It's not that there's NO PLACE in the conversation for "Nationalism," per se. Politics are both inevitable and necessary for human flourishing. As Aristotle famously notes, humans are, after all, political animals. But various expressions of Nationalism ALWAYS tend toward ideology and are essentially REACTIONS to various forms of Socialism.
Certainly, politics falls within the realm of the Christian Humanist project, but 1) its interests naturally transcend national boundaries (i.e., humanity), and 2) politics are, in the scheme of things, the lowest means and the last resort for protecting and promoting human flourishing. To be clear, I'm not advocating a leftist or anarchical open border paradigm, for example. Rather, I'm arguing that culture-making (i.e., enculturation) is upstream from, and more significant (i.e, weighty) than mere politics. Culture-making happens in the heart and head ahead of policies (out of the abundance of the heart, know them by their fruits, etc.).
We've all undoubtedly noticed (those of us old enough, anyway) how the political climate in the public square has escalated radically in the last 60-or-so years, from rational public discourse to a shrill cacophony of sound bites, screaming, "peaceful protests," propaganda, and gaslighting. While it may be more visible on one side of the aisle for now, shrillness and outrage are now part of the national pysche, and it is slowly being educed from its latency on other side as well. Perhaps, Nationalism may salvage a particular nation (our nation for example) or prolong a people's particular way of life for a time, but it's inept at restoring wholeness. The pattern is consistent throughout history and it's only putting a bandaid on a bullet wound.
To put it in the simplest terms, Christian humanism is interested in working upstream from politics, nourishing the moral imagination toward cultural renewal. But even in that, there must be a recognition that two entities share a liminal space—the City of God and the City of Man—in the already/not yet kingdom. And while I personally hold an optimistic view of eschatology, many prominent thinkers with this view have unfortunately adopted a reductionist mindset (perhaps unwittingly) and conflated the work of the Holy Spirit with Nietzschean will-to-power politics (i.e., expressed in the dispositions and philosophies of various advocates of different Nationalisms). "Faithful Presence" (in its original intent) is a more apt approach in the Christian Humanist view—although I acknowledge the expression has fallen out of favor with some Christians in modernity because so many who fall back on the expression are neither faithful nor present in their cultural engagement.
This was probably much more lengthy than you hoped for and certainly more broad-brushed and over-simplified than I feel content with; so, feel free to push back, or ask follow up questions.
I really appreciate the thorough response Dr. Postma. There is a lot for me to chew on here.
"Certainly, politics falls within the realm of the Christian Humanist project, but 1) its interests naturally transcend national boundaries (i.e., humanity), and 2) politics are, in the scheme of things, the lowest means and the last resort for protecting and promoting human flourishing. To be clear, I'm not advocating a leftist or anarchical open border paradigm, for example. Rather, I'm arguing that culture-making (i.e., enculturation) is upstream from, and more significant (i.e, weighty) than mere politics. Culture-making happens in the heart and head ahead of policies (out of the abundance of the heart, know them by their fruits, etc.)."
Based on this statement, I want to ensure I understand correctly. You do not want to advocate for the globalism "open border" paradigm promoted after WWII, but you do want to recognize some form of global human interest that aligns with Christian Humanism. Does that sound accurate? Essentially, I think you are saying it's global in scope but not necessarily globalism proper.
Yes. I think that’s summarized well. In terms of political regimes as it’s being framed in current debates (Post WW2), I agree globalism would be disastrous. It could only be accomplished as a Marxist enterprise and that’s why we’re seeing what we’re seeing today. Where it gets messy is in the pushback against globalism/Marxism, where varieties of nationalisms come out of the woodwork. Maybe a better way to say this is globalism is essentially Marxism. That’s a devil we know. I oppose that vehemently. It’s anti-human. One of my concerns politically, however, is that the current conversations amongst the Marxist opponents (i.e., Nationalism conversation) has attracted some strange bugs. Where I would land in that conversation is in support of an American nationalism with a Christian humanist ethos—neither theocracy nor secularism, but secularity in the Augustinian sense. That’s something I think most of our founders would recognize.
Would you say that Nationalism has no place in Christian Humanism? If so, why not?
