Jason Aldean's "Try That In A Small Town" and the dangers of conflation

 

Much has been said about country music singer Jason Aldean's recent song and accompanying music video, "Try That In A Small Town."  In addition to those who have pointed out that the courthouse in the video was the scene of a horrific lynching in 1927, and suggestions by some that the music video encourages racism and/or vigilante justice, there have also been voices on the other side of the cultural/political divide in America quick to say, "I stand with Jason Aldean."  Lost in the not-unexpected yelling back and forth by politicians and pundits, and the chiming in of regular folk on social media to proclaim which side they are on, is a technique used in the music video, and to a lesser extent in the song lyrics, that is as troubling as it is common in our cultural/political discourse: conflation.

conflation: The merging of two or more sets of information, texts, ideas, etc. into one.

Which two ideas are being merged into one in this example: protesting and criminal behavior.

[Note: To a segment of the American population, an example of which being the stereotype of it portrayed for laughs by Carroll O'Conner as Archie Bunker on All In the Family, protest of any kind will always be considered un-American.  To those individuals, no conflation is necessary, protesting already is criminal behavior in their eyes.]

In America, each of us has a constitutionally guaranteed right to protest, both for and against, any issue.  We have the right to assemble to make that protest known, including with marches, speeches, sit-ins, and the like.  The same right that should have kept Civil Rights marchers from being set upon by firehoses, batons, and police dogs when they exercised their rights, protected the mass marches of the KKK a generation earlier (most of which were met, to our ancestors shame, not with governmental oppression, but with cheering crowds).  The right to protest is available to liberals and conservatives, and has helped advance causes dear to the hearts of both groups in American history.  While this is not a right enshrined in the Bible, it is certainly one that Christians should cherish, utilize when their conscience compels them to do so, and Christians should also be willing to protect that right when others seek to exercise it, even if we strongly disagree with their motives/goals.  {FYI, Christians should likewise be willing to fight for Freedom of Religion, when it affects fellow Christians, AND when it affects those who follow other religions}

In the song and video, however, images of protests (mostly after the murder of George Floyd, especially images of flag burning that have a very emotionally impact on many Americans) are combined with those of theft, looting, and street violence.  When these two ideas are put together like this, casually, the impression (desired or not by the creator of the content) is that they are in the same legal/moral category, that in effect, to be a protester is just as immoral and undesirable as to be a criminal, and as the song says, people in small towns know how to respond if you try it there.  Intentional or not, and I know nothing of Jason Aldean motives and heart, nor of the songwriter's, the conflation of the two ideas is very dangerous in a society that should value the right to protest, even of those with whom we disagree.

Let's be honest, politicians and pundits pull this trick all the time.  It is such a common staple, that if you spend an hour watching cable news you will see it over and over: two ideas/people linked together so that the one the audience doesn't like already has its stink smeared onto the one the politician/pundit wants them to dislike moving forward.  It is manipulation plain and simple, and it is sadly very effective.

One of the most dangerous examples I have seen of this in recent years is the near constant use by a number of pundits of George Soros as the boogeyman rich Jew whose efforts to support causes he believes in (as is his right) are tied to many a cause that the politician/pundit doesn't like (truthfully or not), allowing the despicable age old "rich Jews are secretly running the world" trope to do its work.  The audience is left angry at the idea/cause in question and wanting to oppose it because the pundit has left the impression that it is the puppet of a "rich Jew."  Conflation is a staple of antisemitism (and racism in general).

Another example occurred in 2019 when Founders Ministries released a trailer for their upcoming documentary which smeared sex abuse victim advocate Rachel Denhollander with images/audio that suggested she was part of a "godless conspiracy" {see my post on this, "By What Standard?" - A shameful trailer made by Founders Ministries utilizing the worst political ad tactics}

What am I hoping for?  Perhaps a more honest discourse, a bit more integrity from advocates, less anger from the people who are being manipulated in this way.  A pipe dream?  Perhaps, but if we don't at least try to be better, how can we expect better results in the future?  In the end, as Americans, and as Christians, we need to do better than this, we need to be willing to judge people and ideas on their own merits and not simply find a convenient way to smear and dismiss them through conflating them with something else we already dislike.

Sermon Video: To God be the glory forever! Romans 11:33-36

At the end of a three chapter journey wading through the causes and costs of the rejection of Jesus by the majority of his fellow countrymen, the Apostle Paul reflects upon the wisdom of God's redemptive plan which was able to not only overcome that rejection, but ultimately bring all Israel to redemption after the salvation of the fullness of the Gentiles, by composing a short hymn of praise to God.

Sermon Video: Why the Church cannot replace Israel: God's plan includes them, Romans 11:25-32

There is a simple and excellent reason why the creation of the Church and the instituting of the New Covenant, both at the direction of Jesus Christ, is not a replacement of Israel: God's promises are irrevocable.  What God has promised cannot be undone.  God promised Abraham that he would bless his descendants, always, and so that promise will remain in effect until the end of time.

That doesn't mean God can't change the way in which his blesses Israel, hence the culmination of the Mosaic Law which Jesus fulfilled, and the bringing of God's new covenant people, Jew and Gentile alike, into one family by faith through grace.

Sermon Video: Grafted Branches - The Church and Israel, Romans 11:16-24

What is the relationship between the Church and Israel?  In order to understand the purpose and mission of the Church, it is necessary that we understand how it fits into God's redemptive plan.  Paul provides answers to this question through the analogy of broken off and grafted-in branches with a common olive tree root.

Contrary to the false teachings of the First Fruits of Zion (Hebrew Roots Movement), the root is NOT the Law of Moses, but rather the promise to Abraham which preceded it by over 400 years.  God built the Church upon a promise, not a Law, upon his grace {See the book of Hebrews for the fullest development of these themes in Scripture}.

