Christian Nationalism Unpacked

A Forthright Podcast: Leaning Into the Divide

Welcome to our podcast, a work in progress, or as my partner-in-podcastsing Byron Odion likes to say, we’re flying the plane while we’re building it. Yes, we both realize that’s a cliché but it sure feels applicable.

In terms of political tribes, Byron leans very Blue and I lean very Red, and together we are activists for better civil discourse. We are walking the Braver Angels talk by tackling tough subjects in open ended discussion in (gasp!) mixed political company. Byron records the conversations and I handle the text, and we trust each other to be fair in our editing.

For this week’s podcast conversation on Christian Nationalism we’re trying out AI (that would be Artificial Intelligence, not to be confused with what AI means on the ranch) as a useful adjunct to the audio file. Here’s what we have to offer.

1. Summary provided by AI for readers who want to skim fast before deciding to commit to listening. The recording and the highlights are there for a deeper dive.

2. Podcast recording. Byron edits out the ums and ahs and such, but otherwise it’s four real people engaging in real conversation.

3. "Highlights" excerpted from the recording transcript with the best pieces of dialogue and monologue. I’ve added bits in italics to make it make sense without trying to play court reporter and include all the remarks and chit chat. For that you’ll just have to listen.

4. Reference links for additional information on people or topics mentioned during the conversation.

Part 1 - Meeting Summary with AI Companion

Forthright podcast with Byron Odion, Sue Lani Madsen, Kaeley Harms and Paul Kivel

Quick recap

The meeting focused on planning and producing a podcast about Christian nationalism, with participants discussing scheduling, script development, and the framing of the show. The group, consisting of Byron, Sue Lani, Kaeley, and Paul, introduced themselves and shared their backgrounds, experiences, and perspectives on various social issues, including Christian nationalism and its impact on society. They engaged in a thoughtful discussion about the challenges of having productive conversations across ideological divides, exploring topics such as affirmative action, authoritarianism, and the importance of maintaining freedom and equal opportunities for all.

Summary

Podcast Discussion and Personal Updates

Byron and Sue Lani discussed the framing of their podcast, focusing on staying connected while disagreeing and forging common ground. Sue Lani mentioned she was proofreading a book on a similar subject and was also working as an EMT. Byron planned to introduce Paul and discuss Christian nationalism. Kaeley joined the conversation, mentioning she would be sharing the mic with her three-year-old son Maverick from time to time. The team agreed to prioritize their podcast amidst their busy lives.

Paul and Kaeley's Introduction Meeting

Byron, Sue Lani, Kaeley, and Paul discussed their meeting, with Paul expressing his curiosity about the conversation's direction. Kaeley apologized for her disorganized appearance due to her young child, while Byron expressed excitement about co-producing audio with Sue Lani and others. Paul and Kaeley introduced themselves, and Byron prepared to introduce Paul.

Retired Activists Share Social Justice Experiences

Paul, a retired activist and writer, shared his experiences and passion for social justice. Kaeley, a stay-at-home mom and accidental activist, discussed her commitment to defending women, particularly in the church. Sue Lani, a retired architect and journalist, talked about her transition from architecture to writing and her establishment of a nonprofit to raise rural voices in public policy discussions. Byron, a student and weaver of relationships, shared his background in radio and social justice, and his involvement in men's groups for collective liberation. The group expressed their interest in having further conversations on various topics.

Christian Nationalism Podcast Discussion

In the meeting, Sue Lani and Byron discussed their journey from a disagreement over a Substack article to the creation of a podcast on Christian nationalism. They planned to include self-introductions and a conversation on the topic. Kaeley and Paul, who have more knowledge on the subject, were invited to the discussion. Kaeley clarified that she is not an expert on the topic but is concerned about the growing popularity of Christian nationalism, which she sees as authoritarian and anti-freedom. Sue Lani shared her experience with a conservative Christian community in northeast Washington, describing them as ordinary people who wanted to be left alone.

Christian Nationalism's Influence on US Policies

In the meeting, Sue Lani and Byron discussed the topic of Christian nationalism, with Paul providing insights on the subject. Paul explained that the United States is a country dominated by Christianity, which has significant power and wealth. He emphasized that Christian nationalism is not about an extreme group, but rather an institution of power and wealth that influences policies and rights. Paul also highlighted the Christian dominance's war against the rest of the society, aiming to control all major institutions based on a core belief that the United States is a Christian nation. Sue Lani responded by citing the history of European settlement bringing a particular worldview and values, and emphasizing the need to focus on the present moment and the toxic variations of the underlying values causing problems now and in the future.

Christian Nationalism's Growing Influence

Byron discussed his concerns about the growing influence of extreme churches in his area, particularly those promoting Christian Nationalism. Kaeley provided more detailed information about Doug Wilson, a self-proclaimed cult leader in Moscow, Idaho, who has been linked to sexual abuse and has been promoting Christian Nationalism. Kaeley expressed concern about the potential for this ideology to spread and infringe on civil liberties. Sue Lani and Paul agreed with Kaeley's assessment, with Sue Lani questioning the extent of the influence of these fringe groups.

Christian Nationalism's Influence on Policy

Paul discussed the influence of Christian Nationalism on various aspects of American life, including the Supreme Court, executive branch, and public education. Sue Lani questioned the connection between Christian Nationalism and policy issues like education and reproductive rights, arguing that these issues have other reasons for support. Paul maintained that Christian institutions are driving policy initiatives, while Sue Lani emphasized the importance of considering broader moral foundations in policy debates.

