Rising Christian nationalism: a threat to us all

I am in no position to disagree with Tom Holland, but I do have questions.

"Christianity introduced the radical idea that every human being — from the poorest to the most vulnerable has intrinsic value. This moral framework reshaped law, social norms, and everyday life."

Aren't ethics and morals in part just an evolutionary advantage if you want to prosper as a society? Were these ideas really only introduced 2,000 years ago?

Also where does slavery fit into all of this?

Probably I just need to read his book.

You will find parts of the OT very dull, and parts infuriating. Some of the stories are not nice at all. Parts, however, are beautiful. In practice, everyone cherry picks and interprets, including those who claim that "the Bible is the Word of Gaaaaad" in an apparently literalist sense (American style fundamentalists). There is development of thought in the OT (and different emphases even in the NT which was written over a much shorter period). The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is seen very differently in Genesis and Ezekiel. The law in Leviticus often seems to see the good of the tribe as the basis of morality and ethics, whereas there are passages in the Prophets about looking after foreigners. But even Leviticus has hints of a much broader understanding.

All in all, saying "the Bible says" (the Hebrew books, or including the Greek books as well) is often misused by both believers and sceptics, by quoting a small part, such as a single sentence, to "prove" some point. Doing so is a bit like quoting Nietsche to prove that "philosophy says".

I read the whole thing out loud a couple of years ago with the intention of stopping myself skipping, and decided that if I do it again I have permission to summarise the frequent descriptions of the original temple-tent in the desert and of Solomon's temple and of which lands were ascribed to each of the tribes, and to just says that the OT genealogies are genealogies.

But worth reading the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew where all four women named could be described as sexually transgressive.

Yes, the islands were pagan once, but that was just scattered tribes and local gods, not a unified culture. Britain as a country only really takes shape under Christianity. Our monarchy, our laws, our calendar, even our sense of nationhood — all of it grew from a Christian framework. That’s why Britain is historically Christian, whatever practises came before.

The idea that pagan times were a golden age for women is pure romanticisation.

Yes, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam originated in the Middle East, but that doesn’t make them “foreign” in Britain. Christianity didn’t just arrive here and stay separate — it took root, adapted to local life, and shaped everything from our laws and education to culture and monarchy. It became part of Britain itself, inseparable from the country’s identity for over a thousand years. To call it “foreign” is to ignore how deeply it changed the nation.

Conversion to Christianity wasn’t a trick, and people weren’t “fooled.” It was a centuries-long cultural transformation. As Tom Holland points out in Dominion (I know that I put him a lot, but honestly, his work is pretty impressive and persuasive)). Christianity introduced the radical idea that every human being — from the poorest to the most vulnerable has intrinsic value. This moral framework reshaped law, social norms, and everyday life.

Its influence lasted centuries, and you can see echoes even in modern Britain: the Beveridge Report of 1942, which laid the foundations for the post war welfare state, drew on principles rooted in Christian ethics, emphasising compassion, responsibility, and care for all members of society.

Whether you recognise, acknowledge or like it, much of what we take for granted in Britain today is built on Christian foundations.

Thanks, Dean.

I liked the start of the King James - gorgeous language and thythms - but got bored with all the begatting. I might skip that bit and try again.

Oh, and do get a Catholic one that has Judith and Tobit and other stuff that was jettisoned by some in the 16th Century (partly because who wants to read about women?).

Get a Bible with notes and cross references ( the New Community Bible is quite good) and be prepared to seek out online commentary if search engines are still any help. And keep a stroppy feminist mindset close at ALL TIMES.

Surely not, Dean!

I'm adding the OT and Tom Holland's book to the reading list. By about 2028 I'll be better informed.

I'm amused that some of the people pushing not just cultural but tribal Christianity on XTwitter are already fragmenting, with a lot of Protestant disapproval of Catholics not knowing the Bible, then disapproving of Catholics knowing the Bible but not editing it, then Catholics having spats with each other about the use of the Traditional Latin Mass, Orthodox remaining above it all.

If you strip out belief in God and the Church, what’s left isn’t Christianity—it’s a set of cultural habits and manners that happened to grow in a Christian environment. Why not call it something else entirely, like “gnome-ism” or “British politeness tradition”? To keep calling it “Christianity” is misleading, because Christianity is defined by faith in Christ, not just by queuing or fair play.

This is where Tom Holland’s Dominion is helpful. He shows that almost everything we take for granted in Western society—ideas of equality, compassion for the weak, even the very critique of power—comes from Christianity. Even when modern people reject the faith, they’re still standing on foundations laid by the Gospel. In that sense, “cultural Christianity” is really just living off the capital of a faith once deeply believed and practiced.

But here’s the problem: without the living faith, the cultural residue cannot last. The politeness, the democracy, the sense of fairness—all of these grew from Christian soil. Once the soil is rejected, the plant withers. As Pope Benedict XVI warned, Europe cannot preserve Christian values while cutting itself off from Christ Himself.

That’s why the idea of “cultural Christianity without Christianity” collapses on its own terms. If it’s just culture, call it something else. If it’s Christianity, then it must involve worship, faith, and the Church. And if we truly value the things that made Britain—or Europe—what it is, then we can’t pretend they survive apart from their source

The problem here is treating the Old Testament as a 'lump' rather than a series of very different works written by different authors over at least 700 years.

There's the 'Primary History' - Genesis to Kings, nine named books, probably composed when its author/s were exposed to the habit of literacy and to Hesiod and other Greek writers during the Babylonian exile and decided to collate their own stories, heroes, genealogies, myth and religious principles into a book explaining why they are distinct. So it has one God who is in a relationship with creation generally and humans particularly from the beginning of time. Very different from the Greeks, though God develops that relationship over time.

