Shouldn't all Evangelicals want Christian Nationalism?

[RDKirk]

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

Do you think Paul had no influence? Paul's influence was over those the Lord was calling to His Kingdom, not to an earthly kingdom.

How many times does scripture have to tell you to be subject to human authority? Apparently, three times--by Jesus, by Paul, and by Peter--isn't enough. Some people cannot follow written instructions. Some people will not read the manual.

Citizen of Heaven, currently deployed to the US -- 1 Peter 1:1

No one serving as a soldier gets entangled in civilian affairs, but rather works to please his commanding officer. -- 2 Timothy 2:4

Obedience to Command -- John 14:15
Mission Focus -- Philippians 3:14; Hebrews 12:1
Service Before Self -- Philippians 2:3
Esprit de Corps -- Romans 12:5

 

[lismore]

We shouldn't play games that just because technically the COE is the established Church and the Monarchy is present in the UK that it makes the UK a Christian Nationalist country. It doesn't.

Finally! That's the point I've been making to you for about ten days now. You can't get a Christian country. Whatever version of 'Christian Nationalism' you get in reality won't be the illusion you have in your mind. It will be an established liberal church and a head of state woolly on basic Christian doctrine but paying lip service to Christianity. It's more than the monarchy- we've had a stream of Prime Ministers pretending to be Christians and talking about a Christian Nation, while passing the most anti-Christian laws imaginable. Or a dictator like Putin criminally supported by the ROC.

Jesus said his Kingdom was not of this world for a reason.

The grass is always greener on the other side, I recognize your zeal, but what you have in your mind's eye you won't get in reality. You'll get disappointment on your current path.

God Bless You

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Finally! That's the point I've been making to you for about ten days now. You can't get a Christian country. Whatever version of 'Christian Nationalism' you get in reality won't be the illusion you have in your mind. It will be an established liberal church and a head of state woolly on basic Christian doctrine but paying lip service to Christianity. It's more than the monarchy- we've had a stream of Prime Ministers pretending to be Christians and talking about a Christian Nation, while passing the most anti-Christian laws imaginable.

Except this is not true. Britain at one time was a legitimately Christian country. That is no longer the case, since it became more secular and less Christian. Especially after WW2.

Jesus said his Kingdom was not of this world for a reason.

No one is trying to argue that in establishing a Christian polity we are establishing the Kingdom of Heaven.

The grass is always greener on the other side, I recognize your zeal, but what you have in your mind's eye you won't get in reality. You'll get disappointment on your current path.

I am already very disappointed. Especially by fellow Christians who prefer to be dhimmis.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Do you think Paul had no influence? Paul's influence was over those the Lord was calling to His Kingdom, not to an earthly kingdom.

How many times does scripture have to tell you to be subject to human authority? Apparently, three times--by Jesus, by Paul, and by Peter--isn't enough. Some people cannot follow written instructions. Some people will not read the manual.

Citizen of Heaven, currently deployed to the US -- 1 Peter 1:1

No one serving as a soldier gets entangled in civilian affairs, but rather works to please his commanding officer. -- 2 Timothy 2:4

Obedience to Command -- John 14:15
Mission Focus -- Philippians 3:14; Hebrews 12:1
Service Before Self -- Philippians 2:3
Esprit de Corps -- Romans 12:5

Paul did have influence because he wasn't constrained by modern Christian thinking which suggests Christians can't be involved in politics or power. He was willing to challenge established power, unlike most modern Christians who readily submit to it.

 

[okay]

... 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.

Yes, we can just look at our history to see how poorly things can play out. I live in Massachusetts, which was once ruled by puritans. Quakers were banned because their beliefs were considered blasphemous; the punishment for returning to Massachusetts was having an ear cut off for a first-time offender, and a hole bored through your tongue with a hot iron for a third-time offense. They also outlawed the celebration of Christmas; such a celebration cannot be found in scripture.

 

[lismore]

Except this is not true. Britain at one time was a legitimately Christian country.

Hello! How would you know? Do you live in the UK? Did your parents and grandparents live in the UK? Many older members of my family came to faith in Jesus in the 1980s, their experiences of being in state church in the 1920 and 30s repelled them from the gospel for fifty years.

What in your mind makes a 'legitimate Christian country'?

That is no longer the case, since it became more secular and less Christian. Especially after WW2.

My grandparents lived in this country before WWII. If you think it was a Christian Nation at that time then you really need to look at the period in more depth.

No one is trying to argue that in establishing a Christian polity we are establishing the Kingdom of Heaven.

What are you seeking to establish then? Please spell it out exactly. So far you have thrown strawmen and assertions, without much detail of your own views. What will your 'Christian polity' look like? Exactly. How will it function? Which country in the world today is the ideal that you're looking to?

It isn't the UK and it possibly isn't Russia, though you would rather live in Russia than your own country. All the best with your emigration plans, you'll pass a large queue of people trying to get out.