How then do we relate to Israel?  Those Jews who believe in Jesus are our brother and sisters in Christ, those who reject Jesus are the children of God who have wandered from home, and we as God's adopted children must treat our position with humility, and those whom God has promised to one day restore (the Jews that don't believe in Jesus) as family.

Listen to the Word of God: 62 Scripture passages that refute 'Christian' Nationalism - #30 - John 17:16 & 18:36

 

John 17:16  New International Version

They are not of the world, even as I am not of it.

John 18:36  New International Version

Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders. But now my kingdom is from another place.”

Admittedly, it has been a while since I've posted something in my self-imposed series of 62 scripture passages that refute "Christian" Nationalism.  The last post prior to this one was in January, and those of you who read my blog will understand what I've been writing about since them: The First Fruits of Zion.  To compare the two issues (Nationalism vs. the Hebrew Roots Movement, i.e. FFOZ) is a study in contrasts.  "Christian" Nationalism is a big idea with a long history that poses an existential threat to not only America but Europe as well, whereas the HRM is a much more niche idea that most people are unaware of, and one that despite the grandiose vision of its leaders is very unlikely to affect world history.  On another level, "Christian" Nationalism is more nebulous, its influences and harms in the local church and in our denominations more difficult to pin down as it floats on the jetsam with a host of other dangerous political ideas and movements.  In contrast, the HRM {FFOZ being one example}, when one does encounter it as we have here in Venango County, barges into local congregations, pulls individuals out of fellowship, and causes acute local harm.  All that is a long-winded explanation why I needed to prioritize writing about the dangers of FFOZ (an ongoing process as I continue preparing my seminar for this Fall) when its dangerous activity is front-and-center in our Christian community.  So what brought the idea of "Christian" Nationalism back into focus, at least for now?  The urgency come from a new effort being put forth to legitimize and defend this ideology, primarily in Reformed Baptist circles (not my pond, but adjacent to the one I swim in, and I know it well enough).

The effort in question: The Statement on Christian Nationalism and the Gospel is a very populist/libertarian (they don't mesh well, I know) and isolationist political essay wrapped in the notion that this is the true vision of Jesus Christ for not only his Church, but every nation on the planet as well in this age.

The contradiction between Jesus' words in John's Gospel and the statement linked above could not be more stark.  The authors of the statement envision Jesus Christ reigning and ruling over this world, here and now, when he made no such claim.  In essence, they believe they can establish at least a version of the kingdom that Jesus promised that he would establish when he returns, but of course Jesus did not encourage, let alone command, his followers to be about this task.

If you take the time to read the statement, a number of eye-opening claims may stand out to you.  When I read it, two of the inherent problems of this philosophy, regarding which "Christian" Nationalism does NOT have any moral answers came to the forefront: (1) What about the non-Christians living in the nations that follow this vision?  They will either become second-class citizens who are forced to live against their beliefs, and/or be expelled from the land.  While the authors thankfully denounce ethnic homogeneity, they implicitly are endorsing national religious uniformity.  History has such an example in Spain after the Reconquista where both Muslims and Jews were given the "choice" between fleeing as refugees and converting.  Let me save you the suspense, it was a brutal process that gave the Inquisition a chance to shine.  You may be saying, "Where in the statement is this?"  It isn't, but that is the inevitable conclusion when you state that the civil government should enforce the Ten Commandments (the one on the Sabbath is awkward given that Christians worship on the Lord's Day, that is Sunday).  The key one here is the taking of the Lord's name in vain, i.e. blasphemy.

WE AFFIRM that the Christian Nationalist project entails national recognition of essential Christian Orthodoxy (Article II) as a Christian consensus under Jesus Christ, the supreme Lord and King of all creation, and the establishment of the general equity of the second table of the Ten Commandments (laws 5-10) as the foundational law of the nation, with warnings informing citizens of the consequences of blaspheming the One, True, and Living God often resulting in second table violations, namely, the harming of our neighbors’ lives and property.

WE DENY that laws against public blasphemy coerce conversion or hinder religious liberty in private.

Once non-Christians in America (or Europe, this movement is more advanced there in Russia and Hungary) are muzzled with blasphemy laws {i.e. the 1st Amendment is neutered}, the second moral quandary of "Christian" Nationalism will rear its ugly head: (2) The government will be in the business of defining orthodoxy within Christianity and punishing those who run afoul of that judgment.  Throughout the statement there are references to promoting and defending historic Christian orthodoxy, and while I have great confidence that we can come to a working definition of such for ecumenical purposes within the Church {that is freely chosen associations}, as a Baptist (in the historic sense) I have zero confidence in having that definition interpreted and enforced by a politician or judge.

So, first the blasphemy laws will silence or expel the non-Christians, then they will come for the not-sufficiently orthodox people who claim to be Christians {Again, the government would be making these judgment calls through arrests and trials of those who violate the law against blasphemy}.

Can this really be what Jesus wanted his Church to become?  Is this in any way a part of the Kingdom of God that he proclaimed would be marked by love and self-sacrificial servanthood?  

Lastly, and this should not be missed when you read the statement: the authors admit they're not willing to prioritize democracy or the republic.  They think that "Christian" Nationalism will work just fine under dictators {See: Putin and the wanna-be dictator Viktor Orban}.

WE DENY that the separation of authority between the Church and the State means there must be a separation of God and the state. We further deny that there can ever be a separation between religion and state., as everyone possesses views about ultimate reality, purpose, and cause, which inform their morality and preferred policies. We deny the idea that a nation’s laws do not impose morality and religion.

Read the statement, and read John 17:16 and 18:36, the disconnect is powerful.