This is a foray into unfamiliar territory. But it’s almost Christmas, and the Christmas story is perhaps the only part of the Bible that even non-Christians know by heart: a miraculous pregnancy, a humble family’s journey to comply with government diktat. The search for shelter, finally bedding down in a stable, and the divine child born there in the cold. Hardly a story of domination, points out Donata Lasson. Donata is a lawyer, author, and vocal Christian. We talk about the role of biblical stories in creating shared culture, and the emerging variants of “muscular Christianity” on the Right. In particular, we discuss a recent podcast by Sam Harris with Douglas Wilson on Christian Nationalism (#443). Sam Harris is a prominent member of the “New Atheists” (among other things), Douglas Wilson is a pastor and proponent of Christian Nationalism, whose ideas have received attention recently because of his connection to US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. Their conversation is a version of the Atheist vs Believer debate on morality, meaning, and where you think you stood before you chose your epistemology. What they didn’t tackle clearly enough, in my opinion, was the promise that there is moral certainty and consistency in theocratic government. But this seems to be at the core of what some people find so appealing about that vision: that instead of the messy democratic process of grinding out a compromise that is never finally locked down, we could simply turn to an eternal law revealed in Scripture. The thing is, reading is ALWAYS interpretation - framing, emphasis, projection, an interaction with prior knowledge - of which the sheer number of denominational categories is surely proof (besides being the bread and butter of all lawyering). If a large and complex compilation of texts is to deliver us any certainty, it is only via placing our trust in the authority of someone’s interpretation of it. And that seems to me the fundamental flaw. Perhaps, for those who are attracted to it, it’s a feature. If that is true, then to move away from secularism is necessarily to court authoritarian rule. And all of this said, I did find something about Douglas Wilson’s overall conversational posture resonating with me. Trying to figure out what that was, it is perhaps best described as a refreshing friendliness— while the entire discussion was respectful, it felt like Sam Harris was having to hold his nose. His version of winning would have been to persuade decisively, and then walk away asap. Whereas the pastor was ultimately concerned with Sam’s redemption, and there was a sense he’d have invited us all back for dinner and a prayer, however far he got with it. I can see why that offer might be attractive in these fearful, atomised times. Donata says there is a word for that, it’s called proselytizing, and it comes with spiritual arrogance and manipulative intent. I can’t argue with that view. But to me it seems that all other things equal, even such good will is better than none. It may be ultimately conditional on conversion, but Douglas Wilson confirms that deathbed conversions count, so that should secure us his benevolence in our lifetimes. This conversation left me thinking about what a secular Liberal version of such benevolence looks like. Even if we all gather and part ways again with irreconcilable visions of Paradise, if we fundamentally want others to join us there, the experience of talking about it would be way more enjoyable this Christmas season. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit carrie802897.substack.com
