Shouldn't all Evangelicals want Christian Nationalism?

[2PhiloVoid]

There were no Christians after 300 AD? Do you believe the Armenians had no choice but to submit to genocide?

I don't have any issues with appealing to the earliest Christians as an example of how we ought to live, but so few Christians are actually prepared to live how they lived and do what they did. The early Christians were not compliant serfs, they did not submit their viewpoints about power to the dominant governing system as existed in Rome. Rome, to the earliest Christians was the enemy, one that should not be foolishly rebelled against (because that's suicide), but one that should be resisted as the community of the faithful grows. This doesn't mean that all situations and examples are like Rome and we saw what happened to Christians in certain contexts when they didn't have hard power. They were successfully repressed and became a minority or were destroyed utterly.

And this is where we differ in our respective outlooks, because...................in my interpretation of Christian Eschatology, it has always been Rome, or the political permutations and philosophical vestiges of Rome, that we as Christian always face and will continue to face until the Lord returns.

So, in an eschatological sense, I think it does mean that all political situations are akin to in which the Apostles and other 1st Century Christians, and derivatively the 2nd and 3rd century Christians, set the examples.

It's interesting to note the transition from Pagan Rome to Christian Rome. There was no theological movement which considered this Christian usurpation of power as illegitimate, rather it was simply assumed that this was natural and right. The early Christians recognized the dangers and that's why they actively introduced measures to keep a check on on themselves, such as monasteries and Saints were always acclaimed as the best among us. Yet they didn't insist that they had no right to rule, rather the opposite, that the Christian monarch had a duty to govern as a faithful servant.

This paragraph doesn't seem to be a historical reflection upon what transpired during the during 4th century at the leading of Constantine. You're just blabbing here and coasting on generalities that are so general and non-specific, you don't really relate any real, factual information other than to tell me what it is that you personal think about it.

If Christians then did become invested in their earthly communities and protecting them, it makes sense to me to not forbid Christians from rebellion on moral grounds, because I believe had some rebellions had been successful those communities of Christians would be stronger. Think the Coptics in Egypt, think the Greek revolts or the Serbian revolts or the Armenian revolts. Is the duty of Christians to simply submit to a regime? I'm not talking practically but from a moral perspective. Practically there is a good case to be made for simply submitting but we should never feel ourselves morally obliged to the support the established power simply because it is the established power. This is the attitude of slaves who don't believe they have any right to liberty or to rule themselves.

"I'm not talking practically but from a moral perspective." Yes, that much is very obvious from all that you've so far said.......................... and which moral perspective out of about a dozen are your artificially subscribing to here in order to make your point, Ignatius. From my vantage point, it seems like you're merely a Pragmatist who is disgruntled for whatever reasons about situations in Modern society, whether those situations are in Europe or the U.S., and making overtures toward Nietszchean predilections and outcomes.

How about this instead? Save yourself some time in arguing with me and just know that I know that we each respectively come at the issue of "the appropriate Christian political response" with our own sets of scholars and other political voices behind us. You have yours, and I have mine (and I can tell you right now that the likes of an Alexander Dugin, or Nietszche, or various moral Pragmatists, are definitely NOT influences in my political thinking, my ethical thinking, or my own view on Christian Theology).

Let's just agree to disagree to varying to degrees on politics because to begin to engage with me too deeply is to begin to engage the many scholars that inform my own position, many of whom I have not yet cited or listed.

 

[lifepsyop]

It's interesting to note the transition from Pagan Rome to Christian Rome. There was no theological movement which considered this Christian usurpation of power as illegitimate, rather it was simply assumed that this was natural and right.

That is a major point you make.

Today it's popular among modern Christians to paint a thousand years of Christendom (and one of the main reasons we even know about the Gospel) as a forbidden mode of government, yet the church fathers and early Christians who were much closer to Jesus' time did not see it that way at all.