Christian Nationalism and Women's Rights

The discussion focused on the intersection of Christian nationalism and hyper-masculinity, particularly in relation to women's rights. Participants agreed that Christian nationalism is a growing concern within their community, with potential negative impacts on women. They highlighted the need to address policies that restrict women's rights and liberties, such as the proposed elimination of no-fault divorce. The group also acknowledged the significant voting power of fundamentalist and Pentecostal Christians, which can influence policy decisions. The conversation concluded with a call for caution in labeling Christian nationalism as a fringe movement, as it has already begun to shape policy in some states.

Respectful Dialogue Across Ideological Divides

The group discusses the challenges of having productive conversations across ideological divides. They explore topics like affirmative action, Christian nationalism, and authoritarianism, acknowledging different perspectives while seeking common ground. The participants agree on the importance of maintaining freedom and equal opportunities for all, as well as the need to push back against authoritarianism from both the left and right. They express appreciation for the opportunity to engage in respectful dialogue despite disagreements and plan to continue the conversation in the future.

AI-generated content may be inaccurate or misleading. Always check for accuracy.

CHECKED FOR ACCURACY, CORRECTIONS MADE: AI did a pretty good job. Here’s a review of the accuracy of the AI summary:

· One paragraph required correction (Human Intelligence added in italics) where AI missed the point or may have gotten the voices confused; HI stepped in to reword it.

· AI had trouble with names, HI corrected Sue to read Sue Lani and Kaeleye to read Kaeley.

· Andi if you’re still wondering what AI means on a cattle ranch or in other livestock operations . . . that would be Artificial Insemination. Don’t get them confused ;-)

Part 2 – Full Podcast Recording

Part 3 - Highlights

Added words are in italics, original comments lightly edited for length and clarity by leaving out some of the segues and tightening our speech by, you know, leaving out, like, so some of those connectors we all use with informal, unscripted, REAL conversation.

Sue Lani Madsen: I'm just back from a road trip with my sister to Calgary for the weekend, and it was a great opportunity for adult conversations on the eight hour drive home, something you don't always get to do with your adult siblings. One of our discussions centered around a 2021 article from The Atlantic titled “How to put out democracy's dumpster fire.” And wouldn't we all like to do that? The author pointed out how the American tendency to form associations, to solve problems and debate issues was one of our strengths in the early 19th century, one of the things Tocqueville commented on in his book and one of this author's points was, while social media has helped splinter us into factions over the last couple of decades, it has the possibility to bring us back into association.

This podcast is one of those efforts to bring us back into positive association. We're investigating how you stay in connection while disagreeing accurately about hot topics and for today's topic, we have two Red leaning and two blue leaning Americans who are tackling Christian nationalism. What is it? And why does it matter?

Kaeley: I am presently a stay-at-home mom for the first time in my life. I have three children, ages 16, 14 and 3. So I basically started over in my middle age. I'm an accidental activist, Christian feminist and hater of boxes. I don't fit neatly into any one box, and so I frequently find myself kind of alone on issues. But I'm very, very passionate specifically about women and the defense of women. And especially in the church where I see them being mistreated. That’s my entry point into Christian nationalism, I saw the rank misogyny that accompanied it. I think we could have some very good conversations about that.

Paul Kivel: I'm glad to meet everybody. I'm coming into this conversation very curious about where we're going to go with it all. I live in Oakland, California, on unceded Chochonya land. I do a variety of education, activism, and writing about issues of social justice and am now at this point mostly retired. I'm a father of three and a grandfather of five, most of whom are fairly close to me geographically. So I get to spend a lot of time with the little ones, and I raise food on our small property here in the middle of Oakland, and just I'm always glad to be part of the conversation. So yeah, I'll stop there and pass it on to somebody else to check in.

Byron Odion: I am a relational weaver, I would say. I’m just really excited to be here, and I’m on an exponential learning curve and I'm a student in this particular conversation. I consider myself more of a student than an expert, let's say, but I have quite a bit of background. I do come from a social justice background, I'm involved in some men's groups. “Organizing white men for collective liberation,” that's a mouthful. But I actually got out of my echo chamber about a month ago. And I gave Sue Lani some direct feedback about . . .

Sue Lani: You didn't like something I wrote. That's what happened!

Byron: Didn't like something you wrote, and I respectfully, directly reported that. And you, in your graciousness, didn't react defensively and basically took it in, and look where we are.

Sue Lani: And here we are with the podcast on Christian nationalism. Who wants to kick it off? Paul or Kaeley?

Kaeley: I also want to clarify that I do not consider myself a subject matter expert on this topic by any means. I do know enough to know that it's an issue, and that I care about it. And you know, I think, Sue Lani, you mentioned that you only ever encountered the term Christian nationalism as kind of a cudgel, something used to shut down conversation. And I think we do that on both sides of the aisle. Right?

So if the right doesn't want to talk about something, or they want to shut you down, or just not have the conversation often enough we'll hear people say, “Oh, you're a Marxist, that's Marxist,” and that's the end of the conversation. You can't go any further than that, you're a Marxist and you're not to be considered.

And I think people have done the same thing with the term Christian nationalism, which as a broader umbrella term can mean anything from pro-life to pro reasonable immigration policies to just Christian right? I think a lot of us are definitely used to tuning out the minute we hear that term.

