Franklin Graham says ‘Christian nationalism’ is a ‘coin the media came up with’

[Lukaris]

I believe the New Testament is spiritually opposed to slavery but is resigned to enduring it. Probably this is part of what would be within the scope of Romans 13:1-14.

There had been 3 major, unsuccessful slave revolts within the Roman Empire in the 2nd century BC.

Servile Wars - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[RickardoHolmes]

Is the bible any old book? Take in mind I didn't say bible, but rather Christian moral commitments. The bible informs our worldview as Christians and we are not a secular liberal religion. I mean, if you want to be rid of the bible as a foundational Christian text and have a full commitment to the Enlightenment, that's fine, but you've gone beyond Christianity. If you object to the Christian moral framework, in favour of a Godless secularism, then, well, that's your decision.

If you are also opposed to the God of the Old Testament then are you some kind of Marcionite?

I was giving an example addressing the common arguments of Christian nationalism.
Fortunately, America IS a secular nation People are allowed to freely celebrate their beliefs (so long as they are not harming others in doing so, 'but we are secular because there is no official religion.

Best Morals would be a situation whereby tribalism and "us vs them " would not exist, to be replaced with a desire to work together to solve problems

The idea of WIN/Lost must be replaced with WIN/WIN to enable people to work together to solve problems People need to get over themselves and start working together for the common good of the nation.....which means listening more, talking less and working more without excuses.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I was giving an example addressing the common arguments of Christian nationalism.
Fortunately, America IS a secular nation People are allowed to freely celebrate their beliefs (so long as they are not harming others in doing so, 'but we are secular because there is no official religion.

Have you ever read a Christian nationalist or listened to one explain themselves?

I don't think you understand what it is the Christian Nationalist advocates for.

Best Morals would be a situation whereby tribalism and "us vs them " would not exist, to be replaced with a desire to work together to solve problems

So whose morality triumphs in the end? Because how one solves problems is ultimately subjective. Christianity would solve problems one way. The USA would solve problems another way. Why should the Christian prefer the way the USA solves problems?

The idea of WIN/Lost must be replaced with WIN/WIN to enable people to work together to solve problems People need to get over themselves and start working together for the common good of the nation.....which means listening more, talking less and working more without excuses.

How is it a win for Christians to surrender culture, law and society to non-Christian elements? Be that other religions or secular moral principles?

 

[FireDragon76]

Wow. I can’t believe that someone who names the name of Christ would subjugate the Bible under the Constitution.

For purposes of the State, the Constitution is the highest governing document in the land.

 

[Hammster]

For purposes of the State, the Constitution is the highest governing document in the land.

It isn’t, but okay.

 

[RickardoHolmes]

It isn’t, but okay.

Then what is the Highest governing document in the land, specifically in the United States?

 

[RickardoHolmes]

For purposes of the State, the Constitution is the highest governing document in the land.

You are 100% correct. National laws must conform to Constitutional guidelines Which is often trickier than it sounds especially if there are different interpretations of the Constitution.

 

[The Liturgist]

That's because Christian nationalism is a polarizing ideology. Especially considering over 1/3 the country isn't Christian, and the numbers are even higher among younger cohorts. And there really is no such thing as "Christianity" in the abstract, there hasn't been for hundreds of years.

Some churches may be in decline, but others are growing, and 2/3rds of the country is still a supermajority, and also makes the US one of the most pious countries in the world. Indeed, the most pious country I have known, which is the West African country of Ghana, has a similar percentage of Christians to non-Christians, primarily less than extremely observant Muslims.

I disagree with your assertion that there is no such thing as “Christianity” in the abstract, since the mere existence of this site proves otherwise. We have a vibrant community which is united by the Christian Forums statement of faith. And our common faith in the Trinity, and the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, results in even intense disagreements being reconcilable, because we share a common foundation, that being our faith in Christ crucified, which does not exist in the case of Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses or certain other groups. Indeed there is a member of the forums at present who I had a bitter disagreement with a few weeks ago, and who I had to temporarily ask not to speak with me, but we have since reconciled, as we have enough in common in terms of our shared Christian faith.