Christians today would tell you it's more holy and righteous to live completely atomized, with your children exposed to a sea of degeneracy, rather than an attempt at reconstructing Christendom. Doesn't pass the smell test for me.

 

[lifepsyop]

That is, within the Christian family and the Body of Christ. The earthly nations are not "our" communities. We are aliens and sojourners in these nations...1 Peter tells us this explicitly.

Also, from what you say here, I assume you also believe Christians as aliens and sojourners must *never* voluntarily join the militaries of those nations.

Certainly a Christian should never kill another human in the name of pagan national security, right?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That is a major point you make.

Today it's popular among modern Christians to paint a thousand years of Christendom (and one of the main reasons we even know about the Gospel) as a forbidden mode of government, yet the church fathers and early Christians who were much closer to Jesus' time did not see it that way at all.

Christians today would tell you it's more holy and righteous to live completely atomized, with your children exposed to a sea of degeneracy, rather than an attempt at reconstructing Christendom. Doesn't pass the smell test for me.

I have only moderate questions about the way in which the Victory of Constantine may have been used by the Lord to change the political landscape of the former Roman Empire, so for me, my position isn't one that is dependent upon taking and EITHER/OR evaluation on the legitimacy or illegitimacy of Constantine's appropriations.

What I do highly question is the act of making the 3rd, 4th and 5th centuries as normative and prominent in Christian Theology and Ethics over and above what was established in the 1st Century by Jesus and His Apostles, especially where the consideration of modern politics is concerned.

 

[lifepsyop]

What I do highly question is the act of making the 3rd, 4th and 5th centuries as normative and prominent in Christian Theology and Ethics over and above what was established in the 1st Century by Jesus and His Apostles, especially where the consideration of modern politics is concerned.

I agree with you there, however, as has been discussed in this thread, there is little to no justification for forbidding a Christian government found in the words of Jesus or the writings of the apostles.

The phrase I keep hearing in response is "my kingdom not of the world", but Christian nationalism isn't even challenging Jesus' statement here at all, and are actually establishing a socio-political structure on the temporal earth as a WITNESS to and glorification of the true kingdom in heaven. If anything they would be following in the way more nearly.

As Ignatius of Kiwi has also pointed out several times... modern Christians on the one hand say that we are not supposed to invest ourselves in the power-politics of earthly kingdoms... and yet we DO use and participate in power by casting our votes in a liberal democracy. We have not given up earthly Power at all, only attempted to combine (and conceal?) our power usage in an atomized individualized liberal democracy.... so there is potentially some major hypocrisy there.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I agree with you there, however, as has been discussed in this thread, there is little to no justification for forbidding a Christian government found in the words of Jesus or the writings of the apostles.

The phrase I keep hearing in response is "my kingdom not of the world", but Christian nationalism isn't even challenging Jesus' statement here at all, and are actually establishing a socio-political structure on the temporal earth as a WITNESS to and glorification of the true kingdom in heaven. If anything they would be following in the way more nearly.

As Ignatius of Kiwi has also pointed out several times... modern Christians on the one hand say that we are not supposed to invest ourselves in the power-politics of earthly kingdoms... and yet we DO use and participate in power by casting our votes in a liberal democracy. We have not given up earthly Power at all, only attempted to combine (and conceal?) our power usage in an atomized individualized liberal democracy.... so there is potentially some major hypocrisy there.

Personally, I think the main problem here is that folks know too little about World History and Politics and----in the Post Holocaust conscious world in which we now live----and they don't know how to discern the difference between a kingdom arbitrated by Justinian from one usurped by a demagogue like Hitler or Lenin. And why is this? Because we have too many folks running around who claim the title of "Christian" but actually hold to political ideas about some amorphous thing called "Christian Nationalism," and they do it in a way that is not far removed from the political ideals (and added racism) of Nazis (or other extreme Socialists).