But I would say as a Christian feminist, what I have been watching is there is actually a real segment of extremists who are feeling emboldened by the recent Trump victory, who are actually Christian Nationalists, and by that I mean authoritarian people who want to take America and use the rule of law to force people to comply with Christianity, and to make all the legislation Christian legislation and that's been creeping up and growing in popularity, at least from what I can see in recent history very, very much, and I am concerned about it. I do think it's wrong.

I know you know the horseshoe theory of what we know as Conservatives (Note: See end notes for definition of Horseshoe Theory). I like to think that we're big on freedom. And what I'm seeing these people do in the name of republicanism is the opposite of freedom they're trying to usher in, some authoritarian religious based legislation.

Sue Lani: I do hear it thrown out in the same way all the “ists” get thrown out as conversation stoppers, and usually it's just because I've said I'm a Christian. So therefore I must be a Christian Nationalist. I don't know what that means. I love my nation. I like where I live. I want everybody to do well, and I'm a Christian. So why? Why is that a bad thing?

When I ran for the Legislature in 2004, I went up in northeast Washington and visited a community people warned me about as politically toxic. But I was a candidate. I'm going to go to any community forum that invites me because if you are a legislator you are representing everybody in a district, whether they agree with you or not.

And I was curious. What I found was basically a small housing development with an HOA, and they were conservative Christians. They probably would fall into the Christian Nationalist realm. They were just ordinary people who wanted to be left alone . . . that was my experience. This is a group of people that just wants to be left alone, so I'm happy to leave them alone. We had a very ordinary constituent to candidate kind of conversation about the kinds of things anybody in that part of the world would have about over regulation from the state and water rights and all that kind of stuff.

So there's my entire connection with what Christian nationalism looks like. Byron, you're the one who brought up the topic. This was a really hot topic for you. What are some things that feed into your background that make this a hot topic for you?

Byron: I think for me, a cult comes to mind as well. I'm curious, Paul, I want to pitch this to you. You've got a pretty full background. You're a mentor and friend of mine as well as an activist, teacher and author of many books like “Living in the Shadow of the Cross.” For one you have contributed significantly to the men's movement and working with youth. I believe you're credited with the concept of the “Act Like a Man Box” as well and all of that is relevant to this conversation.

Summing up, I pulled this off your (Paul’s) website. “My work is guided by one primary question, how can we live and work together to sustain community nurture each individual and create a multicultural society based on love, caring justice and interdependence with all living things.” How, indeed.

Paul, welcome! Thank you for being here. If unpacking Christian nationalism, how would you approach? How do you? How would you start?

Paul: Thank you. It's great to be with you all in this conversation. I think it's really vitally important. Given what's going on in the country right now I would step back a little bit and make some distinctions to start off, one of which is that we live in a country that is dominated by Christianity. When I say dominant Christianity, I don't mean individual Christians, because each Christian has a relationship to dominant Christianity, and it's all over the place, and Christians have gotten lots of good things from their religion, inspiration and hope and connection and love and all kinds of things.

And I'm also not talking about Christianity per se, because there's a lot of different kinds of Christianities. There's liberation theologies. There's the black Church. There's feminist theologies. But in this society we have a dominant Christianity which has incredible power and wealth which dictates a lot of what we are raised with, what we are educated in, determines a lot of our public and foreign policy and is networks of institutions, organizations, associations and operates at a domestic level and a foreign level. The domestic policy of Christian dominance I would name as Christian nationalism.

All of the various ways that the policies and procedures operate to marginalize everybody who's not a white Christian, basically or often even white male Christian so that people of color, immigrants, Jews, Muslims, people who are gay, gay trans or non-binary. Lots of groups are marginalized because they are not part of that dominant culture.

And so we see this in all the kinds of legislation that is coming down from the executive branch. We see it in the Christian Supreme Court decisions we see it in, you know, all permeating throughout our society. We also see it in our foreign policy, and Christian Zionism is one aspect of our foreign policy, the unequivocal support of Israel and its policies with an end, time scenario in mind but also just trying to export Christian nationalist policies around reproductive rights or immigration or militarism to other countries.

I think that understanding that when we talk about Christian Nationalists, it's not about an extreme group it's about an institution of power and wealth and how that influences, and in many cases determines what rights and liberties and freedoms we have in this society, whether they're civil rights or human rights or reproductive rights. We're within this pall of Christian dominance, and we name the domestic policies Christian nationalism.

So that's kind of my framework coming into this and the other thing I would say is that the Christian dominance is at war against the rest of us. The core beliefs are that this is a Christian country, that Christians should be in control of all the major institutions of our society. Sometimes called Dominionism or the 7 Mountains theory, but it means that they want to control all of us. They want to marginalize all of us, and none of us are immune from the vulnerability around that.

So I'll stop there and open it up.

Sue Lani: I'd like to go back to one of the roots that you mentioned. Is this a Christian country or not? Well, North America was not invaded by the Ottoman Empire? Right? It's not a Muslim nation. It's not a Hindu nation. The peoples that came here from Europe were Christian, so therefore they were predominantly Christian. That is the underlying worldview and moral value system that underlies the country. In that sense this is a Christian nation, just as Turkey is now a Muslim nation, even though at one point it was very much an area under Christian influence.

That doesn't say there is a particular institution that is dominant. It says that there is a worldview and set of values, and it would be a baby with the bathwater kind of moment if you want to argue that it's not a Christian nation, and we need to throw out those moral foundations and values. Then what goes in its place? And why? So that's a very, very foundational kind of discussion, and we could argue about the nuances of that. But we do have to deal with some things that are in the present that are a result of several centuries of development past that.

