Syncretic merging of Christianity and "Sacred Democracy"

[lifepsyop]

Following World Wars of the 20th century, there is a collective paradigm shift that presented the system of liberal democracy of the United States, and the west generally, as a kind of sacred center for the protection and promotion of universal human rights for the entire world. The "Shining City on a Hill" enlightening the nations of the world with its system of liberal democracy.

The Church enters into this through the stream of Liberation Theology and the Social Gospel. This was the belief that Christians could begin building the Kingdom of God here on earth now through governmental social reforms. The command to feed the hungry and help the needy was gradually transformed and merged into a rapidly growing beauracratic system of social planning and social engineering.

The result appears to be a mainstream church that is spiritually fastened to 'sacred democracy'... where the spreading of Democracy and the Gospel has become syncretized into one common mission. Light spills into the world when a foreign dictator's palace is bombed by NATO airplaines, the same as it might when the Gospel is preached to some distant tribe.

A kind of universal "Moral Therapeutic State" is formed by a syncretic mixture of Christianity and Secular Democracy.

When liberal-minded Christians get upset about the prospect of "Christian Nationalism", it's not because they dislike the idea of mixing Christianity with the Nation-State, it's because *they already did it themselves* and would rather a competing Christian sect not try and overturn the syncretic religious order they've already established.

The Messianic figure of Christ becomes detached from the Bible, and floats freely in a kind of Gnosticism. Jesus becomes a "personal experience" for each individual, detached from the scripture that contradicts the sacred freedoms granted by the sacred Democratic State, freedoms such as the promotion of homosexuality and gay marriage or the individual right to kill one's child. This gnostic Jesus stands next to a deified George Washington... the light of the Gospel shines beside the equally bright torch of humanistic freedom blazing from the Statue of Liberty.

Curious to read others' thoughts on this subject.

 

[Lost Witness]

The United States Is Mystery Babylon, The Statue of Liberty is the W**** of Bablyon. the US has gotten the whole world drunk with it's Perversions and Abominations. That's my 'opinion"

 

[Maria Billingsley]

When liberal-minded Christians get upset about the prospect of "Christian Nationalism", it's not because they dislike the idea of mixing Christianity with the Nation-State, it's because *they already did it themselves* and would rather a competing Christian sect not try and overturn the syncretic religious order they've already established.

I am replying to your specific comment stated above:
With all due respect, you are absolutely incorrect. Christians who are in the Body of Christ are not of the flesh. They are of the Spirit. Christian Nationalism on any side is an abomination to our Lord, Jesus Christ of Nazareth.
Be blessed.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

That's a rather succinct descriptor of the reality most Christians in the West find themselves in. We think often times that we are above the political as a force in our lives but really we are not. All we have done is simply accustom ourselves to the dominant political ideology of liberal secularism and justified our acquiescence to it. Much like how Christians before current liberal democratic hegemony sought to align themselves with monarchy and offer various justifications for it. Although I think Christians before modernity had a more coherent case for supporting sacred monarchy than any Christian who supports completely this idea of 'our sacred democracy. '

Christian nationalists want to return to a communitarian sense of Christianity which understands itself as a distinct group with interest of it's own contra the interests of secular progressives. Though I think the Christian nationalist goes astray because it pays lip service to a democratic ideal which often doesn't bare itself out in reality.

One of the outcomes of the general Christian acceptance of the current state has been the weakening of the Church as the state replaces functions Churches historically served to facilitate and enacts policies that result in more atomization and the breakdown of local community/identities. It's been a rather long process for me to question the idea of our current political order but it seems inevitable (especially if you are on the political right) that Christians will only continue to question democracy as time goes on. We could perhaps even learn a thing or two from Christians before the enlightenment or reactionary authors like De Maistre who questioned the presuppositions of the enlightenment.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I am replying to your specific comment stated above:
With all due respect, you are absolutely incorrect. Christians who are in the Body of Christ are not of the flesh. They are of the Spirit. Christian Nationalism on any side is an abomination to our Lord, Jesus Christ of Nazareth.
Be blessed.

What is Christian nationalism in your view that it is an abomination?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Our citizenship .. is in heaven ..

Nationalism .. is about a nation on the earth.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

What is Christian nationalism in your view that it is an abomination?

Making merchandise of those who are in Him.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Making merchandise of those who are in Him.

I'm not sure what this means. Can you clarify? How does Christian nationalism make Christians 'mechandise'?