Conversely, on those rare occasions when someone joins who does not agree with the CF.com Statement of Faith, well, recently, and this is the only thing like “Christian Nationalism” that I have actually seen, there was someone who was an Arian, who denied the doctrine of the Trinity and the Nicene Creed, who had posted a thread in Denomination Specific Theology about his desire to form a church specifically for Irish Celtic people, membership open only to those who were ethnically of Irish Celtic descent, and who, along with one other person who joined, expressed a view that was extremely anti-Semitic. For example, when I made a favorable remark about General Eisenhower, in the context of a historical analogy, one of these Arians (note, I am saying Arian, not Aryan, as in the Nazi racial identity thing, although I think these people were potentially fellow travelers of the National Socialist movement), one of them made an anti-Semitic remark, that criticized Eisenhower for being a “Servant of the Jews” and another of these heretics (they are heretics, according to the Council of Nicaea, and according to basic Christianity, for their injection of racial politics into the religion and their removal of the Trinity for it), and they denied that the Jews of today were among those descended from the Jews at the time of Jesus Christ, which is a common anti-Semitic sentiment which is false and entirely ahistorical.

So I refuse to call that movement “Christian Nationalism” because it is not Christian.

When I hear “Christian Nationalism” I think rather of those European countries where Christianity is the official religion, and additionally where the government of the country is not hostile to it, either openly or subtly. For example, the government of Viktor Orban in Hungary comes to mind as an example of Christian Nationalism in Europe.

 

[The Liturgist]

I believe the New Testament is spiritually opposed to slavery but is resigned to enduring it. Probably this is part of what would be within the scope of Romans 13:1-14.

There had been 3 major, unsuccessful slave revolts within the Roman Empire in the 2nd century BC.

Servile Wars - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I believe you are correct. It would not have been Christian to provoke another failed slave rebellion, which would simply have led to another mass crucifixion such as what happened in the case of Spartacus.

 

[Stephen3141]

Evangelist Franklin Graham, the son of legendary evangelist Billy Graham, said in a recent interview that the term "Christian nationalism" is often used by the media as a tactic to polarize and divide the country.

Continued below.

Franklin Graham says ‘Christian nationalism’ is a ‘coin the media came up with’

Evangelist Franklin Graham, the son of legendary evangelist Billy Graham, said in a recent interview that the term Christian nationalism is often used by the media as a tactic to polarize and divide

www.christianpost.com

(I don't think that the concept of Christian nationalism is a recent
idea. It has been around for centuries.

Of course, the DEFINITION of what is meant by "Christian", has been
openly debated for centuries. And this is an ongoing problem in America
(take the difficulty of the "Evangelicals" to define, doctrinally, what they
are, as a modern example).

One terrible theme in the European Enlightenment, was that 3 Christian
groups (Catholic, Reformed, Lutheran) fought brutal wars for 100 years,
against each other. At times, each of these groups called each other
"heretics". But, within separate countries, the reigning group probably
would have agreed to the concept that THEY were the "Christians",
and that THEY wanted a country ruled by "Christianity". This is the
essence of "Christian nationalism". (!)

Most American Protestant groups that use the term Christian Nationalism,
imagine their own group as defining what "Christian" means. And, they
reject the horrendous reality of the Christian religious wars in Europe
during the European Enlightenment. (They probably would not understand
what I am talking about.) American "Christian Nationalists" (I think) are
mostly from anti-intellectual low church Protestant Fundamentalist groups.
I do not think that most of these groups understand why the founders of
America (almost all of whom were Christians of one sort or another) specifically
embraced "freedom of religion", when they were all from Christian groups.
They realized that many in different Christian groups, did not recognize others
in these groups as being "Christian". But they did not want to reduplicate the
religious wars of the European Enlightenment, all over again, in America.
So, it was Christian groups, who declared that "freedom of religion" should
be the law of the land in America.

(Note that "freedom of religion", taken in its broadest possible meaning,
is not what the founding fathers meant. They meant religion that was
compatible with the core Moral-Ethical model of Judaism and
Christianity. With the progressing rejection of the Judea-Christian
ME model by American citizens, you see the dynamic of all sorts of
very non-Christian groups, trying to REDEFINE what the founding fathers
meant by "freedom of religion."

Note that almost all of the language of the American founding fathers,
comes from discussions in Europe during the European Enlightenment.
And, much of this language DOES NOT MEAN what modern Americans
(who have not studied the meaning of this language in the European
Enlightenment), think that it means.
---------- ----------

Although some modern Americans think that "Christian Nationalism"
is a concept that is apposed to "paganism" or "atheism" (I think that
this is what is mostly meant by users such as Franklin Graham),
the concept of Christian nationalism as understood by the founders of
America, probably would have meant that the ruler of a country has
the right to set the religion of all the citizens of that country (set the .
religion to some form of Christianity). The founders of America opposed
this concept of Christian nationalism, and instead proposed "freedom of
religion".

I do not think that the term "Christian Nationalism", as used by some
Protestant Fundamentalist groups today, is compatible with the "freedom
of religion" that the (Christian) founders of America defined.