Then there are the 'writings', multi authored, poems, proverbs, philosophical reflections, some from very early, some late ones influenced by Greek ideas, the ancient simple story of Job. massively elaborated into something new.

The prophets, some of them already active before the Babylonian exile, some who wrote later in the period, all with different vividly expressed ideas about that human relationship with the world and with God. See the contrast between (very trippy) Ezekiel's panicked disapproval of female sexuality with Hosea's (in some ways irritating) more loving understanding of infidelity in a relationship.

And the stories/novellas about people: Ruth, an historical novella set in the distant past pleading for the rights of foreign wives and children; Judith, fighting back, Tobit; a family story with a woman who has to go out to work to support her family, Daniel; tales from the Jewish experience of Babylon, with the first locked-room mystery and a courtroom drama about creepy voyeuristic men - and transcendent poetry; Esther; a young woman in the royal court in Babylon targetted in an antisemitic persecution; Jonah's adventures with that demanding but maddeningly indulgent God.

And then, at the end of the Second Temple period, Maccabees - interaction with a new empire, war and tortures and horrid things happening to elephants, and the propriety of praying for the dead.

Lots about lots, family rows, exploiting the poor is bad, as is not paying your debts, hardly anything about sex, even less about homosexuality, and nothing at all about gender. The Greeks were always changing into animals and vegetables and even changing sex. None of that in the Bible.

Worth getting an understanding of - a complicated collection of ancient writings that are still influencing people two and half thousand years after they were composed. Any claim that 'the OT says this' can probably be countered with an example of 'the OT says that'.

In any case, personally I don't think in the end, the ethical issue is really fixed by cultural Christianity.

If the whole thing about ethics is simply utilitarian, and not in some deeper sense a real and meaningful reflection of reality, who cares? Why should we do it? Why not just be out for ourselves, and why would that not satisfy us? We certainly have no grounds to complain that any one else doesn't behave the way we would like them to if it's just about advantage.

While humans have a lot in common and so will have some significant commonalities in terms or religion and ethics, I really don't think that I would agree that all religions are about as "nice" (to use a facile word) as Christianity. I wouldn't think of Judaism nor Islam as the best comparators to see if that's so, either, since they are historically very closely related, to the point that they weren't always even differentiated.

Many religions saw honour as more important than love, or power. Many practised human sacrifice. Almost all condoned slavery. Many saw women and children as chattel. A great many saw killing/torturing/enslaving outsiders as just fine or even to be encouraged, sometimes in the most horrific of ways. Which mandated suicide and honour killings. Etc.

I don't mean here things that happened in opposition to the spiritual beliefs people had (or have, in some cases.) All societies of course have such things. But rather things that very much fit within their spiritual beliefs.

I've heard that description before.
I'm not a theologian but... All the Abrahamic religions include a man (Abraham) being asked by God to sacrifice his eldest son. His willingness to do so proved his total obedience and therefore his goodness. That God then stopped him at the last moment is meant to show God's love and mercy. that's the main thrust of the story anyway and it's shared by all 3.

Plus all the 3 Abrahamic religions and actually most faiths include a version of the golden rule "do unto others as you would be done by". Even Confucianism which isn't a religion at all. And Humanism. (Of course, all religions have also had scholars/theologians able to find loopholes and justifications for mass slaughter of others. And the humanists have been pretty dogmatic about certain issues. Almost... religious)

So I don't know, my value system is important to me and it comes from my upbringing in a Christian country but also from my parents and the people around me (not all of whom were Christians). And I've met people with different upbringings and religions who have had the same common values. I think some things are universal to human beings. That's not to downplay that there are some things unique to Christianity.

Most Buddhist teachings about that type of thing were directed at monks/nuns, renunciants. So not really concerned all that much with 'householders'. I'm not too sure what the Tibetan stance or the Gelug specific stance is.
...

Well, I've had a read and it's still not totally clear.

https://www.lionsroar.com/gays-lesbians-and-the-definition-of-sexual-misconduct/

An elderly monk in a lineage that emphasises celibacy is unlikely to grasp the issue with much understanding, tbh.

Very low energy. Maybe Chris could ask the Dalai Lama what he thinks of homosexuality.

complementarianism does nothing for women’s rights. And complementarian groups are definitely growing.

Look, of all the world religions, Christianity is one of the most tolerant of homosexuality. After a long, thoughtful, and wide ranging discussion, your post is such absurdly alarmist bollocks you must surely be embarrassed? At least pretend to make an effort.

Yes.

Let the Christians get their way and they won't stop at trans people. It will snowball into removing gay marriage rights and normalising homophobia.

I don’t disagree with anything in your post. We just have to do our best to live up to the example set.

I don't have in depth knowledge of any of these religions, it's just how it was explained to me (by a Muslim, fwiw).

Yes, I see it as a humorous play in four (I think) scenes. Not intended to be taken literally, in my opinion - see also Job and very likely other books.

I think it is only fair to Judaism to point out that "love God, and love your neighbour as yourself" is in the Old Testament and was quoted by Jesus as a summary of the law. The difficulty is actually doing it!

We have Africans in my local CofE church who do not fit the African church stereotypes, which is perhaps why they are in the CofE.

There's a lot of love from the God of the Second Temple period - the Book of Jonah is all about the mismatch between the holy prophet who disapproves of the religious and culturally different foreigners in Nineveh, and ridiculously soppy and indulgent attitude of God who made them and loves them even if they are

a bit wicked.

Lovely book, and very funny - I recommend it.