Well put Sam. I almost vomited when I saw Hegseth's video, that's the first time I had seen it. It's repugnant.
Loved this summary of the left: "...one of the main stories of the late 20th century is that liberals found themselves less and less able to find larger philosophical or religious resources that could motivate that vision of care in a sustainable way. And so they resorted to repeating the parts they liked ever more loudly, never quite noticing how much the whole vision was dying in their hands."
I appreciate your explanation (and reasoning) for leaving your faith out of this. I've criticized you for that in the past, and it seems that perhaps now more than every we need your voice of reason, and your reason for hope.
Hesgeth and his master, the other Wilson... will not have the last word.
This resonates so deeply--thank you for taking the time to articulate this moment in our history so clearly. We need to hear more of this kind of thinking!
Nice essay. I'm agnostic but generally pretty dismissive of faith. Like, why should I think an arbitrary member of the Mesopotamian pantheon (Yahweh) is any less obviously invented myth than every other member of the ancient pantheons across the world? But I couldn't agree more with your point here. Since Reagan the left has had only the dumb left (Marxist-Leninist tankies) or soulless, scared nothing. If I thought it would work politically, I'd much rather vote for a rousing liberal Christian -- despite what I said above! -- firing up the American people to care about each other and be a force for good in the world than what we've gotten for 45 years!
Thanks for this piece, Sam. I think it is right on point! It's a view I share, though coming from a social science perspective (though ending in the same place). For what it's worth, here's my take:
This week’s memorial to honor Charlie Kirk brought two very different views of Christianity into sharp focus. On one hand, was a profound show of mercy, as exemplified by his grieving widow Erika who forgave her husband’s assassin. On the other were calls by many, including White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, for a spiritual battle against the wicked. For those looking on from outside a faith, or even from the vantage point of some within it, this juxtaposition can be jarring. How can a faith advocate both forgiveness and vengeance? Is one more accurate than the other?
It’s a question that has perpetually surrounded religion. Many wars and despicable acts of violence have been carried out in Christianity's (and other religion's names). Yet so too have many acts of mercy and reconciliation. Understanding the nature of the tension between the two, and where the deeper truth might reside in a faith, requires realizing that religion can take two forms: thin and thick.
As the Christian theologian Miroslav Volf describes it, a thin practice is superficial — one where people self-identify with a faith but don’t engage with its deeper teachings, convictions, and practices. Think the cultural Christian, or those who show up at services but give little thought or effort to prayer and studying the scripture. This hollowed out form, Volf stresses, mostly functions as a simple a label ripe for manipulation by those in political power who are all too ready to put on a mantle of faith. And in so doing, a thin practice can supercharge calls for violence by giving them a seeming basis in God’s will.
Here, the the dynamics of why are easy to grasp. The Bible, like many sacred texts, is a book of many voices. While it contains verses that urge forgiveness, it also contains ones, like Psalm 137, that offer blessings and praise for bashing the heads of your enemy’s children against rocks. And at times when people feel their beliefs and way of life are under siege, research shows that not only do their memories favor these vengeful verses over the merciful ones, but also their views of God’s nature become more punitive. The result is that the temptation for political revenge in God’s name feels easily justified.
A thick practice, on the other hand, is one that requires people to grapple deeply with a faith’s core teachings in context and through practice. In Christianity, Volf notes, this means endeavoring to grasp the meaning of love and service through Christ’s suffering on the cross — to come to see the whole of the faith as centered on mercy and forgiveness and not just on fragmented verses or historical events that can be used to justify any stance. Here, too, the workings of the mind come into play. When people pray for those who oppose them, much as Jesus urged in the Gospel of Matthew, research shows that their desire for retribution fades. Even simple meditative contemplation extinguishes attempts to cause pain to those who would otherwise provoke anger through insults or opposition.
What is the true path? As a scientist, it’s not for me say in a theological sense. But I do think there’s something to be gleaned by looking to the faiths themselves for answers. For Christianity, the way to discernment — the ability to make wise and moral decisions by overcoming hidden biases — comes via the spiritual exercises of prayer and contemplation that a thick practice offers. Its these spiritual tools that allow people to question their own initial assumptions, that calm their passions, and, research shows, that foster mercy and compassion for others. So if the faiths themselves urge a practice for decision-making that nudges the mind toward forgiveness and overcomes its innate tribal impulses to punish those who it perceives as enemies, maybe that’s evidence enough to discern which path God, if God exists, wants us to follow.