If we could educate people about comparative political ideals during nearly 2,000 previous years, then maybe a more minimal and just form of "Christian Nationalism" could be defined that we, as Christians, could all essentially support. As it stands, the thing that I see other Christians tout as "Christian Nationalism" doesn't sound like something I could trust, knowing the historical expressions of human nature as I do.

 

[MarkSB]

I agree. Mostly because you have not thought out the consequences. Being a political serf and Dhimmi have consequences. Not all of us want to be dominated.

Old post... but I don't think you're paying attention to what she's saying - because you just keep trying to set up a strawman.

The desire to not have a Christian-based government (if there were such a thing as a Christian-based government) is not the same thing as saying Christians should not participate at all in government.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Old post... but I don't think you're paying attention to what she's saying - because you just keep trying to set up a strawman.

The desire to not have a Christian-based government (if there were such a thing as a Christian-based government) is not the same thing as saying Christians should not participate at all in government.

If Christians cannot have a government of their own then we are committed to ideological systems which do not act in our best interests but in the interests of others. If political power can only be exercised legitimately through an explicitly non-Christian state according to what I have seen many here teach there is nothing false in what I have said. Ultimately in order to participate in the political process Christians must surrender their consciences to the dominant non-Christian system.

 

[o_mlly]

Isn't our very knowledge of the Gospel largely due to the fact that God used Christendom and Christian monarchies to spread it throughout the middle ages?

Perhaps. However, Christendom also had many unintended consequences.

(Apologies for the length of this post.)

The Council of Nicea (325) heralded the rise of Christendom, and the Council of Trent (1545-1563) hastened its decline.

Legally tolerated by Constantine’s Edict of Milan (313), Christianity quickly flourished in the following decades becoming the imperial religion in 381 under Emperor Theodosius. In just four centuries, Christianity had triumphed over its external enemies, and begun a new relationship with the world, a relationship, no longer apart from, but very much in the world.

Called under the auspices of Constantine, the Council of Nicea sought to address the problem of heresy. When church and state are one so heresy and treason become one, and, left unchecked, heresy threatens the commonwealth. Nicea, the first of several ecumenical councils, demonstrated the Church’s early ability to organize itself and coordinate its authority against its enemies.

By 451, the councils firmly established the institutional model of church by adapting the political model used by Rome. Ecumenical in their formation, but central in their governance, the early councils prototyped the preferred method, the conciliar method, for resolving attacks on the oneness of the Church. This new ecclesiology, projecting its authority, emphasized the institutional model of Church and mimicked the political structure of the time, centralized Roman governance.

Fast-forward a millenium to December 1549—four years into the eighteen-year long Council of Trent called by Pope Paul III. The conclave of cardinals vote to choose the successor of this Farnese pope, a man of the Renaissance who reportedly fathered four children and three grandchildren (already made cardinals between the ages of fourteen and sixteen). The Church in the world, unfortunately, failed to remain unadulterated by the world. The Church’s hierarchy, the episcopacy and papacy, had become outrageously worldly. Pettiness, smugness and sloppiness characterized the institutional Church’s millenium long entanglement in the world.

Like the councils before it, Trent’s work was dogmatic and disciplinary. Unlike the former councils, the object of Trent’s discipline was not the heretic—the Protestants had by now departed the Church, but the Church’s own hierarchy. And unlike Constantine’s unified Empire at the time of Nicea, the mid-sixteenth century is an era of emerging and often competing nation-states.

Whereas Constantine pressured the Church to harmonize the faith for political reasons, the Germanic princes determined that disharmony could further their political agendas. Perhaps misreading the signs of the times and in a defensive mode, the council declared that historic tradition, as well as the Bible was to be taken as the basis of Christian religion and that the interpretation of the Scriptures belonged exclusively to the Church.