And so somehow, that's where a lot of our debates tend to get stuck is that we end up spending a whole lot of time arguing about the past when what we really need to deal with is the present. I'm curious about what you see in the present moment that is a toxic variation of those underlying values that's causing us problems now and in the future.

Byron: I can take that if you want. One thing that I'm tracking, what I term the Christian Nationalist are some real extreme churches in my area. I'm working locally and in your area, too, Sue Lani and Kaeley, both. Kaeley, you're in Idaho?

Kaeley: I'm in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho.

Byron: Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, and Sue Lani. You're in Spokane, basically.

Sue Lani: I don't claim Spokane. I'm west of Spokane. But yeah, I'm in the area.

Byron: And I'm in the Methow Valley which is about a 200 mile radius, basically. Now Doug Wilson is a pretty interesting guy in Moscow, Idaho. He's a publisher. He's got a church, and he is publishing. Was it Joe Rigney, I believe, just came out with a book he published called empathy is a sin.

Kaeley: “The Sin of Empathy.” Yup!

Byron: “The Sin of Empathy.” Thank you, Kaeley. And so that's kind of where I'm looking at. I'm looking at how the influence of these extreme positions basically hate speech and toxic energy. I'm trying to highlight that because I want to draw attention to that. Their power is growing, and I don't want it infiltrating my area, which I'm seeing some signs of. So that's where I'm at, that's the rubber on the road.

Sue Lani: What kind of signs are you seeing, Byron?

Byron: I'm seeing more intolerant speech coming from church signs, and kind of a push back on feminism. You know, I'm a feminist, I'll be honest with you, you know I resonate with . . . I'm really concerned about the hyper-masculinity that I'm seeing. That's from the top on down. We're talking Trump. We're talking Musk, and on down, and that is scaring me. And I'm feeling very uncomfortable about how all this hyper masculinity is basically a knee jerk reaction to the overtly . . . on the left, yeah, there's been some errors in judgment. You know, I'm getting into the weeds now because what I'm realizing here is that I've got a lot of assumptions, but I don't have a lot of accurate information, and it's very humbling to be honest with you, and that's why, I'm calling myself a student here. So I'm just going to stop and let somebody pick up the ball here.

Sue Lani: Byron, you mentioned Doug Wilson, and we've had a little bit of pre-conversation about who this guy is out of Moscow. Kaeley, I know you followed him. And what's going on in Moscow more directly? Could you give a briefing for the rest of us and for anybody listening.

Kaeley: I am quite passionate about exposing Doug Wilson. Background for me is I grew up in something that I would call a sister church, kind of a feeder program for Doug Wilson's Empire. This is a man who is self-created. I call him a cult leader, that might be too strong a word, but he is very high authority and he has created this whole empire in Moscow, Idaho. It's in charge of multiple publishing arms. He's created all, basically, all the homeschool curriculum for classical Christian education. He's very integral in that. There is a seminary that he runs. His entire career has been riddled with scandal and sexual abuse that has been overlooked and whitewashed.

But he has been growing in influence for quite some time, and specific to Christian nationalism. In 2022 he published a book under his publishing company, Canon Press, by Stephen Wolfe, called “The Case for Christian Nationalism.” If you read this book it is appalling. And if you go down that rabbit hole, that is where you're going to see the extremism that I am naming.

And Paul and I have vastly different ideas about who has the institutional power in our country. I would say the left has for the last 20 plus years all the institutional power, all the big tech, big pharma, the media. And Christians have very much felt like we've been marginalized, and a lot of what you're seeing on the right with this extremism is overcorrection. There is a persecution complex that is now manifesting itself in Christian nationalism.

Christian nationalism, according to Stephen Wolfe, this is where you're going to start to see ideas like Kinism. He is very racist. He says things like you should want to be married to somebody of your own skin color, and you should create families that are white. And within this wave of thinking, they seem to believe that there's this great replacement that's going to be happening where all the white people are going to be replaced.

It's a paranoia. There is a huge, hugely misogynistic component where you're seeing them popularize the hashtag “repeal the 19^th.” They think that the country is going to be rescued when we can repeal women's right to vote and return the household vote to the man in charge. They want women out of the public sphere. Doug Wilson created a monster. It's like a Jekyll and Hyde situation, and he realizes it's gotten too extreme. Now he's trying to distance himself from it.

But you've got guys like Joel Webbon, Brian Sauve, Andrew Torba, the guy who created gab. The next year he wrote another book about Christian Nationalism, and it's all authoritarian legislation they're pushing. They want to bring back blasphemy laws. They want to prosecute post-abortive women, and they really think they're going to save the world by coming in and forcing everybody under duress to follow “Christian laws,” which is not the conservativism that I signed up for, I oppose.

I feel like the left has been aggressively authoritarian over the last couple of decades to the degree that you can get fired over what pronouns to use. You can't say anything without it being hate speech, and you're shut down. And what I'm finding is that a lot of classic Liberals are saying, Yeah, that was wrong. But now we're going this other direction where the Christian Nationalists want to punish people who say things that aren't Christian, and I'm actually concerned about things like State Sen. Dusty Deevers in Oklahoma and his proposed legislation where they want to bring - it sounds all good if you're a Christian - to bring in the 10 Commandments and put them back in schools. But mandating people to subscribe to your religion like that is a violation of the separation between Church and State. I know I've just said a whole lot of things. I'll let somebody else talk.

Sue Lani: I just have to say. My first reaction is, that just all sounds nuts, and I'm coming at it from a very mainstream, ordinary Protestant kind of background, and none of that has any resonance in any way in the world that I grew up in, or the world that I live in. So then, I wonder how much influence does this fringe really have?

