Because despite your concluding paragraph, you seem to be largely pretty negative on "Christians [applying Biblical truth] in their own lives and stations" if your previous discourse is anything to go by. It was only last month that you were calling the very people most keen to do just that fascist ethnonationalists.
You are not being truthful or you are misreading in the extreme. You must refer to this article and no one was called a fascist ethnonationalist. We block almost no one but you are nigh unto earning the rare privilege. https://presbycast.substack.com/p/machen-saw-what-was-coming.
If I really have misread you, I am entirely open to correction. I would very much like to be wrong about this. But I checked that post before I commented above, and I've got it open in another tab right now. Any such correction will need to deal with your own prior writings to be persuasive.
The terms "fascism" and "ethnonationalism" appear in the subtitle of the post.
You then went on to discuss the "between-the-wars ideology in the USA called '100% Americanism'", which you described as a "nativist, anti-European, anti-immigration, all-American-and-only-American-everything jumble of prejudices." You claimed that, "Some associated the revival of the Ku Klux Klan with it". That would appear to be the "fascism" and "ethnonationalism" alluded to in the subtitle.
It is this movement which you said "bears some resemblance to the now-fashionable Christian Nationalism."
So. Did you, in a single sentence, specifically call anyone a "fascist ethnonationalist"? No. There is no such sentence in your post or comment replies. But you did pretty much explicitly say that the people you call "Christian Nationalists" "resemble" fascist ethnonationalists. Which, as far as I'm concerned, amounts to the same thing. Potato, potahto.
You attempted to dispute that equivalence in your responses to my comments, true. I didn't find that disputation persuasive then, and I don't now. Why else make the comparison? It came across as pretty half-hearted, especially since you then went directly on to ask me to "explain the CN folk who extol 'Protestant Franco' and welcome or tolerate tons of followers and sycophants who revel in Nazi symbolism and imagery." You clearly believe that there is an important equivalence there. Why are you accusing me of "not being truthful" or "misreading in the extreme" for taking that at face value?
Indeed, in your responses to my comments, you also said that there are "too many" "CN folk" "playing around with fascist ideas (including antisemitism and kinism) and symbols. . . ." and that this bothers you. I understood that to mean that it is precisely this concern, i.e., the association of CN with fascist ethnonationalism, that motivates your writing on the subject. You acknowledged that I may not be one of "those people," but as you did not in any way retreat from your association of "fascist ideas. . . and symbols" with "Christian Nationalism", that acknowledgment doesn't blunt the overall message.
It thus seems to me like the reading I adopted--both in my comments to that other post and in the comment above--is entirely fair. I maintain that all I am doing is connecting the dots, following the obvious train of implication. I don't see anything untruthful.
Okay, so. . . what's the takeaway here?
Because despite your concluding paragraph, you seem to be largely pretty negative on "Christians [applying Biblical truth] in their own lives and stations" if your previous discourse is anything to go by. It was only last month that you were calling the very people most keen to do just that fascist ethnonationalists.
Not sure you can have it both ways.
You are not being truthful or you are misreading in the extreme. You must refer to this article and no one was called a fascist ethnonationalist. We block almost no one but you are nigh unto earning the rare privilege. https://presbycast.substack.com/p/machen-saw-what-was-coming.
If I really have misread you, I am entirely open to correction. I would very much like to be wrong about this. But I checked that post before I commented above, and I've got it open in another tab right now. Any such correction will need to deal with your own prior writings to be persuasive.
The terms "fascism" and "ethnonationalism" appear in the subtitle of the post.
You then went on to discuss the "between-the-wars ideology in the USA called '100% Americanism'", which you described as a "nativist, anti-European, anti-immigration, all-American-and-only-American-everything jumble of prejudices." You claimed that, "Some associated the revival of the Ku Klux Klan with it". That would appear to be the "fascism" and "ethnonationalism" alluded to in the subtitle.
It is this movement which you said "bears some resemblance to the now-fashionable Christian Nationalism."
So. Did you, in a single sentence, specifically call anyone a "fascist ethnonationalist"? No. There is no such sentence in your post or comment replies. But you did pretty much explicitly say that the people you call "Christian Nationalists" "resemble" fascist ethnonationalists. Which, as far as I'm concerned, amounts to the same thing. Potato, potahto.
You attempted to dispute that equivalence in your responses to my comments, true. I didn't find that disputation persuasive then, and I don't now. Why else make the comparison? It came across as pretty half-hearted, especially since you then went directly on to ask me to "explain the CN folk who extol 'Protestant Franco' and welcome or tolerate tons of followers and sycophants who revel in Nazi symbolism and imagery." You clearly believe that there is an important equivalence there. Why are you accusing me of "not being truthful" or "misreading in the extreme" for taking that at face value?
Indeed, in your responses to my comments, you also said that there are "too many" "CN folk" "playing around with fascist ideas (including antisemitism and kinism) and symbols. . . ." and that this bothers you. I understood that to mean that it is precisely this concern, i.e., the association of CN with fascist ethnonationalism, that motivates your writing on the subject. You acknowledged that I may not be one of "those people," but as you did not in any way retreat from your association of "fascist ideas. . . and symbols" with "Christian Nationalism", that acknowledgment doesn't blunt the overall message.
It thus seems to me like the reading I adopted--both in my comments to that other post and in the comment above--is entirely fair. I maintain that all I am doing is connecting the dots, following the obvious train of implication. I don't see anything untruthful.
What did I miss?