|
|
Post by Monster Man on Oct 11, 2022 12:59:31 GMT
I appreciate the response, but what you mean by "to the exclusion of other nations" is a bit vague now. I think a lot of folks who consider themselves to be Christian Nationalists would disagree with your last take as well, regarding legally impose. What I mean by “to the exclusion of other nations” is the idea that “God is on our side,” and other nations don’t matter when it comes to “our interests.” Even when those other nations have Christians living in them too. Justifying a “me first” or “us first” attitude is incongruent to Christianity. Further, there is not really any such thing as a “Christian nation” and any such claims are inappropriate. Yet... throughout history God has been on peoples sides and such a notion is not limited to Christian Nationalism. I think there is a population of people who think this in general about American Exceptionalism, that somehow we are blessed by God and that overlaps the general population and Christian Nationalists. We are mixing politics and religion a bit now regarding an us first attitude. Would you agree there is a difference between what you think regarding government and what you think regarding say, your personal life and church? What I mean is that it seems you are now wanting Christians to support some kind of altruism in government, you know, legally impose their values on the rest of the nation... this is the kind of stuff we get into with more liberal Christians who somehow think they are being generous themselves or somehow noble and righteous by saying we need to tax rich people to give to the poor. So... putting our national interests first is more about understanding politics and governance and that we have a million problems of our own here with things like hunger and homelessness. To your last point... it really depends on what you mean by Christian nation... I think in regards to this most folks think that means we are a predominantly Christian nation.. and that is good! As I pointed out in the religion thread to you before... as a Christian do you not want most folks to be Christian? |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Oct 12, 2022 1:23:05 GMT
Sorry for the delay in response.
When it comes to Christianity, it's a misrepresentation to claim that Christianity is only concerned about the "personal and individual" (with the implication that anything beyond that doesn't matter). The church is an organization of individuals, but we wouldn't expect the church to behave outside God's expectations. Jesus said "All authority in heaven and earth has been given to me." All authority. Not just authority over the individual. Of course, problems emerge once we get beyond the individual, into larger and larger groups. How is that authority exercised?
Is it okay for a state (any state) to be a representative and enactor of God's authority? That's the problem of theocracy (and history has no positive examples of theocracies).
Are nations supposed to demonstrate some kind of altruism? Well...most people espousing any kind of Christian nationalism must appeal to Old Testament scripture to justify it. But it is in Old Testament scripture where the prophets expect and demand "altruistic behaviour," not from individuals, but from nations—how the poor and marginalized are treated. In contrast, there aren't really any New Testament justifications for religious nationalism (which is why some people reduce Christianity to the "individual level"). And yet in the parable of the sheep and the goats, it is not individuals that are judged; it is nations that are judged.
So...does that justify Christian nationalism? Again, no. When people assume that "God is on our side," a lot of presumptions are wrapped up in that—including cultural values and expressions that are ungodly (consider that "God's people was Israel," and Jesus still challenged certain cultural values). But the worst presumption comes down to "the end justifies the means." Since "we are God's favourites" we end up justifying idolatry, immorality, injustice, etc., because "that's what's good for the state." This happens in nations, in churches, almost anywhere—the decision-makers kind of get a "free pass," whether it's a corrupt pastor or corrupt government.
When it comes to Christianity expressed "top down," the one thing that cannot exist or be reconciled to Christianity is coercion. It simply doesn't work. When I was young, we still recited the Lord's Prayer in our school opening exercises. So a whole bunch of people have to mindlessly recite words they don't mean...for what? Does that "make people more Christian"? Does it make people "want to be Christian"? No, in either case.
The influence of Christianity on culture is like leaven in dough (Jesus' illustration). And our culture is, at very deep levels, still "Christianized." Christianized culture is a good thing. Assuming a "Christian culture" is not (because there is always a push to consolidate power and maintain the status quo at the expense of the marginalized). But trying to "make it happen" through force, coercion, etc., actually undermines Christianity.
Sorry...a bit of a ramble.