Kaeley: Well, if it gives you any hint, Tucker Carlson, with his gazillion person platform, ran paid ads to promote Doug Wilson within the last year. So that's not nothing right? And I think what keeps happening is people say, oh, it's fringe, it's fringe, it's fringe. Well, whatever horrible idea is fringe doesn't stay fringe if it's allowed to continue. And that's what I'm concerned about.

Byron: I'd like to jump in just for a sec. Kaeley, I'm pulling off of your Substack that you're also saying that that Rigney was interviewed with Al Mohler, President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. This is no small thing. The SBC is the largest Protestant denomination on the planet, and the presidents of their seminaries absolutely set the tone for all the male pastors who emerge from their ranks.

One other thing I will say on a local level, I want to highlight Dominick Bonny. He is an investigative journalist, we'll put a link to his Substack in this Substack. Basically what he alerted me to is that in Wenatchee, Washington, which is 60 miles away from me, there is a church called the Grace City Church, and the main pastor is Josh McPherson and he is in cahoots completely with Doug Wilson over in Moscow, Idaho, so that it's not just one thing. And I actually have some actual video of this pastor talking about basically just flat out hate speech and how empathy is a sin, and you must protect your wife because she's very vulnerable to this type of empathy. And you're going to poison your - I'm paraphrasing - but you're going to poison your family if you let any of this in. And so that's what I'm talking about. Have you got something to say, Paul?

Paul: Yeah, I would echo a lot of what Kaeley is saying. And I think what's important is it's not just this one guy, and in this one church, in this one area. But throughout the country there's these kinds of churches. There's these kinds of really Christian Nationalist focused networks and organizations. And they own broadcasting companies. And they own publishing companies. And so you have it at a more grassroots level. You have this happening everywhere in the United States at this point. But then, if we look at the Supreme Court and the dominant Christian Nationalist agenda of the justices. You can see it playing out in our lives at the erosion of our civil liberties around reproductive justice and free speech, and things like that. And then you look at our executive branch, and the attempt to absolutely eliminate the Department of Education and set up voucher programs which primarily feed into Christian schools. And the destruction of public education, that's a national phenomenon that's happening. And you see it on attacks on our health care, the attacks on Medicaid and social security and things like that, there's both local levels and national levels. And we have to pay attention to both. I think.

Sue Lani: What I'm hearing is that there is a real problem with a fringe group, and a fringe group defined as they're not a majority, and they're not a respected minority voice. That is now being cited as the reason for some things for which there are really solid arguments that have absolutely nothing to do with that. I don't see a connection between wishing to reorganize so we don't have a federal Department of Education that is taking more money out of local areas, sending it to Washington, DC, and then not sending it all back. The biggest proponents of vouchers in big urban areas have been the people who are who are stuck in public education systems that are not teaching. And there's a whole education debate about that doesn’t rotate around Christian nationalism or Christianity at all, other than that the only alternative schools may be run by either the Catholic Church or by private organizations.

I'm hearing Christian nationalism being used as a reason to object to policies and directions that people have other reasons for wanting to support those policies and directions.

And so, if we're going to debate, if we were going to debate education, if we were going to debate abortion. If we were going to debate any of those issues, and you bring in Christian nationalism as the reason why you object, then I'm going to end up having to argue with you about Christian nationalism, and we're never going to talk about how we should educate kids, or what does it mean to be supporting women and supporting life at the same time? Because there's this other reason over there, and is it really a reason, or is it just tagging along?

Paul: Well, it seems to be a pretty strong reason, because a lot of the rhetoric and the policy initiatives are coming out of Christian institutions, to cut down women's reproductive rights, to privatize public education. There's a lot of national what we call parachurch organizations, nonprofit multi cross-denominational Christian institutions that are actually putting tremendous amounts of money and effort in passing these policies.

Sue Lani: But did they start the policies? Those are things that I have pushed for. I would argue that women's reproductive rights are the right not to be coerced into an abortion by a man who wants to be in power over her. That's a right. I would argue that the fetus has a right. The baby has a right, there are other human rights involved, and none of that comes from anything that has . . . that actually has very little to do with, or anything to do with anything I've ever heard in church or learned in church, or anything to do with organized religion. It has to do with the moral foundation that says, we need to do justice, love kindness, and walk humbly with God. That's the reason for why I would push for some of those things.

I want kids to get a good education, and if they're not getting good education because the public education system in inner city Chicago, for instance, is horrible. Then they need options, and the fact that they don't have options because they don't have money, that's not fair. That's an injustice and that has nothing to do with Christian nationalism. It becomes a chicken and egg argument, I guess, which came first. The objections to the policies on policy basis that's based on a larger moral foundation. Or this tag along from this minority that wants relevance, or saw something they can take advantage of when nobody asked them in the first place. Those things you're citing as being pushed by Christian nationalism are all things that I have been involved with, without ever having heard of Christian nationalism, or seen any of these people, or heard any of their stuff or read any of their things that they're promoting.

Byron: Well, you know something, Sue Lani. Thanks for sharing that. I think what I'd like to kind of shift the focus basically to the hyper-masculinity that we're seeing Trump display and why we’re all here. What's interesting is Paul and I aren't Christians. And so why are we here with you Christians? Where are we intersecting? And I think the intersection is in patriarchy. It's in hyper masculinity. You know, it's not going to go well for women, you know this is not going to go well. The way that that the leaders in our country now are demonstrating very unkind speech, very intolerant speech. That's where I'm feeling intersection with you, Sue Lani, and you, Kaeley, is because I'm hearing that you have concerns about that as well.