Excellent, excellent piece. I love your emphasis on the weightiness of faith, and the focus on the at times crushing burden the Gospels place on us to try and be present in that inversion of power our society most-often tells us to reject. Your title as well, speaks to the uncertainty and apophatic tension that early Christian thinkers wrote about so much. We are lacking in that humility in this time of muscular faith, I feel.
"For we explain not what God is but candidly confess that we have not exact knowledge concerning Him. For in what concerns God to confess our ignorance is the best knowledge." - Saint Cyril of Jerusalem (313–386)
In part, what comes into question is the sincerity of their belief, Sam. I watched some of the Kirk memorial and found it nauseating. Turned into a prime-time special, which was used as a political prop. Don't get me wrong, I had absolutely no time for Kirk, and I think he was a dangerous man who supported disgraceful causes; yet I couldn't help but feel repulsed by the spectacle.
Do we really think genuine Christians, when thinking closely about the tenets of their faith, would support someone like Donald Trump? Are they really that bothered about protecting a Christian culture? It strikes me a Trumpian world is one in which crony capitalism is let off the leash, millions of poor souls are rounded up or hounded out of the state, and the power of the state is used to punish those who do not comply. I'm not sure how any Christian can reconcile themselves to this.
Personally, I would love to hear a podcast about the weight of your faith. As a life-long atheist, I've always wanted to listen to a genuine and thoughtful discussion about this weight outside of the gladiatorial contestation over said faith. I think it would be a fascinating listen especially in regard to this new set of events in America!
"Until our incredibly idiosyncratic era, in fact, the idea of claiming divine mandate for state action was almost the norm."
We have had iron-fisted rule by oligarchy. I'll take my chances with people who feel there are consequences to self-serving power grabbing.
The whole point of a free society is not that we all agree, but that we are all free to disagree. When was the last time you hears a progressive acknowledge that? When was the last time you heard a progressive vehemently support the right of Trump and his supporters to have their own point of view and their own way of life?
Progressives are owed no consideration by anyone about anything. Because they have shown none.
Christianity became a tool of empire with the ascendency of Constantine to the autocracy of the late unified Roman Empire. But all the associated hierarchies, dominations, and violence cannot totally define Christianity. Christianity IS a tool of empire, violence, domination, and hierarchy, but that is not all it is. This truth is pointed to by the differentiation between the gospel (bitter truth) of POWER and the gospel (good news) of GRACE. And grace (whether it originates somehow within space and time, in the mind and bodies of sentient beings, or has some or all of its roots outside space and time) is a channel for creativity, empathy, nurturance, and overcoming. And Christianity has done quite a bit to develop a concept of grace that may also have secular applications.
Some Christians (a small minority who can sometimes exert a great deal of cultural influence because what they teach resounds with a powerful subset of human needs and values) have always emphasized the “gospel of grace “which prioritizes identification with VICTIMS and the OPPRESSED. The gospel of grace ALSO encourages the establishment and maintenance of intentional (alternative) communities where the violence of empire and oppression are rejected. Of course, the gospel (bitter truth) of power in the form of hierarchy is never completely excluded and CAN grow (and even horribly metastasize) rapidly in small intentional communities.
Another irony (bitter truth) about humanity is that ANYBODY can claim the mantel of victimhood — and even the most violent and destructive oppressors have a basis for fearing judgements and chastisements (which they always frame as violent retribution) from their rivals and from their victims. Social entrepreneurs (or political shamans or necromancers) use this fear of victimhood, scapegoating, and retribution to target alternative scapegoats and build enthusiastic support for their tyrannies.
I would venture this thought: the concern about power inversion is rooted not only in humans wanting power over their own species, but it's bigger than that. Most of us have been firmly rooted in the belief that we are separate and above the other-than-human, and it is this profoundly upside-down belief that limits so many of us from truly being able to honour those who seem to be "the weak".
Thank you for sharing your wise words. As person of faith I concur 100%.
That evil men are now openly inverting God's words is a deplorable travesty, one that I hope will not gain momentum. Sadly, we the people are so ignorant of the Gospel message that many will fall for the deceit.
Well put Sam. I almost vomited when I saw Hegseth's video, that's the first time I had seen it. It's repugnant.
