than just Trump. When we have a media that lies to the degree that they are an extension of the DNC, we have an issue. People are fed up with all the lies overall which is why the trust in media is at an all time low.
Thanks for making me think. Hopefully this comes across as a dialog and not a fight.
Blessings,
Darren
Darren, thank you. It does come across as dialogue and not fight. I so appreciate it. Here's my take. If we (us yes, but the global royal we too) are going to lock arms and work our way back to decency and shared meaning, we must recover the classical definition of argument: an argument is a reasoned presentation of ideas intended to demonstrate the truth or validity of a claim. It’s not about quarreling or coercion, but about offering premises, theories, or reasons that logically support a conclusion—then inviting others to consider the coherence and soundness of that reasoning. I don’t care what it is named, argument, riffing, whatever we can agree on. But we do need the foundation to present contrasting ideas in public. So that’s my first thought. Secondly, I think we all need a refresher course in the contexts of speaking and writing, acknowledging they are not equal in their ability to hold space for serious discussion that may become complex (which is why I left social media and only write here on Substack, yet clearly, the community on Substack has found its sweet spot now as to how much text people will tolerate—and I’m pretty sure my post exceeded it). This means people scan. Yes, scanning is a cultural norm. But we better not scan an airline pilot’s manual and expect to fly. I feel the same about serious writing and discussion in public. Thirdly, part of my whole language/meaning/literacy triad is that our reading comprehension game must improve. We have so many forces in culture reducing this triad and even declaring it unnecessary over against acquired power, image, or slogan. I’m not one of them. I truly do want to recover language and shared meaning even if we disagree. Being stuck in disagreement bears no fruit. So, even with these few observations about the process of us having substantive dialogue, we all need a bit of a public agreement. It might go something like this. If the writer has been more responsible than not, tackled a wide range of topics—maybe they are a published author and so on—I think we should give them the benefit of the doubt when a Substack post isn’t a book chapter or a book itself. This is what I mean by understanding context. So, I want to learn to do this better. Move from “gotcha!” to “there likely wasn’t space to tackle all these merited but tangential paths to follow.” Which leads me to yes, I completely agree regarding the bias of news and reporting. I also agree that I have many biases (including all the ones I have yet to discover). Also, it is not a small thing for me to admit right up front that I’m a student, writing to process and understand—even if my understanding is partial or contingent. Because you have been so big-hearted, you’re exactly the kind of reader I would hope to take this confession seriously. I write knowing that my understanding of pretty much anything, other than how to improvise over a Dm chord is partial and contingent. I’m super idealistic and naive sometimes, but I really do hope people will read what I write in the context I reveal to them. If I’ve been a reasonably honest good-will actor, I just have this expectation of respect—the way you were respectful. The same good intent goes with the Trump passage. Yes, I hold to this conviction that he is, in a sense a pioneer/type/major figure in our epistemic collapse, but look at what I wrote: “I don’t know if Donald J. Trump (citizen and president) is most responsible for this epistemic collapse (without letting anyone on the socio-political spectrum off the hook—including myself).” I’m not excluding anything or anyone from blame, including myself, but I am focusing on the president for my reasons as a writer and citizen—it’s not even the focus of the post. Because you are a goodwill participant with me now (thank you), based on the definition of argument, now it’s your turn. If you’d like, take my tri-modal language analysis of Donald Trump the citizen and president and persuade me through evidence that my 3 point thesis is flawed. Thank you again for your comment and kindness.
Wow Charlie, everyone on the planet needs to read this. How transformative would our world be if we all followed this philosophy & lived this truth as you have articulated. You are indeed a shining light in the tunnel of life. (I hope not a train about to mow me down)
Have I told you lately how much I love you!...In do!
I don't think you have, but it is always appreciated!
Charlie, thank you for taking a deep dive into our current state of incoherence. Your critique of the moment we are in, and your call to shared meaning, shared commitment, dialogue, respect, and genuine relationship, is a breath of fresh air. Thank you, as well, for drawing a distinction between the clear message and teachings of Jesus and the ways in which those teachings have been distorted toward ends that are contrary to those very teachings. We need light to overcome darkness. Thank you for shedding some with this post.
Thanks, Charlie. The actual net effect of rejecting dialogue and the pursuit of consensus is chaos and a dictatorship. I applaud your courage and clarity.
...Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!...Is 5:20 ESV
Thanks for this well expressed summary, Charlie. Here in Canada we are experiencing the same concerns --- although I believe we are less polarized. Back in the seventies Christian communities got in the habit of only reading books and listening to music curated by their Christian bookstores, publishers, record labels, radio broadcasts, schools, and churches. In doing so, many lost the tendency to question what they were reading. They let others do their thinking for them, unlike the Bereans (Acts 17:11). We have those on the right shouting down those most qualified to speak on certain issues. We also have those on the left rewriting history or demonizing historic figures for not having had 21st-century values. Surely we should still be able to consider both the good and bad of past (and present) political leaders and of our societies. Unfortunately the influence of American Christian Nationalism ironically crosses the border into Canada too. We don't want to be the 51st state, and are feeling the economic bullying of the Trump administration. I appreciate the apologies I've received from some of the American poets in my series.
Charlie - Thanks for thinking out loud in front of us. And in such a thorough manner. Id really like for you to meet my friend in Nashville, soon to be retired Bishop Todd Hunter. He is a student of Dallas Willard. I think the two of you are simpatico and smart enough to understand each other :-) I also liked your Dmin reference.
Thank you, Charlie, for your insights about the current epistemic collapse . . . and especially for offering a way through. These words of yours I take to heart: "All I can say, all I can pray, is God, family, community, help me! I don’t want to be a competing reality. I don’t want to choose a side (or sides)."
Greetings! Always good to have a poet in the house. I appreciate your encouragement and taking those particular words with you as you go. Peace.
Thanks Charlie for “staying put”.
I have been so saddened by the state of our government and loss of truth.
So glad we have our hope, faith, and love placed in the loving arms of Jesus.💜
Thank you Theresa for your consistent encouragement over all these years. Peace to you and yours!
Well said, Charlie. I’ve been feeling similarly over the past many years, but without the physical community around me. And I’ve found this piece quite encouraging. A couple of the other authors I’ve found encouraging are Paul Kingsnorth (his new book, Against The Machine, is quite encouraging), and Esther Lightcap Meek (her epistemological throughput all of her writing is spectacular). Thanks for the encouragement!
Thank you Michael for the comment and encouragement. I will check out Kingsnorth. My seminary epistemology guides were Dr. Steven Garber and Dr. Esther Lightcap Meek—gateway source being Michael Polanyi's tacit knowledge. :-)
Amazing!!! Keep it going!
Oh my, Charlie! Just like your song lyrics... I'll be chewing on this one for the rest of my life!
I've learned from your music over my past 4 decades as a believer. There is a never-ending wealth of growth available to ask who are willing to listen and meditate on the truth your lyrics contain.
I've been struggling for years with this whole issue common reality. The coexisting alternate "realities" my nine adult children exhibit is mind-boggling for me. There is no shared definition of good and evil - only an overwhelming self-absorption that defies true communication.
Thank you for giving me this stabilizing input!
Lesli (in fellowship at Warehouse in the late 80s)
Leslie, good to hear from you. Amazing that all these decades have passed so quickly—yet not! Nevertheless, Warehouse in the house! I'm glad to hear the post was stabilizing. Your, "The coexisting alternate "realities" my nine adult children exhibit is mind-boggling for me." likely hits close to home for many. Thank you for your vulnerability. Peace to you and keep listening. I hope you've heard the song at the very end of this post from the latest Every Kind of Uh-Oh.