Sue Lani: I think, Byron, I think you're on to the point is that we want to find places where we do intersect, and as Christians, Kaeley and I both know, I'm now aware of and Kaeley's been aware of for a while this problem within our tribe, so to speak. And where does that intersect with the interests of your tribe.

Kaeley: Yeah. I just want to say, I actually agree with a lot of what Sue Lani just said in terms of policies. I think we can have policy discussions in their own right, and they are separate from Christian nationalism. And you know, it's funny to me that the two self-identified feminists here are both pro-life feminists, because, you know, I think that the unborn have human rights too, and I have had to choose so I can speak on that with some authority.

But I do see, you can drive an hour north of me and find this horrible, hideous establishment called America's Promise Ministries and they are the epitome of Christian nationalism. I mean, if you look at their website, it's embarrassing. It's just horrible theology, very hateful, bigoted, horrible stuff, right? But I can drive by there and think that's 25 fringe people, you know, that sucks. They're stupid. God, shut that down! and keep on going with my day.

But, as Byron said, when you see it creeping in to the SBC. Which is the largest Protestant denomination in the world. When you see it being entertained at that level, it does start to trouble me. And where I see this actually affecting women very severely is what I've seen already in legislation that has been proposed across the country, even in things like trying to get rid of no-fault divorce. Right now I am not popular with conservatives when I say, “we should not get rid of no fault divorce” but the way they're doing that is that they're basically showing women that you're going to be trapped with your abusers. Think about women who've been battered. Why does no fault divorce exist in the first place, that is a very, very big issue to me, because I escaped an abusive marriage through no fault divorce. Women couldn't lawyer up. They didn't have money.

And now you've got these patriarchal systems where the women are being increasingly told to stay home and have babies and rely on your husband, and that's all well and good as long as everything's happy in Paradise. Right? But what happens when he is abusive? There's no exit strategy. That's just one example of what I see with these people and the ideology that they're pushing through Christian nationalism. It's very, very . . . I mean, there's this sense that if we go back to the golden era of the 1950s and leave it to Beaver, everything will once again return, and it will be this golden age of America, and they don't think about how things were for women or for minorities back then. And this is real legislation that's being peddled in multiple states. That is kind of an offshoot of that. So that'd be one example of, you know, when Byron says this doesn't end well for women. Well, yeah, that that would not end well for women if you ask me.

Sue Lani: My mom has told me a number of times about a trip she took for a professional association. They were going to a nursing convention and tried to check into their hotel in Atlantic City, and they weren't going to let them check in because all their credit cards were in their husbands’ names, women didn't get credit cards in their own name. There's all of that sort of thing that I'm old enough to remember, some of that as well from school.

I know how that works, which is without going down that rabbit trail brings me into the whole debate defining “what is a woman?” because I remember how much we pushed against all the stereotypes to get past that. Anything that starts to bring those stereotypes back, that's going to get my back up, if that's the hyper masculinity that you're talking about. If that's something that says that women can't, I just I have a hard time taking that as a serious push that can get momentum. Not that somebody isn't going to suggest it, but that it will get momentum, because there are too many women who are in positions of authority and power in the structure for that to happen, and women who are voting, who I think are aware of that. Maybe that's my hopeful side is that remains a noxious fringe, because women are already in positions of power.

Paul: We have to be careful about not just labeling it a noxious fringe. It's a tremendous voting block, about a quarter of the population identifies itself as some kind of fundamentalist or Pentecostal Christian and, as we see in election after election. They have very real, both local and national force, behind the various policies that they're pushing. So in some States, and I would name Florida and Texas as a couple of these, it's not just a fringe, and it's not just maybe it'll happen in the future. But it's already happening in terms of these policies, limiting women's rights and liberties, disenfranchising people of color from voting, just all kinds of policies that are part of that. What I would call a Christian Nationalist agenda.

Byron: Can I jump in for a sec? I do have an experience that I'd like to talk about with a friend of mine who was uncomfortable with a woman pastor in a church that he went to recently and we had a fascinating conversation of why God doesn't want a woman pastor. Like you Sue Lani, I just said what? My jaw just dropped, and it's like how do you get around it? But what I'm noticing, and what I'm wanting to highlight here is that I'm getting to a place where I can not react. And so I just basically take it in and say, man, I don't have enough information or just keep going.

But we're going to bookmark this. And I'm going to come back, because we need to talk about this. I need at least to understand where, in your own experience you're getting this and not why. How did you get to this? And so that's what I'm trying to point out. How do we stay connected right now, right here where we can disagree accurately because I think it's crucial that we find where we can support each other, at least in moving forward. And I don't know how to do that, and that's why I'm here.

Sue Lani: We’re at a point of trying to pin down where we agree and where we disagree, to do that accurately. We agree that the influence of the movement of hyper masculinity that is misogynist, that is pushing back on women's rights, we don't want to see that. I think where we disagree is on what's pushing that? There are aspects of what's been pushed by the left over the last couple of decades that have had the perhaps unintended consequence of acting in that very same way, one of those being affirmative action. It's those unintended consequences of trying to solve a problem that I sometimes am really interested in, for instance, affirmative action.

