Shouldn't all Evangelicals want Christian Nationalism?

[RDKirk]

Isn’t the ROC supporting Putin’s invasion of Ukraine? That invasion has resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths (might even be approaching a million by now?), is including rape and torture of Ukranians, and has no just cause.

That's what I spoke of earlier. A nation's "kept church" winds up being the tail instead of the dog.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

That's what I spoke of earlier. A nation's "kept church" winds up being the tail instead of the dog.

So it's better to have no influence and be utterly subject?

 

[okay]

That's what I spoke of earlier. A nation's "kept church" winds up being the tail instead of the dog.

I would include the US as one of the countries that perpetuates unjust violence at times. if we became an officially Christian nation and kept behaving in the same way on the world stage, we would essentially be placing a “Christ stamp of approval” on all of our actions that I believe would terribly misrepresent Christ. If we had a state church, i would want no part of it.

 

[lifepsyop]

What does that mean?

What does it mean to recognize Jesus as Lord?

Is it just a statement released by the president? Or in the context of the US is this a constitutional amendment?

It would be something akin to founding documents. The nation becomes founded on a submission to Jesus, the king of the universe.

The USA is founded on Deism and philosophical principles of the Enlightenment, so the two may be difficult or impossible to mix.

Though from what I understand, several US states used to have official state churches. Maybe there could be a coalition of states that decided to come together to formally recognize the God of the Bible as the true source of authority.

Does it effect laws in any way?

P*rn*graphy gets banned, for starters. That's a good thing, right?

If so, which stream or denomination of Christianity gets to make the rules?

That doesn't matter to me.

I think Christians are starting to care less and less about their own inter-denominational quibbling when the alternative is having public educators encourage your kids to switch genders.

Are there implications for citizens who are not Christians?

If they promote degeneracy, yes.

 

[okay]

Though from what I understand, several US states used to have official state churches. Maybe there could be a coalition of states that decided to come together to formally recognize the God of the Bible as the true source of authority.

There were some states into the early 1800s that did. A famous one was Rhode Island, that had a state church (some kind of Calvinism if I recall correctly) and apparently persecuted Baptists. Jefferson's famous “separation of church and state” letter was in support of those Baptists.

The 14th amendment, passed after the civil war, extends the first amendment to the states. What you are suggesting is unconstitutional.

Can you think of any practical, nonviolent way to realize what you are advocating for in any country?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Can you think of any practical, nonviolent way to realize what you are advocating for in any country?

Are you committed to non violence totally? In every instance without any exceptions?

 

[okay]

Are you committed to non violence totally? In every instance without any exceptions?

Not at all. But after Jesus stopped people from using swords to defend him when he was being arrested, I cannot see any justification to use violence to establish a “Christian nation.”

As far as I can tell, Jesus never grasped for political power. Wasn’t that part of why he wasn’t what some were expecting in their Messiah? Didn’t they want someone to save them from Rome? Perhaps that is why the crowd wanted Barabbas released instead of Jesus - at least Barabbas had already tried to lead an insurrection and Jesus had just demonstrated he wouldn’t even fight back to defend himself.

Using violence to gain political power generally seems like the way of Barabbas to me, whether or not a “Christian nation” label is stuck on the resulting government. In my opinion the exceptions would be rare (Nazi Germany is an obvious example of a nation where violence was justified to take control away from Hitler).

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Not at all. But after Jesus stopped people from using swords to defend him when he was being arrested, I cannot see any justification to use violence to establish a “Christian nation.”

As far as I can tell, Jesus never grasped for political power. Wasn’t that part of why he wasn’t what some were expecting in their Messiah? Didn’t they want someone to save them from Rome? Perhaps that is why the crowd wanted Barabbas released instead of Jesus - at least Barabbas had already tried to lead an insurrection and Jesus had just demonstrated he wouldn’t even fight back to defend himself.

So Christians, in your own understanding, cannot participate in worldly power and the monopoly of violence must lie exclusively in the hands of Non Christians?

 

[JEBofChristTheLord]

So Christians, in your own understanding, cannot participate in worldly power and the monopoly of violence must lie exclusively in the hands of Non Christians?

No. But no kingdom, nation-state, of this world, can truly be called "Christian".

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

No. But no kingdom, nation-state, of this world, can truly be called "Christian".

By this logic can any person be called Christian because we all fall short of Christ?

 

[okay]

So Christians, in your own understanding, cannot participate in worldly power and the monopoly of violence must lie exclusively in the hands of Non Christians?

That is not my understanding. Also, from the time stamps it looks like I was still editing my post when you replied, so I apologize for that.

 

[lifepsyop]

There were some states into the early 1800s that did. A famous one was Rhode Island, that had a state church (some kind of Calvinism if I recall correctly) and apparently persecuted Baptists. Jefferson's famous “separation of church and state” letter was in support of those Baptists.

And what percentage of those Christians in the 1800's would run screaming back to state churches, regardless of denomination, if they caught a glimpse of the 21st century? Be honest.

The 14th amendment, passed after the civil war, extends the first amendment to the states. What you are suggesting is unconstitutional.