It's not that there's NO PLACE in the conversation for "Nationalism," per se. Politics are both inevitable and necessary for human flourishing. As Aristotle famously notes, humans are, after all, political animals. But various expressions of Nationalism ALWAYS tend toward ideology and are essentially REACTIONS to various forms of Socialism.
Certainly, politics falls within the realm of the Christian Humanist project, but 1) its interests naturally transcend national boundaries (i.e., humanity), and 2) politics are, in the scheme of things, the lowest means and the last resort for protecting and promoting human flourishing. To be clear, I'm not advocating a leftist or anarchical open border paradigm, for example. Rather, I'm arguing that culture-making (i.e., enculturation) is upstream from, and more significant (i.e, weighty) than mere politics. Culture-making happens in the heart and head ahead of policies (out of the abundance of the heart, know them by their fruits, etc.).
We've all undoubtedly noticed (those of us old enough, anyway) how the political climate in the public square has escalated radically in the last 60-or-so years, from rational public discourse to a shrill cacophony of sound bites, screaming, "peaceful protests," propaganda, and gaslighting. While it may be more visible on one side of the aisle for now, shrillness and outrage are now part of the national pysche, and it is slowly being educed from its latency on other side as well. Perhaps, Nationalism may salvage a particular nation (our nation for example) or prolong a people's particular way of life for a time, but it's inept at restoring wholeness. The pattern is consistent throughout history and it's only putting a bandaid on a bullet wound.
To put it in the simplest terms, Christian humanism is interested in working upstream from politics, nourishing the moral imagination toward cultural renewal. But even in that, there must be a recognition that two entities share a liminal space—the City of God and the City of Man—in the already/not yet kingdom. And while I personally hold an optimistic view of eschatology, many prominent thinkers with this view have unfortunately adopted a reductionist mindset (perhaps unwittingly) and conflated the work of the Holy Spirit with Nietzschean will-to-power politics (i.e., expressed in the dispositions and philosophies of various advocates of different Nationalisms). "Faithful Presence" (in its original intent) is a more apt approach in the Christian Humanist view—although I acknowledge the expression has fallen out of favor with some Christians in modernity because so many who fall back on the expression are neither faithful nor present in their cultural engagement.
This was probably much more lengthy than you hoped for and certainly more broad-brushed and over-simplified than I feel content with; so, feel free to push back, or ask follow up questions.
I really appreciate the thorough response Dr. Postma. There is a lot for me to chew on here.
"Certainly, politics falls within the realm of the Christian Humanist project, but 1) its interests naturally transcend national boundaries (i.e., humanity), and 2) politics are, in the scheme of things, the lowest means and the last resort for protecting and promoting human flourishing. To be clear, I'm not advocating a leftist or anarchical open border paradigm, for example. Rather, I'm arguing that culture-making (i.e., enculturation) is upstream from, and more significant (i.e, weighty) than mere politics. Culture-making happens in the heart and head ahead of policies (out of the abundance of the heart, know them by their fruits, etc.)."
Based on this statement, I want to ensure I understand correctly. You do not want to advocate for the globalism "open border" paradigm promoted after WWII, but you do want to recognize some form of global human interest that aligns with Christian Humanism. Does that sound accurate? Essentially, I think you are saying it's global in scope but not necessarily globalism proper.
Please correct where I'm wrong. Thank you.
Yes. I think that’s summarized well. In terms of political regimes as it’s being framed in current debates (Post WW2), I agree globalism would be disastrous. It could only be accomplished as a Marxist enterprise and that’s why we’re seeing what we’re seeing today. Where it gets messy is in the pushback against globalism/Marxism, where varieties of nationalisms come out of the woodwork. Maybe a better way to say this is globalism is essentially Marxism. That’s a devil we know. I oppose that vehemently. It’s anti-human. One of my concerns politically, however, is that the current conversations amongst the Marxist opponents (i.e., Nationalism conversation) has attracted some strange bugs. Where I would land in that conversation is in support of an American nationalism with a Christian humanist ethos—neither theocracy nor secularism, but secularity in the Augustinian sense. That’s something I think most of our founders would recognize.