 

[lifepsyop]

I am replying to your specific comment stated above:
With all due respect, you are absolutely incorrect. Christians who are in the Body of Christ are not of the flesh. They are of the Spirit. Christian Nationalism on any side is an abomination to our Lord, Jesus Christ of Nazareth.
Be blessed.

Well, I would agree with you, but most of the Christians I know hold a great deal of pride in modern secular democracy as a force for Good in the world, and are very proud to be part of nations like America that have helped spread democracy around the world. Christians are deeply bound up in this mythos that the modern world has been enlightened and that we have made great social progress in the world.

Christians seem quite double-minded on this. On one hand we venerate the ideals of modern democracy, and a society built on individuality.

For just one example, Christians cherish the postmodern belief that women have been "liberated", and we would view the idea of women losing the vote as a great evil. The church is happy to flow along with the will of the people as it fluctuates according to the whims of 'sacred democracy'... If we were truly just a Body of Christ, I doubt the massive social transformations in the outer world would have so easily permeated within our lives as Christians.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

I'm not sure what this means. Can you clarify? How does Christian nationalism make Christians 'mechandise'?

Using Jesus Christ of Nazareth and His Kingdom as a tool for power and money directed to the desires of the flesh. That is Christian Nationalism.
2 Peter2
But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. 2And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. 3And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.

 

[lifepsyop]

Another example... if a more socially-conservative element came to power in America and banned pornography, returning the country to something resembling indecency laws of past centuries... or outright banned the killing of children in the womb... the body of Christ would be horrified because even though society would be conformed to a moral standard far more harmonious with God's word, it would be a major violation of "sacred democracy" and the belief in universal human rights to have such freedoms.

Any violation of these 'sacred' rights of modern enlightened liberal democracy are viewed as more of a clear and present manifestation of evil than actual sinful behavior, like homosexuality, that is spelled out in the Bible.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Using Jesus Christ of Nazareth and His Kingdom as a tool for power and money directed to the desires of the flesh. That is Christian Nationalism.
2 Peter2
But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. 2And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. 3And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.

I agree that using Christ merely as a tool of power is bad, but this is not unique to Christian nationalists. Since Christ carries authority he carries power and that is always susceptible to being used by cynical people in any context, the local Church, the secular democratic politician who appeals to Christ and etc. The Christian Nationalist no doubt seeks power, but that motivation may rest in the actual belief that society is better run according to Christian principles rather than secular progressive principles. In which case, is there anything wrong with it?

 

[Maria Billingsley]

I agree that using Christ merely as a tool of power is bad, but this is not unique to Christian nationalists. Since Christ carries authority he carries power and that is always susceptible to being used by cynical people in any context, the local Church, the secular democratic politician who appeals to Christ and etc. The Christian Nationalist no doubt seeks power, but that motivation may rest in the actual belief that society is better run according to Christian principles rather than secular progressive principles. In which case, is there anything wrong with it?

I did not say it is unique to CN. It's all around us sadly. Yes it is dangerous to mix secular politics with religion of any kind. Christian Nationalism , seeing fruition in the USA, has its roots in Dominionism under the guise of The Seven Mountain Mandate, Kingdom Now , New Apostolic Reformation and others. There are many who feed this unknowingly however, ignorance is no excuse when it comes to the Kingdom of God. Blessings.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I did not say it is unique to CN. It's all around us sadly. Yes it is dangerous to mix secular politics with religion of any kind. Christian Nationalism , seeing fruition in the USA, has its roots in Dominionism under the guise of The Seven Mountain Mandate, Kingdom Now , New Apostolic Reformation and others. There are many who feed this unknowingly however, ignorance is no excuse when it comes to the Kingdom of God. Blessings.

If it is not unique to Christian nationalism then it being an argument against Christian nationalism lacks power. I think plenty of Secular US politicians use Christianity and God's name all the time in order to justify their preferred policy position. I also believe they do so quite cynically without any belief in God at all.

So all you're left with is the idea that Christian nationalism is dangerous. Dangerous how? Dangerous in the way that power is always dangerous to handle? Well obviously but secular progressive governments, like the USA have demonstrated they are also dangerous with said power as well. What makes Christian Nationalism uniquely dangerous? I get that it challenges the established secular order but that's more radical than it is dangerous.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

If it is not unique to Christian nationalism then it being an argument against Christian nationalism lacks power. I think plenty of Secular US politicians use Christianity and God's name all the time in order to justify their preferred policy position. I also believe they do so quite cynically without any belief in God at all.