So what?

I don't pretend that anyone in power really cares about the constitution anymore, nor do I consider it any kind of sacred document.

To be clear, I am very skeptical a Christian Nation could be layered on top of the existing USA political framework. This thread is about exploring the ideological resistance among modern Christians to the very idea of Christian Nationalism.

Can you think of any practical, nonviolent way to realize what you are advocating for in any country?

Are you asking me how nations are formed?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

And what percentage of those Christians in the 1800's would run screaming back to state churches, regardless of denomination, if they caught a glimpse of the 21st century? Be honest.



So what?

I don't pretend that anyone in power really cares about the constitution anymore, nor do I consider it any kind of sacred document.

To be clear, I am very skeptical a Christian Nation could be layered on top of the existing USA political framework. This thread is about exploring the ideological resistance among modern Christians to the very idea of Christian Nationalism.

I'm not resistant to the idea of Christian Nationalism. Rather, I just don't see that it'd be a good thing by necessity, and I don't trust that Christians in the U.S. would be fair to each other any more than our predecessors were during the last 250 years, or even before that in the Colonial period.

 

[JEBofChristTheLord]

And what percentage of those Christians in the 1800's would run screaming back to state churches, regardless of denomination, if they caught a glimpse of the 21st century? Be honest.

Doesn't matter. What matters, is that which Christ the Lord has said.

 

[lifepsyop]

I'm not resistant to the idea of Christian Nationalism. Rather, I just don't see that it'd be a good thing by necessity, and I don't trust that Christians in the U.S. would be fair to each other any more than our predecessors were during the last 250 years, or even before that in the Colonial period.

yikes.. that's a pretty huge indictment on Christianity... that we don't have the potential to live peacefully with each other, and require pagan law to keep us from killing each other...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

yikes.. that's a pretty huge indictment on Christianity... that we don't have the potential to live peacefully with each other, and require pagan law to keep us from killing each other...

... it's an idictment on "Christianity?" Really? I don't think it qualifies as such. If anything, my indictment applies merely to the ability of a diverse body of U.S. Christians to actually know God's Will in any and all situations, even in dealing with each other. So, my "indictment," if there is one, isn't any different than the one Paul the Apostle applied to the Corinthian Christians.

 

[lifepsyop]

If anything, my indictment is merely of the ability of a diverse body of U.S. Christians to actually know God's Will in any and all situations,

"Christian Nationlism won't be 100% perfection therefore it's impractical."
Is this really your counter argument? Because nobody has ever come close to claiming that... that is an impossible goalpost.

Let's start with something simple... can Christians agree that mass distribution of p*rn*graphy is against God's Will?

In a Christian Nation, that would be recognized as evil and made illegal.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

"Christian Nationlism won't be 100% perfection therefore it's impractical."
Is this really your counter argument? Because nobody has ever come close to claiming that... that is an impossible goalpost.

Did I say that? I don't think I did. It's probably best not to create a strawman and then conflate your interpretation of what it is you think I said previously with what I'm intending to communicate.

There is a CLEAR and DISTINCT difference between citing imperfection in a political ideal and citing the fact that many U.S. citizens have a difficult time working together politically, even if and when they claim the same "faith."

As I've already said in other posts, I'm not against a certain, minimal form of Christian Nationalism among Christian Trinitarians who can find it in themselves to achieve authentic solidarity. So, my skepticism here isn't of the practicality of said Nationalism, but of its actual social psychology.

Let's start with something simple... can Christians agree that mass distribution of p*rn*graphy is against God's Will?

I would hope so. But such agreement doesn't imply nationalism. Rather, it's a moral agreement.

In a Christian Nation, that would be recognized as evil and made illegal.

Yes, I'm sure that in a fully Christian Nation, one that we've never had in the U.S., NROP would be seen as evil and made illegal, along with a host of other activities and applications.

However, in a nation that follows a non-Christian political pattern, why would we ever expect Christians to be able to gain power? That's the real question I have----especially as a Premillennialist. And as a Premillennialist, I don't think we can expect Christians to gain political power, no matter how much we vote for it, work for it, pray for it, or otherwise hope for it.

 

[High Fidelity]

Absolutely not, because there’s no knowing whose brand of Christianity we get.

 

[RDKirk]

I would include the US as one of the countries that perpetuates unjust violence at times. if we became an officially Christian nation and kept behaving in the same way on the world stage, we would essentially be placing a “Christ stamp of approval” on all of our actions that I believe would terribly misrepresent Christ. If we had a state church, i would want no part of it.

The US has been calling itself a "Christian nation" for a century and a half (and, yes, it was the Republican Party--a very different Republican Party--that began that). And, yes, the actions of the US government as a "Christian nation" is the major impediment to evangelism in this country.

Everyone in the US has already heard about "Christianity" as practiced in US history. Before we get to say anything about Jesus, we have to "explain away what the US government has done using Jesus' name.

That's always going to be the problem of earthly governments in this fallen world, and the Church can't fix it. That's why only the return of Jesus will fix that. Until then, we are operating as ambassadors of the Kingdom of Heaven to these earthly nations.