The Enlightenment: The Pursuit of... book by Ritchie Robertson

www.thriftbooks.com

Modern Americans need to do a lot more reading of history, to find
what the language used by the founders of America, means.

This is a difficult toptic, and it will not be settled by a lot of emotional
rhetoric, by people who do not really understand where the phrase
"freedom of religion" came from, or why the founding fathers wrote
"freedom of religion" into our foundational documents, when almost all
of them came from Christian groups.)

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

(I don't think that the concept of Christian nationalism is a recent
idea. It has been around for centuries.

Of course, the DEFINITION of what is meant by "Christian", has been
openly debated for centuries. And this is an ongoing problem in America
(take the difficulty of the "Evangelicals" to define, doctrinally, what they
are, as a modern example).

One terrible theme in the European Enlightenment, was that 3 Christian
groups (Catholic, Reformed, Lutheran) fought brutal wars for 100 years,
against each other. At times, each of these groups called each other
"heretics". But, within separate countries, the reigning group probably
would have agreed to the concept that THEY were the "Christians",
and that THEY wanted a country ruled by "Christianity". This is the
essence of "Christian nationalism". (!)

Most American Protestant groups that use the term Christian Nationalism,
imagine their own group as defining what "Christian" means. And, they
reject the horrendous reality of the Christian religious wars in Europe
during the European Enlightenment. (They probably would not understand
what I am talking about.) American "Christian Nationalists" (I think) are
mostly from anti-intellectual low church Protestant Fundamentalist groups.
I do not think that most of these groups understand why the founders of
America (almost all of whom were Christians of one sort or another) specifically
embraced "freedom of religion", when they were all from Christian groups.
They realized that many in different Christian groups, did not recognize others
in these groups as being "Christian". But they did not want to reduplicate the
religious wars of the European Enlightenment, all over again, in America.
So, it was Christian groups, who declared that "freedom of religion" should
be the law of the land in America.

(Note that "freedom of religion", taken in its broadest possible meaning,
is not what the founding fathers meant. They meant religion that was
compatible with the core Moral-Ethical model of Judaism and
Christianity. With the progressing rejection of the Judea-Christian
ME model by American citizens, you see the dynamic of all sorts of
very non-Christian groups, trying to REDEFINE what the founding fathers
meant by "freedom of religion."

Note that almost all of the language of the American founding fathers,
comes from discussions in Europe during the European Enlightenment.
And, much of this language DOES NOT MEAN what modern Americans
(who have not studied the meaning of this language in the European
Enlightenment), think that it means.
---------- ----------

Although some modern Americans think that "Christian Nationalism"
is a concept that is apposed to "paganism" or "atheism" (I think that
this is what is mostly meant by users such as Franklin Graham),
the concept of Christian nationalism as understood by the founders of
America, probably would have meant that the ruler of a country has
the right to set the religion of all the citizens of that country (set the .
religion to some form of Christianity). The founders of America opposed
this concept of Christian nationalism, and instead proposed "freedom of
religion".

I do not think that the term "Christian Nationalism", as used by some
Protestant Fundamentalist groups today, is compatible with the "freedom
of religion" that the (Christian) founders of America defined.

The Enlightenment: The Pursuit of... book by Ritchie Robertson

www.thriftbooks.com

Modern Americans need to do a lot more reading of history, to find
what the language used by the founders of America, means.

This is a difficult toptic, and it will not be settled by a lot of emotional
rhetoric, by people who do not really understand where the phrase
"freedom of religion" came from, or why the founding fathers wrote
"freedom of religion" into our foundational documents, when almost all
of them came from Christian groups.)

The most deadly wars in human history have been about secular ideologies of Liberalism, National Socialism and Communism. Getting rid of religion from power did not make us any more peaceful or less cruel as people.

Modern American Christians would do well to not let their political ideology be determined by the founding Fathers of America who departed from Christianity significantly.

 

[The Liturgist]

The most deadly wars in human history have been about secular ideologies of Liberalism, National Socialism and Communism. Getting rid of religion from power did not make us any more peaceful or less cruel as people.

This is true.

Modern American Christians would do well to not let their political ideology be determined by the founding Fathers of America who departed from Chrostianity significantly.

That’s actually a liberal myth about the founding fathers. Most of them were pious Anglicans, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Quakers and Methodists. A few from Boston became Unitarian, most notably John Adams, when the Unitarian heresy erupted in Boston in the 1780s. Only one important leader, Thomas Jefferson, was a deist, but even he was invested in a philosophical form of Christianity - indeed he had the idea, which was rather strange, that if he cut out the portions of the Gospels that referred to the supernatural and turned them into a harmony, like Tatian’s Diatessaron, the result would convert the Native Americans more easily to Christianity.