Loved this summary of the left: "...one of the main stories of the late 20th century is that liberals found themselves less and less able to find larger philosophical or religious resources that could motivate that vision of care in a sustainable way. And so they resorted to repeating the parts they liked ever more loudly, never quite noticing how much the whole vision was dying in their hands."
I appreciate your explanation (and reasoning) for leaving your faith out of this. I've criticized you for that in the past, and it seems that perhaps now more than every we need your voice of reason, and your reason for hope.
Hesgeth and his master, the other Wilson... will not have the last word.
This resonates so deeply--thank you for taking the time to articulate this moment in our history so clearly. We need to hear more of this kind of thinking!
Great piece, cutting through the noise. Uplifting in its disappointment. Thanks Samuel!
Nice essay. I'm agnostic but generally pretty dismissive of faith. Like, why should I think an arbitrary member of the Mesopotamian pantheon (Yahweh) is any less obviously invented myth than every other member of the ancient pantheons across the world? But I couldn't agree more with your point here. Since Reagan the left has had only the dumb left (Marxist-Leninist tankies) or soulless, scared nothing. If I thought it would work politically, I'd much rather vote for a rousing liberal Christian -- despite what I said above! -- firing up the American people to care about each other and be a force for good in the world than what we've gotten for 45 years!
Thanks for this piece, Sam. I think it is right on point! It's a view I share, though coming from a social science perspective (though ending in the same place). For what it's worth, here's my take:
This week’s memorial to honor Charlie Kirk brought two very different views of Christianity into sharp focus. On one hand, was a profound show of mercy, as exemplified by his grieving widow Erika who forgave her husband’s assassin. On the other were calls by many, including White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, for a spiritual battle against the wicked. For those looking on from outside a faith, or even from the vantage point of some within it, this juxtaposition can be jarring. How can a faith advocate both forgiveness and vengeance? Is one more accurate than the other?
It’s a question that has perpetually surrounded religion. Many wars and despicable acts of violence have been carried out in Christianity's (and other religion's names). Yet so too have many acts of mercy and reconciliation. Understanding the nature of the tension between the two, and where the deeper truth might reside in a faith, requires realizing that religion can take two forms: thin and thick.
As the Christian theologian Miroslav Volf describes it, a thin practice is superficial — one where people self-identify with a faith but don’t engage with its deeper teachings, convictions, and practices. Think the cultural Christian, or those who show up at services but give little thought or effort to prayer and studying the scripture. This hollowed out form, Volf stresses, mostly functions as a simple a label ripe for manipulation by those in political power who are all too ready to put on a mantle of faith. And in so doing, a thin practice can supercharge calls for violence by giving them a seeming basis in God’s will.
Here, the the dynamics of why are easy to grasp. The Bible, like many sacred texts, is a book of many voices. While it contains verses that urge forgiveness, it also contains ones, like Psalm 137, that offer blessings and praise for bashing the heads of your enemy’s children against rocks. And at times when people feel their beliefs and way of life are under siege, research shows that not only do their memories favor these vengeful verses over the merciful ones, but also their views of God’s nature become more punitive. The result is that the temptation for political revenge in God’s name feels easily justified.
A thick practice, on the other hand, is one that requires people to grapple deeply with a faith’s core teachings in context and through practice. In Christianity, Volf notes, this means endeavoring to grasp the meaning of love and service through Christ’s suffering on the cross — to come to see the whole of the faith as centered on mercy and forgiveness and not just on fragmented verses or historical events that can be used to justify any stance. Here, too, the workings of the mind come into play. When people pray for those who oppose them, much as Jesus urged in the Gospel of Matthew, research shows that their desire for retribution fades. Even simple meditative contemplation extinguishes attempts to cause pain to those who would otherwise provoke anger through insults or opposition.
What is the true path? As a scientist, it’s not for me say in a theological sense. But I do think there’s something to be gleaned by looking to the faiths themselves for answers. For Christianity, the way to discernment — the ability to make wise and moral decisions by overcoming hidden biases — comes via the spiritual exercises of prayer and contemplation that a thick practice offers. Its these spiritual tools that allow people to question their own initial assumptions, that calm their passions, and, research shows, that foster mercy and compassion for others. So if the faiths themselves urge a practice for decision-making that nudges the mind toward forgiveness and overcomes its innate tribal impulses to punish those who it perceives as enemies, maybe that’s evidence enough to discern which path God, if God exists, wants us to follow.