I am already very disappointed. Especially by fellow Christians who prefer to be dhimmis.

That's what is known as a false dichotomy. If someone doesn't want Anglicanism or some other denomination as an established and nominal church then they must be pro-Islam. God Bless You

 

[okay]

modern Christian thinking which suggests Christians can't be involved in politics or power

I doubt that is a common view. During my decades in church I cannot recall hearing people say that Christians should not be involved in politics. Maybe I just attended the wrong Presbyterian/Bible/Methodist/nondenom/Episcopal churches to see this thinking?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Hello! How would you know? Do you live in the UK? Did your parents and grandparents live in the UK? Many older members of my family came to faith in Jesus in the 1980s, their experiences of being in state church in the 1920 and 30s repelled them from the gospel for fifty years.

What in your mind makes a 'legitimate Christian country'?

Oh I guess history doesn't exist and we cannot read about how Christianity influenced English society. I guess England was never Christian. What was it in your opinion? Islamic or something?

My grandparents lived in this country before WWII. If you think it was a Christian Nation at that time then you really need to look at the period in more depth.

I said it has become less Christian especially since ww2. Not that it was a Christian country back then. Yet it was more Christian then than it is today.

What are you seeking to establish then? Please spell it out exactly. So far you have thrown strawmen and assertions, without much detail of your own views. What will your 'Christian polity' look like? Exactly. How will it function? Which country in the world today is the ideal that you're looking to?

It would simply be Christians having political control over themselves. You might not like that idea but that's all I'm suggesting. If you prefer modernity, explain to me why it is preferable.

It isn't the UK and it possibly isn't Russia, though you would rather live in Russia than your own country. All the best with your emigration plans, you'll pass a large queue of people trying to get out.

id rather live where my family is. I am not committed ideologically to Russia, even if i sympathize with it.

That's what is known as a false dichotomy. If someone doesn't want Anglicanism or some other denomination as an established and nominal church then they must be pro-Islam. God Bless You

Don't you prefer non Christians in power? Surely you wouldn't want Christians having political power unless they operate as secularists.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I doubt that is a common view. During my decades in church I cannot recall hearing people say that Christians should not be involved in politics. Maybe I just attended the wrong Presbyterian/Bible/Methodist/nondenom/Episcopal churches to see this thinking?

Then why are so many hesitant to a genuine Christian participation in power as Christians. You yourself seemed to be against Christians using violence but then you turned around when this would lead to non Christians having the monopoly of violence. Which is it?

 

[okay]

Then why are so many hesitant to a genuine Christian participation in power as Christians. You yourself seemed to be against Christians using violence but then you turned around when this would lead to non Christians having the monopoly of violence. Which is it?

I am all for a Christian being the president of the US. Surely that constitutes involvement in politics , and I would say participation in power. I am for that president using their faith to inform their decisions.

I never wrote that I was against violence without exception.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I am all for a Christian being the president of the US. Surely that constitutes involvement in politics , and I would say participation in power. I am for that president using their faith to inform their decisions.

So what then is your principle objection to Christian Nationalism?

I never wrote that I was against violence without exception.

You wrote you were against Christians using violence. Which implies you are against Christians having political authority because political authority ultimately has to rely on the use of violence or hard power to secure itself.

 

[lismore]

Oh I guess history doesn't exist and we cannot read about how Christianity influenced English society. I guess England was never Christian. What was it in your opinion? Islamic or something?

I have answered this already several times.

Jesus talked of a small gate and a narrow path to life and only a few would find it (Matthew 7:13-14). Therefore the idea of an entire 'Christian Nation' is a nonsense, according to the Lord Jesus. How can England be entirely Christian when the Lord Jesus clearly said Christians would be a minority?

Undoubtedly Christianity had a huge effect on England, from the Born again Christian Anthony Ashleigh (Lord Shaftesbury) who campaigned for child factory workers to have some basic rights (and was vetoed several times by the Bishops in the House of Lords) to William Wilberforce's battle to have slavery banned. As I said several times I believe that Christians should be salt and light in the political sphere.

There was a time when lip service to the established churches Anglicanism or Presbyterianism was required in this country and a point in 1851 where church attendance reached half of the population. For those not on the small and narrow way it was that, lip service, as History clearly shows a grim time to be alive.

I said it has become less Christian especially since ww2. Not that it was a Christian country back then. Yet it was more Christian then than it is today.

More or less Christian is different from it being a Christian Nation in it's entirety. IMHO Evangelism is good, 'Christian Nationalism' is not.

It would simply be Christians having political control over themselves.

So what exactly would that look like in practice? Firstly, how would you test who was a 'Christian' and who wasn't? How would you winkle out wolves in sheep's clothing? Then how would your political process run?

You might not like that idea but that's all I'm suggesting. If you prefer modernity, explain to me why it is preferable.

I have already told you what I prefer. Maranatha.

