One thing I’ve been questioning lately is how relevant the right-left dichotomy still is anymore. Left-wing politics is about equity, right-wing politics is about hierarchy. “Right-wing populism” almost sounds oxymoronic. The new dichotomy for this century will be globalist vs. localist: cosmopolitans that are “citizens of the world” (pl…
One thing I’ve been questioning lately is how relevant the right-left dichotomy still is anymore. Left-wing politics is about equity, right-wing politics is about hierarchy. “Right-wing populism” almost sounds oxymoronic. The new dichotomy for this century will be globalist vs. localist: cosmopolitans that are “citizens of the world” (plus the people that serve as the fungible cheap labor that deliver their DoorDash meals) versus people that feel rooted to a place and identity.
It will be interesting to see how Christianity fits into this dichotomy, as while Christianity was the original cosmopolitan force that overtook pagan notions of rootedness, some self-identified Christians today invert these values into Christian nationalism vs. globalist secularism.
It's a good thought, even if I'm not quite sure that globalist vs. localist will be THE central conflict of the century. I'm more with Aaron -- there's a lot that's hard to foresee in this period. Just that a lot of things are breaking down and not much is being built up.
To your point about Christianity and globalism vs. localism, here's a conflict that I haven't seen many people call out: Christians as localists are increasingly skeptical of American global power. That power has been instrumental in spreading Pride around the globe (an association that is especially obvious when you notice things like Macedonia holding its first Pride parade shortly after joining NATO). American globalism is in some sense hostile towards deep-rooted Christian tradition wherever it finds it abroad, whether in Eastern Europe, Africa, or Asia.
But conversely, Christian missionaries do benefit heavily from globalism, and probably, in various respects, even from the same US state power that also endeavors to spread Pride. There is a much larger evangelical missions presence in Ukraine than Russia (which, unlike Ukraine, in my understanding more or less openly persecutes Protestantism). Places like Taiwan and Hong Kong are also more open to missions than mainland China. I think China and Russia's rulers both view missionaries as, in some sense, an arm of US influence that threatens their hold on power, and I'm not sure exactly how incorrect they are in doing so. Of course, in China, we can at least say the state is the unambiguous enemy of the Gospel, but in Russia, there's some room for debate.
My parents have talked about how in China, there were people that asked them why they were following a “Western religion.” And my parents were cosmopolitans that read Western philosophy and theology, and both studied theology abroad, mom in Singapore, dad here in the US. So it definitely is true that in China, Christianity is portrayed as a tool of Western power, but the ironic thing is that Christianity is in decline in the West and rising the most in Africa.
And while many Christians are skeptical of global power now, it is also true that Christianity was responsible for global power in the first place. That’s what I mean when I say that Christianity was the original cosmopolitan vision: the command that we should go and make disciples of all nations, so that the whole world becomes Christian.
One thing I’ve been questioning lately is how relevant the right-left dichotomy still is anymore. Left-wing politics is about equity, right-wing politics is about hierarchy. “Right-wing populism” almost sounds oxymoronic. The new dichotomy for this century will be globalist vs. localist: cosmopolitans that are “citizens of the world” (plus the people that serve as the fungible cheap labor that deliver their DoorDash meals) versus people that feel rooted to a place and identity.
It will be interesting to see how Christianity fits into this dichotomy, as while Christianity was the original cosmopolitan force that overtook pagan notions of rootedness, some self-identified Christians today invert these values into Christian nationalism vs. globalist secularism.
It's a good thought, even if I'm not quite sure that globalist vs. localist will be THE central conflict of the century. I'm more with Aaron -- there's a lot that's hard to foresee in this period. Just that a lot of things are breaking down and not much is being built up.
To your point about Christianity and globalism vs. localism, here's a conflict that I haven't seen many people call out: Christians as localists are increasingly skeptical of American global power. That power has been instrumental in spreading Pride around the globe (an association that is especially obvious when you notice things like Macedonia holding its first Pride parade shortly after joining NATO). American globalism is in some sense hostile towards deep-rooted Christian tradition wherever it finds it abroad, whether in Eastern Europe, Africa, or Asia.
But conversely, Christian missionaries do benefit heavily from globalism, and probably, in various respects, even from the same US state power that also endeavors to spread Pride. There is a much larger evangelical missions presence in Ukraine than Russia (which, unlike Ukraine, in my understanding more or less openly persecutes Protestantism). Places like Taiwan and Hong Kong are also more open to missions than mainland China. I think China and Russia's rulers both view missionaries as, in some sense, an arm of US influence that threatens their hold on power, and I'm not sure exactly how incorrect they are in doing so. Of course, in China, we can at least say the state is the unambiguous enemy of the Gospel, but in Russia, there's some room for debate.
My parents have talked about how in China, there were people that asked them why they were following a “Western religion.” And my parents were cosmopolitans that read Western philosophy and theology, and both studied theology abroad, mom in Singapore, dad here in the US. So it definitely is true that in China, Christianity is portrayed as a tool of Western power, but the ironic thing is that Christianity is in decline in the West and rising the most in Africa.
And while many Christians are skeptical of global power now, it is also true that Christianity was responsible for global power in the first place. That’s what I mean when I say that Christianity was the original cosmopolitan vision: the command that we should go and make disciples of all nations, so that the whole world becomes Christian.