The Protestant teachings about grace and justification by faith alone were condemned. The seven sacraments were pronounced indispensable. The miraculous and sacrificial character of the Lord’s Supper was reaffirmed. Belief in the invocation of saints, in the veneration of images and relics, in purgatory, and in indulgences were explicitly upheld, but precautions were taken to foreclose the pernicious practices that had been connected with these doctrines. The council clearly established the criteria for unity, but did so at the expense of catholicity.

Christendom, the church in the world, historically failed. Today, which of the 30,000 plus Christian churches will be The Christian Church that determines public policy?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Do you think the Armenians and the Greeks should have just surrendered and died to the Ottomans? Legitimate question. You don't believe in resisting power is legitimate, therefore how can we resist genocide when it is the will of the established power? This is the problem I have with your position that resistance is never an option. Sometimes it's the only option.

And this is where we differ in our respective outlooks, because...................in my interpretation of Christian Eschatology, it has always been Rome, or the political permutations and philosophical vestiges of Rome, that we as Christian always face and will continue to face until the Lord returns.

I mean yes, we'll always be dealing with the Roman legacy but we seldom reflect on how Christians actually shaped Rome and the modern world as a result for the better by said vestiges. Instead what seems to happen is that it is proclaimed that the faith became corrupted with Constantine and to me this has only made less and less sense over time.

So, in an eschatological sense, I think it does mean that all political situations are akin to in which the Apostles and other 1st Century Christians, and derivatively the 2nd and 3rd century Christians, set the examples.

I think you are privileging the early centuries of the Church as if all other situations reflect said time. They don't and an honest examination of history would demonstrate this. Islam could not be converted the way the Romans were and instead they were dominant over the Christians who they conquered and subjugated. To which I have seen others criticize said Christians as not truly faithful which I think is absurd given the context. The Romans were a unique circumstance and were to be addressed as such, same as Islam. In the case of Islam, only the sword could effectively counter them and we find no other means by which Islam was repelled.

This paragraph doesn't seem to be a historical reflection upon what transpired during the during 4th century at the leading of Constantine. You're just blabbing here and coasting on generalities that are so general and non-specific, you don't really relate any real, factual information other than to tell me what it is that you personal think about it.

Then explain to me how the transition from the 3rd and 4th centuries were a mistake and why there wasn't this modern revulsion in the minds of Christians at the time to working with power. Why did the Bishops go along with it? Bishops who decades before Constantine called the Council of Nicaea were persecuted for the faith? This position you have of Christian politically powerlessness, is a modern innovation and the result of modern liberal thinking which seeks to exclude religion from power.

"I'm not talking practically but from a moral perspective." Yes, that much is very obvious from all that you've so far said.......................... and which moral perspective out of about a dozen are your artificially subscribing to here in order to make your point, Ignatius. From my vantage point, it seems like you're merely a Pragmatist who is disgruntled for whatever reasons about situations in Modern society, whether those situations are in Europe or the U.S., and making overtures toward Nietszchean predilections and outcomes.

Pragmatism being bad because? Should we continue to go the current route and die off? Or should we actually live like the first Christians did consider modern society the enemy like they considered modern society the enemy? That involves real practical measures which I don't think someone like yourself would approve of. It means limiting who you are friends with, who you marry, who you do business with and not submitting to the state when it demands something that contradicts your faith. I think this is an impossible ask for most Christians these days.

How about this instead? Save yourself some time in arguing with me and just know that I know that we each respectively come at the issue of "the appropriate Christian political response" with our own sets of scholars and other political voices behind us. You have yours, and I have mine (and I can tell you right now that the likes of an Alexander Dugin, or Nietszche, or various moral Pragmatists, are definitely NOT influences in my political thinking, my ethical thinking, or my own view on Christian Theology).

Never really read Dugin or Nietzche. Maybe I should though, there's always more to learn about. I have read De Maistre, who offers an alternative political theology than what we are typically used to, among other non-Christian authors like Hopppe or Schmitt who have influenced me more. As Christians are not only committed to the standard liberal political philosophers of the 19th and 20th century. Should we not be open to explore other ideas?