I'll have to tell you that as a woman I'm really, really glad that I got into architecture school before there was any kind of affirmative action quotas. Thomas Sowell, he is black, he's an economist, PhD. He's at the Hoover Institution now, he writes prolifically. He has said a number of times he's really glad he got into Harvard before they had any kind of affirmative action. Because what that does is it immediately labels everybody that you're trying to help as helpless. And it's so annoying to have to then prove yourself that you got something because you deserved it, because you were good at it, because of merit. That that's an example of a well-intentioned effort to be helpful, that hurts.

But if I push back on affirmative action, I will be called a bigot. I will be called misogynist. I will be called all those nasty names, because there's an assumption by the cultural elite that have controlled the institutions for the last several decades, that must be where I'm coming from, there is no other argument.

I've taken us off on a little rabbit trail there.

Paul: I think this is important, because what we probably would agree on is that there is racism in hiring and educational opportunities. I mean, it's been documented over and over again that people of color in general have less access to good schools have less support, and that in job interviews and in universities there's a lot of racial prejudice against people of color as well as in housing and other things. So affirmative action was an attempt to solve that, or to address part of that, and it had its flaws. But we agreed that we want equal opportunity, that nobody should be disadvantaged because of their skin color or their economic situation.

So then we should be able to go back to the discussion and say, Okay, what are the remedies, and not just “affirmative action was atrocious.” We'll throw it out, but we won't go back to the conversation about equal opportunity, and what I see us losing in the country is the conversation about how to solve these problems rather than how to throw out stuff that people can argue about whether it works or not. But the basic issue is, how does everybody participate in our society? How does everybody have equal opportunities and the same civil rights and the same human rights. And that's not the conversation that we usually have and that to me, is the common ground. I don't think any of us would disagree about that.

Sue Lani: Good point.

Byron: You know something that I'm getting. I'm on a spectrum. Okay? So I'm real visual, and what I envision here, I'm starting to envision a tennis court and you knocking the ball over between two opponents right? And there's balls I'm going to let go. Either I don't know enough, or it's off topic and getting me into the weeds.

I really want to focus on what you said, Paul, it was really valid. I want to just highlight that and celebrate that. You are saying, if I understand you correctly, that we are not having the conversations we really ought to, in order to solve the problems that are present in that equity, and inclusive in ways that will actually make a difference.

Sue Lani: There's something you said, Paul, that gave me, I think, a little, a quick glimpse of insight to see if I can grab it, which is, we started talking about a particular policy, and whether it worked or not. But we can agree on we really want everybody to have a fair shot, right?

Paul: Right.

Sue Lani: We can agree on that. And so many of our discussions about policy get all off into those weeds about what will get us there first. And then we stop focusing on what the goal was. And instead of focusing on the goal, we're just shooting at each other over policy. I think that's a good insight to keep in mind as we are having a conversation in a group in a community, whether it's about where to put the next elementary school or whatever the question is, can we always remember to keep what the focus was to begin with. And how is this piece of conversation taking us towards that focus? Is it dragging us off track? What do we need to do to resolve the difference we have over this policy about deciding whether it's going to have the desired outcome?

Or can we agree on monitoring outcomes so that we can change? One of the principles I've learned from my husband as he's doing agricultural work is you make a plan, but you have to monitor. And what you monitor for is not signs that you're getting the right result. You monitor for the signs that you're getting the wrong result. Who cares if you're getting the right result? Fine, dandy, that's what you got. But you want to make sure that you're monitoring for the signs that things are going wrong so that you can correct as quickly as possible, and you can only do that if you set aside enough ego to focus on what was the point and are we going to look at the numbers honestly.

Kaeley: I feel like at the crux of this issue, it's what is Christian nationalism. And even among the four of us the definition for that is so varied. And I think that is a really huge problem. For me, Christian nationalism is an attempt to use the force of law to force people to subscribe and comply with your preferred State religion. Right? But that's not at all what I heard Paul saying Christian nationalism is, and so it all gets cluttered. And I think if we look at our forefathers, they wanted freedom for people, and I would imagine that all four of us think, listen! We ultimately want people to be free. And what does that look like? And how are we allowing the law to be used in a way that restricts people's freedoms. And I feel like until we can really agree on that fundamental level, you know my concerns about Christian nationalism are whether or not we're using the force of law to require people to do things that are not in alignment.

You know I even felt guilty, and I know again I am at odds with conservatives about this, but standing up in grade school and putting my hand across my heart and saying the pledge of allegiance. It felt weird to me, and I know my husband is very patriotic and very conservative, and you know he does not resonate with that. But I'm telling you that I always felt weird about that. I'm like, why is my loyalty to a country? Why is my loyalty to a flag? What if my country or my flag does something wrong? Do I still have to remain loyal? I have these questions in my head. My loyalty is to Jesus, and that's where my loyalty is.

I feel weird about pledging undying loyalty to any flag or any country. But I do feel also very committed to maintaining freedom for other people and I will tell you, and I know that we're going to have disagreement here, and I'm trying not to get off in the weeds. But I have had my freedom restricted as a Christian in this country for the last 15 years. I got fired from my job for saying that I don't want naked men in my locker room at the Y as a rape survivor, and I can't say that anywhere. I have been blacklisted from the media. I have had my name in headlines next to the words Jim Crow.

And to me, and a lot of Christians, I would say we very, very much have felt the weight of institutional power used against us for the last long while, and so I'm very sensitive to that, and I don't want to do that to other people either. But when I come to the table and say that often what I'm met with is, no, that's a you problem. We're not doing that to you. All of the authoritarianism is on your side of the divide, and nobody really wants to think about what they've brought to the table, too. So that is a frustration of mine.