So all you're left with is the idea that Christian nationalism is dangerous. Dangerous how? Dangerous in the way that power is always dangerous to handle? Well obviously but secular progressive governments, like the USA have demonstrated they are also dangerous with said power as well. What makes Christian Nationalism uniquely dangerous? I get that it challenges the established secular order but that's more radical than it is dangerous.

I gave you four sectors in my last post that you can do your own research. This is my last post. Thanks for engaging!

Dominionism
Seven Mountain Mandate
Kingdom Now
New Apostolic Reformation

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I gave you four sectors in my last post that you can do your own research. This is my last post. Thanks for engaging!

Dominionism
Seven Mountain Mandate
Kingdom Now
New Apostolic Reformation

I've never heard of these things in the context of Christian nationalism. Christian nationalism as I understand it is the idea that Christian principles should govern society and Christians should be for the national interest of their country. Literally, Christian nationalism.

Can you explain to me how the concept is uniquely dangerous? Or how religion and politics mixing is inherently dangerous, which is a claim that goes beyond criticizing Christian nationalism to the very idea of faith having any influence on politics.

 

[Kettriken]

So all you're left with is the idea that Christian nationalism is dangerous. Dangerous how? Dangerous in the way that power is always dangerous to handle? Well obviously but secular progressive governments, like the USA have demonstrated they are also dangerous with said power as well. What makes Christian Nationalism uniquely dangerous? I get that it challenges the established secular order but that's more radical than it is dangerous.

I'm not sure how the original poster that you're responding to would define "dangerous," but I imagine it has something to do with the uniquely problematic nature of blending church and state. When you take two powerful institutions and put them together the risk of authoritarian rule becomes greater. When the big forces, church, state, corporate business, etc. are kept separate they form a natural balance of powers.

I've never heard of these things in the context of Christian nationalism. Christian nationalism as I understand it is the idea that Christian principles should govern society and Christians should be for the national interest of their country. Literally, Christian nationalism.

Can you explain to me how the concept is uniquely dangerous? Or how religion and politics mixing is inherently dangerous, which is a claim that goes beyond criticizing Christian nationalism to the very idea of faith having any influence on politics.

Individuals are a mix of religion and politics, inherently. They will act and vote accordingly. This is an individual right.
Religious nationalism mixes them formally and codifies them into law. This, along with questioning the very concept of democracy (the people being governed get a say in their governance) sets up a very risky situation for those who disagree with the religion of those in power. Eventually, if people don't agree and have no recourse to change the system, i.e. democracy, they must be forced to comply. This use of force is why people call religious nationalism dangerous.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I'm not sure how the original poster that you're responding to would define "dangerous," but I imagine it has something to do with the uniquely problematic nature of blending church and state. When you take two powerful institutions and put them together the risk of authoritarian rule becomes greater. When the big forces, church, state, corporate business, etc. are kept separate they form a natural balance of powers.

Well when they are kept utterly separate as in the current system there is no balance of power. The secular state has all the power and the Church/Christians if they are unable to exercise political power in their self interest can do nothing as the secular state socially conditions people and advocates in it's political/moral interests. Real balance between religion and the secular existed in the Middle ages. The idea that there is any kind of balance today is wishful thinking. In terms of hard power, cultural power the Church/Christianity has little.

Individuals are a mix of religion and politics, inherently. They will act and vote accordingly. This is an individual right.
Religious nationalism mixes them formally and codifies them into law. This, along with questioning the very concept of democracy (the people being governed get a say in their governance) sets up a very risky situation for those who disagree with the religion of those in power. Eventually, if people don't agree and have no recourse to change the system, i.e. democracy, they must be forced to comply. This use of force is why people call religious nationalism dangerous.

This implies that democracy is the only legitimate form of governance, yet from a Christian point of view that is not strictly true. God appoints rulers and we are subject to them insofar as they have been appointed. That can be through an institution like monarchy. I agree questioning democracy is dangerous to democracy, but it's not inherently 'dangerous.' As if it's going to result in mass death or something. Democratic states can be just as violent, if not more so, in the means by which they are willing to secure themselves. Besides, all governments use force to compel people, if you are opposed to force then you are opposed to government, parenthood and any relationship in which someone or a group exerts power over another. That would include Churches since they also use power as a means to control certain behaviors and punish dissidents. At least they used to.

