Phrases that Sizzle: "Christian Nationalism" and "Human Flourishing"

Dateline:  November 29, in the year of our Lord 2022

Some time back, I wrote about the hustle from the Left on phrases or labels like "Christian Nationalism.” In the first 4 steps of the hustle, they create a phrase and use it as a bludgeon. Then comes step 5:  Some Christians seize the term and, in a “judoesque” move, start defending it.  With the release of In Defense of Christian Nationalism by Stephen Wolfe, this countermove is underway — of course with realigned definitions of "Christian" and "Nationalism" to recast the idea favorably.  This move can use our opponent's weight against them by claiming the term so it can propel an idea into a force for good.  And, the propelling part seems to have worked.  The book is selling like hotcakes. 

I have not yet read Wolfe's book, but Neil Shenvy recently reviewed it.  Shenvy's take seems to describe step 5: "Yet in the last few years, a handful of evangelical Christians have decided to embrace the term rather than distancing themselves from it."  My observation about step 5 stands, but without a judgment as to whether the co-opting of the term is a good strategy, or whether the book is good (again, haven’t read it).  Whatever position you take on the book — certainly, the word "nationalism" sizzles.

Sizzling phrases can work the other way around. This happens when a phrase popularized in our post-Christian society has so much appeal, Christians start using it. And all the mud from the cultural pigpen comes with it. It usually goes like this:  Step 1:  A well meaning influential Christian notices a catchy phrase in popular or academic use.  He or she uses it to popularize his or her position.  Step 2:  The phrase is picked up by other Christian writers with an air of trendiness.  Step 3:  As time goes on, the full meaning of the phrase in our culture blends in, slowly shifting Christian thought. Think terms like "Safe Space," "Felt Truth," or "Social Justice."    Even those who are careful to qualify their meaning often forget that downstream, adoption brings adaptation.  

"Human Flourishing"

The phrase "Human Flourishing" is a perfect example from my list of watch words in this regard.  It may not ring in your ears like Christian Nationalism, but wait — it seems to be on the rise.  R.R. Reno uses it in First Things.  Classical educators use it. It's in the title of several Christian books.  And, David Brooks is fond of using it.  It has gained parlance in intellectual Christian circles, especially among coastal cosmopolitans where the phrase lingers more readily in the common tongue.  Often, it is used in laudable ways: to promote something better than simple happiness.  

"Human Flourishing" comes from the world of social science.  It first appeared in use in a 1969 article titled, "Human Flourishing:  On the Scope of Moral Inquiry." It did not become trendy until after 2000.  In 2001, an article by Barbara Fredrickson titled, "The role of positive emotions in positive psychology:  The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions," was published, and became the most cited article on record for the phrase “Human Flourishing.”  In this article, Fredrickson argues that positive emotions affect all aspects of human life, to the extent of providing strength and resilience in the face of adversity (remember Norman Vincent Peale?).

So, what's the concern?  The phrase seems helpful and descriptive, right?  Phrases that rise to popularity carry cache and meaning in broader society.  When we borrow their phrases, the meaning already attached trails along and evolves.

Since 2005, "Human Flourishing" has rocketed into popular use in print articles.  Research site encyclopedia.pub uses a data mapping tool they call Temathic Evolution that follows the usage of a term over time. "Human Flourishing" themes in the early 2000s were tied to words like enhancement, positive emotion, well being, and empathy.  But, after 2016, "virtue, ethics, Aristotle, and religion" rose in their association with the phrase.  This evidence indicates that Christians and/or classicists may have been picking up the term at about this time.  

 As sociology “progresses,” so does its phrase (remember, it is their phrase).  From the Temathic Evolution article:  “This [second time period of use - 2005-2015] offers an updated view of the term, which is now more concerned with the subjective perception of happiness and mental health, albeit in an increasingly individualistic way … positive psychology, subjective well-being, mental health, autonomy, resilience, health, and individualism.” [Encyclopedia.pub entry 19997]  By the third period of use (2015 to present), the term has taken on more baggage.  Associations with human rights, leadership, social justice, and spirituality emerge.  “All of them express claims related to the ethical framework of human flourishing, understanding religion in relation to spirituality, which constitutes a less doctrinal demand of the experience.”  [EBID]  The term originates in sociology, flows with it, and starts to influence its use in religious contexts, becoming less “doctrinal” and more experiential.  This meaning starts to sound a bit more dangerous, doesn’t it?  While older phrases can also fall into this evolutionary trap, they do so much less readily and to less effect.

Let’s look at the phrase itself.

"Human Flourishing" emphasizes an ultimate purpose for humanity.  Flourishing is the objective — to develop in a healthy and vigorous way — and this can be good.  But, as a phrase, the term is often used as an objective, as in "To promote Human Flourishing."  This, too, could be positive, but the phrase cannot escape its root.  When taken in the context of its modern usage, it takes on much more meaning.  "Positive psychology" borrows the phrase "The Good Life" to describe Human Flourishing.  "The Good Life" is  a much older phrase that dates back to Aristotle (translated, of course).  So, let’s contrast the two phrases.

"Human Flourishing" orients purpose around us, rather than God.  For example, a hypothetical mission "To promote Human Flourishing by teaching Christ in all things" subtly makes the telos (chief end) of man "flourishing."  In other words, the reason we teach Christ is to flourish as humans.  Is this the primary reason we teach Christ?  

If "Human Flourishing" as an objective makes man the center and flourishing the ideal,  the older term "The Good Life" centers on "Good," or that which is divine and transcendent in origin. "To promote The Good Life by teaching Christ in all things" has a different meaning — subtle but important.  This phrase is less concerned with the flourishing of humans than it is with an objective view of a life lived to the glory of God (the “Good” life).  The Good Life exists, not by what humans experience, but because it transcends humanity.  Human Flourishing is a term that does not lend itself well to transcendence.  It points squarely to me (or us).  Perhaps this is why Aristotle did not concern himself with flourishing, but rather with goodness — the Greek word he uses is eudaimonia, translated "The Good Life."   Just seconds ago,  in historical terms,  we picked up the trendy moniker "Human Flourishing" as an alternate rephrasing.

Does this argument seem too pedantic?   Possibly, except for the age in which we live.   Sociology is squarely in the hands of the neo-pagans who capture phrases and use them not just as swords, but as long levers with which they can slowly bend our thought.  This is hard enough to resist when they take traditional, historical phrases and repurpose them — even though in those cases, we have the gravity of the phrase’s historical use to resist with us.  But with new phrases, like "Human Flourishing," we're untethered to history and at the mercy of the progressive sociologists.  

As classical Christian educators, we have a couple of biases.  One is that we revere old wisdom.  The other is that we revere words.  In this regard, perhaps we should hold to older words rather than adopting trendy ones.  As I said, adoption brings adaptation.  As Christians, we should not adapt our ideas to fit the times.  We should strive to make the times Christian.  We should express ourselves "contra mundum" — against the world and its folly.  In doing this, even in very small linguistic ways, we can return to a better narrative, time tested ideas, and a Christian way.