Excellent, excellent piece. I love your emphasis on the weightiness of faith, and the focus on the at times crushing burden the Gospels place on us to try and be present in that inversion of power our society most-often tells us to reject. Your title as well, speaks to the uncertainty and apophatic tension that early Christian thinkers wrote about so much. We are lacking in that humility in this time of muscular faith, I feel.
"For we explain not what God is but candidly confess that we have not exact knowledge concerning Him. For in what concerns God to confess our ignorance is the best knowledge." - Saint Cyril of Jerusalem (313–386)
In part, what comes into question is the sincerity of their belief, Sam. I watched some of the Kirk memorial and found it nauseating. Turned into a prime-time special, which was used as a political prop. Don't get me wrong, I had absolutely no time for Kirk, and I think he was a dangerous man who supported disgraceful causes; yet I couldn't help but feel repulsed by the spectacle.
Do we really think genuine Christians, when thinking closely about the tenets of their faith, would support someone like Donald Trump? Are they really that bothered about protecting a Christian culture? It strikes me a Trumpian world is one in which crony capitalism is let off the leash, millions of poor souls are rounded up or hounded out of the state, and the power of the state is used to punish those who do not comply. I'm not sure how any Christian can reconcile themselves to this.
Personally, I would love to hear a podcast about the weight of your faith. As a life-long atheist, I've always wanted to listen to a genuine and thoughtful discussion about this weight outside of the gladiatorial contestation over said faith. I think it would be a fascinating listen especially in regard to this new set of events in America!
"Until our incredibly idiosyncratic era, in fact, the idea of claiming divine mandate for state action was almost the norm."
We have had iron-fisted rule by oligarchy. I'll take my chances with people who feel there are consequences to self-serving power grabbing.
The whole point of a free society is not that we all agree, but that we are all free to disagree. When was the last time you hears a progressive acknowledge that? When was the last time you heard a progressive vehemently support the right of Trump and his supporters to have their own point of view and their own way of life?
Progressives are owed no consideration by anyone about anything. Because they have shown none.
It's your box. You built it. Live in it.
Christianity became a tool of empire with the ascendency of Constantine to the autocracy of the late unified Roman Empire. But all the associated hierarchies, dominations, and violence cannot totally define Christianity. Christianity IS a tool of empire, violence, domination, and hierarchy, but that is not all it is. This truth is pointed to by the differentiation between the gospel (bitter truth) of POWER and the gospel (good news) of GRACE. And grace (whether it originates somehow within space and time, in the mind and bodies of sentient beings, or has some or all of its roots outside space and time) is a channel for creativity, empathy, nurturance, and overcoming. And Christianity has done quite a bit to develop a concept of grace that may also have secular applications.
Some Christians (a small minority who can sometimes exert a great deal of cultural influence because what they teach resounds with a powerful subset of human needs and values) have always emphasized the “gospel of grace “which prioritizes identification with VICTIMS and the OPPRESSED. The gospel of grace ALSO encourages the establishment and maintenance of intentional (alternative) communities where the violence of empire and oppression are rejected. Of course, the gospel (bitter truth) of power in the form of hierarchy is never completely excluded and CAN grow (and even horribly metastasize) rapidly in small intentional communities.
Another irony (bitter truth) about humanity is that ANYBODY can claim the mantel of victimhood — and even the most violent and destructive oppressors have a basis for fearing judgements and chastisements (which they always frame as violent retribution) from their rivals and from their victims. Social entrepreneurs (or political shamans or necromancers) use this fear of victimhood, scapegoating, and retribution to target alternative scapegoats and build enthusiastic support for their tyrannies.
I would venture this thought: the concern about power inversion is rooted not only in humans wanting power over their own species, but it's bigger than that. Most of us have been firmly rooted in the belief that we are separate and above the other-than-human, and it is this profoundly upside-down belief that limits so many of us from truly being able to honour those who seem to be "the weak".
Thank you for sharing your wise words. As person of faith I concur 100%.
That evil men are now openly inverting God's words is a deplorable travesty, one that I hope will not gain momentum. Sadly, we the people are so ignorant of the Gospel message that many will fall for the deceit.
Superb