|
|
|
|
Post by Monster Man on Oct 16, 2022 18:40:05 GMT
Sorry for the delay in response. When it comes to Christianity, it's a misrepresentation to claim that Christianity is only concerned about the "personal and individual" (with the implication that anything beyond that doesn't matter). The church is an organization of individuals, but we wouldn't expect the church to behave outside God's expectations. Jesus said "All authority in heaven and earth has been given to me." All authority. Not just authority over the individual. Of course, problems emerge once we get beyond the individual, into larger and larger groups. How is that authority exercised? Is it okay for a state (any state) to be a representative and enactor of God's authority? That's the problem of theocracy (and history has no positive examples of theocracies). Are nations supposed to demonstrate some kind of altruism? Well...most people espousing any kind of Christian nationalism must appeal to Old Testament scripture to justify it. But it is in Old Testament scripture where the prophets expect and demand "altruistic behaviour," not from individuals, but from nations—how the poor and marginalized are treated. In contrast, there aren't really any New Testament justifications for religious nationalism (which is why some people reduce Christianity to the "individual level"). And yet in the parable of the sheep and the goats, it is not individuals that are judged; it is nations that are judged. So...does that justify Christian nationalism? Again, no. When people assume that "God is on our side," a lot of presumptions are wrapped up in that—including cultural values and expressions that are ungodly (consider that "God's people was Israel," and Jesus still challenged certain cultural values). But the worst presumption comes down to "the end justifies the means." Since "we are God's favourites" we end up justifying idolatry, immorality, injustice, etc., because "that's what's good for the state." This happens in nations, in churches, almost anywhere—the decision-makers kind of get a "free pass," whether it's a corrupt pastor or corrupt government. When it comes to Christianity expressed "top down," the one thing that cannot exist or be reconciled to Christianity is coercion. It simply doesn't work. When I was young, we still recited the Lord's Prayer in our school opening exercises. So a whole bunch of people have to mindlessly recite words they don't mean...for what? Does that "make people more Christian"? Does it make people "want to be Christian"? No, in either case. The influence of Christianity on culture is like leaven in dough (Jesus' illustration). And our culture is, at very deep levels, still "Christianized." Christianized culture is a good thing. Assuming a "Christian culture" is not (because there is always a push to consolidate power and maintain the status quo at the expense of the marginalized). But trying to "make it happen" through force, coercion, etc., actually undermines Christianity. Sorry...a bit of a ramble. I guess, where I am trying to understand here, is that you seem to be both criticizing Christian Nationalists for wanting to impose tenets of their faith through government while you are also defending this. I have also continued to point out that Christian Nationalism is not based on imposing theocracy. While some may tilt that way, that is not a core belief of a Christian Nationalist. I also disagree with your take on reciting the Lords Prayer. While for some, it might indeed be a mindless exercise, for others it is not and it is also laying the foundation for remembering the importance of the activity, setting aside time to practice it. Even for those who might not sincerely believe it at the time, at some point that meaning may come to them and the appreciation for the practice comes too. My parents prayed with me at night before bed, taught me to do the same as a child, but do you think I really grasped any part of that concept of what I was doing? No... but it certainly set the foundation. So, your issue is not that Christian Nationalists would consider their nation to be Christian, it is if it is a bad presumption? Again... I think you falsely presume that force and coercion is a core belief to being a Christian Nationalist. I do not. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Oct 16, 2022 20:17:44 GMT
Sorry for the delay in response. When it comes to Christianity, it's a misrepresentation to claim that Christianity is only concerned about the "personal and individual" (with the implication that anything beyond that doesn't matter). The church is an organization of individuals, but we wouldn't expect the church to behave outside God's expectations. Jesus said "All authority in heaven and earth has been given to me." All authority. Not just authority over the individual. Of course, problems emerge once we get beyond the individual, into larger and larger groups. How is that authority exercised? Is it okay for a state (any state) to be a representative and enactor of God's authority? That's the problem of theocracy (and history has no positive examples of theocracies). Are nations supposed to demonstrate some kind of altruism? Well...most people espousing any kind of Christian nationalism must appeal to Old Testament scripture to justify it. But it is in Old Testament scripture where the prophets expect and demand "altruistic behaviour," not from individuals, but from nations—how the poor and marginalized are treated. In contrast, there aren't really any New Testament justifications for religious nationalism (which is why some people reduce Christianity to the "individual level"). And yet in the parable of the sheep and the goats, it is not individuals that are judged; it is nations that are judged. So...does that justify Christian nationalism? Again, no. When people assume that "God is on our side," a lot of presumptions are wrapped up in that—including cultural values and expressions that are ungodly (consider that "God's people was Israel," and Jesus still challenged certain cultural values). But the worst presumption comes down to "the end justifies the means." Since "we are God's favourites" we end up justifying idolatry, immorality, injustice, etc., because "that's what's good for the state." This happens in nations, in churches, almost anywhere—the decision-makers kind of get a "free pass," whether it's a corrupt pastor or corrupt government. When it comes to Christianity expressed "top down," the one thing that cannot exist or be reconciled to Christianity is coercion. It simply doesn't work. When I was young, we still recited the Lord's Prayer in our school opening exercises. So a whole bunch of people have to mindlessly recite words they don't mean...for what? Does that "make people more Christian"? Does it make people "want to be Christian"? No, in either case. The influence of Christianity on culture is like leaven in dough (Jesus' illustration). And our culture is, at very deep levels, still "Christianized." Christianized culture is a good thing. Assuming a "Christian culture" is not (because there is always a push to consolidate power and maintain the status quo at the expense of the marginalized). But trying to "make it happen" through force, coercion, etc., actually undermines Christianity. Sorry...a bit of a ramble. I guess, where I am trying to understand here, is that you seem to be both criticizing Christian Nationalists for wanting to impose tenets of their faith through government while you are also defending this. I have also continued to point out that Christian Nationalism is not based on imposing theocracy. While some may tilt that way, that is not a core belief of a Christian Nationalist. I also disagree with your take on reciting the Lords Prayer. While for some, it might indeed be a mindless exercise, for others it is not and it is also laying the foundation for remembering the importance of the activity, setting aside time to practice it. Even for those who might not sincerely believe it at the time, at some point that meaning may come to them and the appreciation for the practice comes too. My parents prayed with me at night before bed, taught me to do the same as a child, but do you think I really grasped any part of that concept of what I was doing? No... but it certainly set the foundation. So, your issue is not that Christian Nationalists would consider their nation to be Christian, it is if it is a bad presumption? Again... I think you falsely presume that force and coercion is a core belief to being a Christian Nationalist. I do not. I have not come across “non-coercive Christian Nationalism” before. |
|