At any rate, the US in my youth was an obviously Christian country - my parent’s generation had prayer in public schools until the ACLU became active.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

This is true.



That’s actually a liberal myth about the founding fathers. Most of them were pious Anglicans, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Quakers and Methodists. A few from Boston became Unitarian, most notably John Adams, when the Unitarian heresy erupted in Boston in the 1780s. Only one important leader, Thomas Jefferson, was a deist, but even he was invested in a philosophical form of Christianity - indeed he had the idea, which was rather strange, that if he cut out the portions of the Gospels that referred to the supernatural and turned them into a harmony, like Tatian’s Diatessaron, the result would convert the Native Americans more easily to Christianity.

At any rate, the US in my youth was an obviously Christian country - my parent’s generation had prayer in public schools until the ACLU became active.

I suppose what I mean by a departure from Christianity I mean a departure from the political history of Christianity in seeking to establish a government which doesn't favour any religion or religious understanding.

Yes the founders were not modern Leftists who eschew religion altogether but their political presuppositions laid the foundation for the undoing of America, White Anglo Saxon Protestant, even if that was never their intention.

We kind of see the full flowering of this Liberalism today which based itself on things like the equality of all religions and it's to the point that legally one cannot distinguish between Islam and Christianity. Said assumptions of equality prohibit the notion of seeking to maintain the dominance of Christianity as the main public religion.

 

[The Liturgist]

Yes the founders were not modern Leftists who eschew religion altogether but their political presuppositions laid the foundation for the undoing of America, White Anglo Saxon Protestant, even if that was never their intention.

I would argue this is rather the false narrative that the ACLU and the atheist leftists have sought to promote.

The US Constitution has actually been a blessing for Christianity in recent years, because the First Amendment, while it does preclude the formation of an Established Church, also prohibits restrictions on worship and on the freedom of speech and the freedom of assembly. So in most of the US, churches resumed public operations long before their counterparts in the EU, Canada, NZ, Australia or the UK, in late 2000, and what is more, the ban on church services and also attempts to prohibit singing were ruled unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court. Additionally US clergy do not need to fear persecution for preaching the Gospel on issues like homosexuality, unlike clergy in most of the aforementioned nations, because of the absolute ban on homosexuality in the US Constitution.

 

[FireDragon76]

This is true.



That’s actually a liberal myth about the founding fathers. Most of them were pious Anglicans, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Quakers and Methodists. A few from Boston became Unitarian, most notably John Adams, when the Unitarian heresy erupted in Boston in the 1780s. Only one important leader, Thomas Jefferson, was a deist, but even he was invested in a philosophical form of Christianity - indeed he had the idea, which was rather strange, that if he cut out the portions of the Gospels that referred to the supernatural and turned them into a harmony, like Tatian’s Diatessaron, the result would convert the Native Americans more easily to Christianity.

"Pious" is subjective. Most were Christians, but were also educated people of their time, which meant they rejected sectarianism, and also tended to reject religious prejudice (such as anti-Semitism- Washington and Jefferson were fairly explicit in rejecting anti-Semitism, unlike England which still had anti-Jewish laws).

There weren't many Muslims or Hindus in the Colonies at the time to render anything like a consensus, but Jefferson's concept of religious tolerance explicitly applied to them, too.

 

[The Liturgist]

"Pious" is subjective. Most were Christians, but were also educated people of their time, which meant they rejected sectarianism, and also tended to reject religious prejudice (such as anti-Semitism- Washington and Jefferson were fairly explicit in rejecting anti-Semitism, unlike England which still had anti-Jewish laws).

There weren't many Muslims or Hindus in the Colonies at the time to render anything like a consensus, but Jefferson's concept of religious tolerance explicitly applied to them, too.

This is not in dispute, but it is spectacularly unlikely that either Jefferson or Washington would have much patience for the anti-Christian and anti-Jewish extremism we see from some segments of the Islamist and Atheist communities.

Also I will say my patience for Thomas Jefferson is limited greatly by his relative lack of piety compared to the rest (I am also suspicious of Benjamin Franklin, mainly due to his friendship with Dashwood, et cetera, although I suspect the feeling there would be mutual), and by his failure to emancipate his slaves on the occasion of his death as he had planned on doing, and as Washington did, which is further compounded by Jefferson having children by them, and thus, due to his failure to manage his own debts, creating a situation in which his own children wound up being enslaved.

That said he was a very talented architect.