I'm not sure 'Christians having political control over themselves' and 'Christian Nationalism' are synonyms. 'Christian Nationalism' looks more like a goat fest. As soon as ambitious people see Christianity as a path to wordly power you'll get ambitious pretend Christians choking the pathways to Christian leadership. Is it some form of devolution you're suggesting?

Don't you prefer non Christians in power?

I would prefer the Lord Jesus Christ in power, as he soon will be. I have answered that again and again. The Great Commission is preach the gospel until he comes. Take over political institutions not so good.

Surely you wouldn't want Christians having political power unless they operate as secularists.

That's the thing, they would have to operate as secularists under 'Christian Nationalism', because that's a goat system masquerading as Christianity. I would like to see Christians being salt and light in the political sphere, being answerable only to the Lord, not fettered by towing the party line to some concocted state religion.

God Bless

 

[lifepsyop]

I doubt that is a common view. During my decades in church I cannot recall hearing people say that Christians should not be involved in politics. Maybe I just attended the wrong Presbyterian/Bible/Methodist/nondenom/Episcopal churches to see this thinking?

The common expectation is that Christians only participate in politics as atomized individuals "voting their conscience"...

When was the last church you attended where the pastor was organizing a Christian voting bloc from the pulpit? That would be a genuine attempt at using political power. Churches aren't allowed or encouraged to behave that way though, generally speaking. They are expected to come together as the body of Christ on Sunday and then disintegrate back into the secular realm of atomized individuals.

 

[okay]

So what then is your principle objection to Christian Nationalism?

Christian nationalism is all about grasping power for myself and ‘the right kind’ of Christians who agree with me so we get what we want. And then of course claiming it is really for Christ because on the surface things may appear to be more ‘christian’ in a few ways - although that is only because people fear being punished by the empire in the name of Jesus. Before we know it, Jesus will become the face of every government scandal, abuse by law enforcement, war crime, bungled disaster response and wrongheaded policy. Imagine how evangelism goes in this nation.

The Jesus I attempt to follow rejected that grasping for power.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So what then is your principle objection to Christian Nationalism?

You wrote you were against Christians using violence. Which implies you are against Christians having political authority because political authority ultimately has to rely on the use of violence or hard power to secure itself.

.... can you stop with the equivocations on violence. There's a qualifiable difference between violence that comes out of personal, individualistic vengeance and the violence that, with the aim of applied wisdom and justice, is used by a legitimate government.

These aren't the same and, I'm sure we all already know, the New Testament writings don't leave room for personal vengeance that is used in the name of politics.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Christian nationalism is all about grasping power for myself and ‘the right kind’ of Christians who agree with me so we get what we want. And then of course claiming it is really for Christ because on the surface things may appear to be more ‘christian’ in a few ways - although that is only because people fear being punished by the empire in the name of Jesus. Before we know it, Jesus will become the face of every government scandal, abuse by law enforcement, war crime, bungled disaster response and wrongheaded policy. Imagine how evangelism goes in this nation.

The Jesus I attempt to follow rejected that grasping for power.

So in otherwords the only non Christians who desire power should be allowed to grasp it? How then do Christians participate in politics if they aren't allowed to desire it? Especially since it is only those who desire power who tend to achieve power in democratic systems.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

.... can you stop with the equivocations on violence. There's a qualifiable difference between violence that comes out of personal, individualistic vengeance and the violence that, with the aim of applied wisdom and justice, is used by a legitimate government.

These aren't the same and, I'm sure we all already know, the New Testament writings don't leave room for personal vengeance that is used in the name of politics.

It's no equivocation. A Christian government would use violence in order to dispense justice. If this is not allowed then Christians cannot participate in power.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It's no equivocation. A Christian government would use violence in order to dispense justice. If this is not allowed then Christians cannot participate in power.

Did you not read what I just wrote above? It's almost like you're purposely skirting what I'm saying fairly clearly in order not to have to contend with the insinuations.

Just as there is a difference between killing and murder, there is a difference between legitimate law enforcement and personal vendettas. Or do you not see the difference?

 

[okay]

When was the last church you attended where the pastor was organizing a Christian voting bloc from the pulpit?

Never. I would want no part of such a church.

Here is a related anecdote. A number of years ago I got a new officemate. He knew I was a Christian very quickly, but it was many more months (perhaps more than a year) before he found out that I lean to the left politically. He seemed to be surprised. His response was to say, 'I thought I would need to become a Republican in order to consider Christianity.' Why did he think this? Because the loudest Christian voices in our country are attached to the Republican party.

Politics are already a barrier for some folks coming to know Christ. Do we really want to exacerbate that?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Did you not read what I just wrote above? It's almost like you're purposely skirting what I'm saying fairly clearly in order not to have to contend with the insinuations.

Just as there is a difference between killing and murder, there is a difference between legitimate law enforcement and personal vendettas. Or do you not see the difference?

Yes. Yet I never mentioned personal vendetta. Only that any Christian government would have to use violence and that this is perfectly normal. Do you understand?