 

[Kettriken]

Well when they are kept utterly separate as in the current system there is no balance of power. The secular state has all the power and the Church/Christians if they are unable to exercise political power in their self interest can do nothing as the secular state socially conditions people and advocates in it's political/moral interests. Real balance between religion and the secular existed in the Middle ages. The idea that there is any kind of balance today is wishful thinking. In terms of hard power, cultural power the Church/Christianity has little.

Perhaps it is different in New Zealand. In the United States there is no utter separation between politics and religion. Individuals usually bring their religion to the ballot box and their politics to church. Today denominations, churches, religions, movements have as much power as they are able to garner funds, voters, and influence.
I would not use the Middle Ages as an example of balance between church and secular. There was no substantial secular element in society back then. The church and state were largely one in the same, though national church-state complexes did argue and war against one another.

This implies that democracy is the only legitimate form of governance, yet from a Christian point of view that is not strictly true. God appoints rulers and we are subject to them insofar as they have been appointed. That can be through an institution like monarchy. I agree questioning democracy is dangerous to democracy, but it's not inherently 'dangerous.' As if it's going to result in mass death or something. Democratic states can be just as violent, if not more so, in the means by which they are willing to secure themselves. Besides, all governments use force to compel people, if you are opposed to force then you are opposed to government, parenthood and any relationship in which someone or a group exerts power over another. That would include Churches since they also use power as a means to control certain behaviors and punish dissidents. At least they used to.

From a Christian's perspective we are to live under whichever governance we get, trusting that God has the ultimate power in the situation. It may be democratic, it may be dictatorial. I know which I'd choose to live under, but ultimately God has the final say. Similarly, we live with the health we've been given, whether hearty or frail, as well as the circumstances of our birth. This does not preclude us from measuring one as more desirable than the other.
To your second point, yes governments use force. Most if not all people do as well, in relationships and churches. The power to force, to coerce. If you believe Satan, these are the primary tools we have at our disposal. Jesus was very clear in the new testament that he is not interested in these tools.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Perhaps it is different in New Zealand. In the United States there is no utter separation between politics and religion. Individuals usually bring their religion to the ballot box and their politics to church. Today denominations, churches, religions, movements have as much power as they are able to garner funds, voters, and influence.

Except there is an utter seperation. You've advocated it when you suggest that Christians cannot act politically in their own interests by advocating for laws which are influenced by Christian values.

I would not use the Middle Ages as an example of balance between church and secular. There was no substantial secular element in society back then. The church and state were largely one in the same, though national church-state complexes did argue and war against one another.

I would use it as an example of an actual dejure and defacto balance of power. Kings did not have unilateral authority to do whatever they wished and were hamstringed by the Church in laws regarding marriage and other areas which the Church had jurisdiction of. There was also always the implicit threat that excommunication could and would be used against a ruler who misused his power or angered the Church. Christians don't really have any soft or hard power in the USA . All hard power belongs to the secular government and soft power is in the Media/secular educational establishment.

It's a mistake to say Church and state were the same thing in the Middle ages. The Church was an institution working in concert with the Monarch. Just as the Monarch was a person working with his lords/vassals.

From a Christian's perspective we are to live under whichever governance we get, trusting that God has the ultimate power in the situation. It may be democratic, it may be dictatorial. I know which I'd choose to live under, but ultimately God has the final say. Similarly, we live with the health we've been given, whether hearty or frail, as well as the circumstances of our birth. This does not preclude us from measuring one as more desirable than the other.

Then what is fundamentally wrong with Christian nationalism? If Christian nationalists manage to attain power in the democratic system or organize in such a fashion that their communities are successful, why should Christians automatically oppose this? What is dangerous about this? Sure it might affect secular and liberal hegemony and be dangerous to those ideologies, but do we judge ourselves by their metrics?

To your second point, yes governments use force. Most if not all people do as well, in relationships and churches. The power to force, to coerce. If you believe Satan, these are the primary tools we have at our disposal. Jesus was very clear in the new testament that he is not interested in these tools.

So when a Church threatens to excommunicate someone who violates it's rules, it's doing the work of Satan? I'm not going to question the justification for such a measure because I believe in the justification, but I cannot deny it's coercive quality. Coercion and force are elements of life which are with us the moment we are born. They aren't inherently Satanic or evil. Lest we believe God, who is the most powerful, is inherently evil as well.