Byron: Wow, Kaeley, thank you for that. I just really respect you and I am sorry for the abuse that you’ve sustained, the push back. I'm scared of some pushback just in this. This is low stakes here, you know, coming out on a Substack, but still. Would you guys be willing to come back to another conversation?

Sue Lani: Byron, I just wanted to say I would second what Kaeley just said about the authoritarianism I felt from the left. I've had to self censor. I worked 4 years on a college campus. I was very aware it was a very oppressive atmosphere in terms of being able to not say what I wanted to say.

That's an interesting conversation to have that we're talking about. How do we each in our own tribes push back on the authoritarianism that's coming from the far left and the far right.

Byron: I love that. Yeah, I love that. And also what I wanted to highlight, Sue Lani, is that I've been watching you for a couple of years, I've seen your posts, I haven't agreed with most of them, and . . .

Sue Lani: . . . and we're still talking!

Byron: And well, well, but I understand your pain.

Byron: I understand I'm in pain right now. Paul's in pain right now, and I'm serious, because that bleep Trump and Musk, and all these bleep. Well, all those guys that I disagree with intensely.

Sue Lani: And Byron, that's why it was probably a good thing that I let that one Substack come out that was really driven by emotion, because I usually am very analytical and I let one come out that was driven by emotion. And you responded, and that gave me a little bit a little bit better insight into the kind of reaction that you and Paul and some of your folks are having to the current status because I experienced one of those reactions. So that was a good thing. That was a really good thing. And I'm really grateful that you called on that.

Here's something we do agree on, right? We agree that authoritarianism is a bad thing. And I'm hoping we also agree that it doesn't come in just one flavor because if we can start there without accusing each other of both sideism, because it actually does exist on both sides. If we could be like the musk ox, and make a circle and all face outside at the authoritarianism together that would be a good thing.

Paul: I completely agree with that. And I think that we really operate on two different levels in reality, that we can agree on that and explore that and figure out strategies around that. And what I see happening in the country in terms of the political system is that there is no room for an anti-authoritarian conversation at this point, because we have an authoritarian in charge of things. So I wonder how we can bridge that gap because it feels unreal for us to be talking about it without understanding that context, that a lot of us are under attack right now by an authoritarian regime. And so that's the reality that I think most people in this country are trying to grapple with is, what does that mean? How do we defend ourselves against that?

Sue Lani: I think it would be interesting to have a conversation about authoritarianism, because I really would be curious to hear more about how the current administration's actions are interpreted as authoritarian. It's not that I don't see that, it's that I also see a different, larger context in terms of the President as the head of the Executive branch. We just haven't had a President who's acted like they were in charge of the Executive branch for a long time, and so the contrast is perhaps what's the jarring part. And is that really authoritarianism? We have to face up to what did the Constitution actually set up. Well, it actually said . . . that's a whole interesting conversation to have totally off of Christian nationalism.

Byron: Yeah, well, I'm hearing. I'm hearing that we are on two different streams, like Paul was referring to. That's two different ways of looking at it, and I think that would be really beneficial to unpack that a little bit.

Sue Lani: I am always surprised when I can find somebody coming at something from a completely different direction. Then I can see that direction, and then I can hope to articulate my direction as well. And then, if we're listening to each other, we can both get a better view of the whole picture. I want to make room for Kaeley, to say something.

Kaeley: Oh, gosh! I don't know. I feel exhausted in a very, very good way. I am always grateful for people who disagree who are willing to listen, and I think that's always a fruitful use of time. So thank you!

Sue Lani: And that is a great note to end on, because we can all appreciate that feeling of being exhausted in a good way, after you've had a good workout and we've had a good emotional and mental workout here. Cool. More people should be able to do this. And now I'm going to go get another cup of tea.

Paul: Okay, thank you all for hosting this.

Byron: Absolutely. Thank you all for being here. Yeah, to be, continued.

Kaeley: To be continued.

Sue Lani: We're gonna get people talking again!

Part 4 - References

The Atlantic: How to Put Out Democracy’s Dumpster Fire: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/04/the-internet-doesnt-have-to-be-awful/618079/?gift=xOyBaZ4BsLmGge7m2BluyidbdAj0AclrBZZ3fXcXbLs&utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share

Horseshoe Theory:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory

“Horseshoe Theory Explained” from Understanding Politics, Substack by Elizabeth Doll:

Horseshoe Theory, Zero-Sum Thinking, & GOP Populists

“We Need to Talk About Moscow” and Doug Wilson, from Honest to Goodness, Substack by Kaeley Triller Harms:

We Need to Talk About Moscow

“Living in the Shadow of the Cross,” book by Paul Kivel: https://paulkivel.com/books/living-in-the-shadow-of-the-cross/

“Act Like a Man Box,” graphic/concept by Paul Kivel: https://paulkivel.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/actlikeamanbox.pdf

“The Sin of Empathy,” by Joe Rigney: https://canonpress.com/products/the-sin-of-empathy?srsltid=AfmBOopsild9GNtXTPF2NT2JMAoGdxFRk4BEDnFJ6GZ7_6SKm87YoRFT

“The Case for Christian Nationalism” by Stephen Wolfe: https://canonpress.com/products/the-case-for-christian-nationalism?_pos=1&_psq=stephen+wolff&_ss=e&_v=1.0

Dominick Bonny, independent journalism: https://substack.com/@dominickbonny

Voter demographics, Pew Research Center: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/04/09/party-identification-among-religious-groups-and-religiously-unaffiliated-voters/