Let's just agree to disagree to varying to degrees on politics because to begin to engage with me too deeply is to begin to engage the many scholars that inform my own position, many of whom I have not yet cited or listed.

I don't think anyone here needs to cite a scholar just to prove a position. We can either have an exchange of ideas or we can't. I'm open to it, You're not, out of some idea that I have betrayed Christian orthodoxy when my conclusions are only a result of what I understand from history and reflection. Believe it or not, at one time I was like many here who abhorred the idea of Christianity in direct power. I don't have said views anymore.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Do you think the Armenians and the Greeks should have just surrendered and died to the Ottomans? Legitimate question. You don't believe in resisting power is legitimate, therefore how can we resist genocide when it is the will of the established power? This is the problem I have with your position that resistance is never an option. Sometimes it's the only option.

I mean yes, we'll always be dealing with the Roman legacy but we seldom reflect on how Christians actually shaped Rome and the modern world as a result for the better by said vestiges. Instead what seems to happen is that it is proclaimed that the faith became corrupted with Constantine and to me this has only made less and less sense over time.

I think you are privileging the early centuries of the Church as if all other situations reflect said time. They don't and an honest examination of history would demonstrate this. Islam could not be converted the way the Romans were and instead they were dominant over the Christians who they conquered and subjugated. To which I have seen others criticize said Christians as not truly faithful which I think is absurd given the context. The Romans were a unique circumstance and were to be addressed as such, same as Islam. In the case of Islam, only the sword could effectively counter them and we find no other means by which Islam was repelled.

Then explain to me how the transition from the 3rd and 4th centuries were a mistake and why there wasn't this modern revulsion in the minds of Christians at the time to working with power. Why did the Bishops go along with it? Bishops who decades before Constantine called the Council of Nicaea were persecuted for the faith? This position you have of Christian politically powerlessness, is a modern innovation and the result of modern liberal thinking which seeks to exclude religion from power.

Pragmatism being bad because? Should we continue to go the current route and die off? Or should we actually live like the first Christians did consider modern society the enemy like they considered modern society the enemy? That involves real practical measures which I don't think someone like yourself would approve of. It means limiting who you are friends with, who you marry, who you do business with and not submitting to the state when it demands something that contradicts your faith. I think this is an impossible ask for most Christians these days.

Never really read Dugin or Nietzche. Maybe I should though, there's always more to learn about. I have read De Maistre, who offers an alternative political theology than what we are typically used to, among other non-Christian authors like Hopppe or Schmitt who have influenced me more. As Christians are not only committed to the standard liberal political philosophers of the 19th and 20th century. Should we not be open to explore other ideas?

I don't think anyone here needs to cite a scholar just to prove a position. We can either have an exchange of ideas or we can't. I'm open to it, You're not, out of some idea that I have betrayed Christian orthodoxy when my conclusions are only a result of what I understand from history and reflection. Believe it or not, at one time I was like many here who abhorred the idea of Christianity in direct power. I don't have said views anymore.

You really need to stop straw-manning everything I say or have said. I never said that resistance-----in whichever multiple ways it might be defined and/or expressed------is never an option.

But here you are, not liking my more qualified position against your ALL/NOTHING, EITHER/OR thinking on politics.

All that I have actually said so far is that revolution, coups and/or sedition are not options for Christians. Moreover, the ONLY context which I have so far addressed is in regard to Christians dealing with the culture in which they live. I've said little to nothing about dealing internationally with invaders from outside of one's own nation, kingdom or private domain.

As far as buttressing one's own viewpoint go, I very much DO insist that people who want to establish a point bring in backing and supporting material from scholars of their choice--------------or I'll merely consider their opinions as just so much flatulence to fan away. I don't come onto public forums to either hear myself talk or to hear other people merely offer their own opinion, especially uneducated opinion.

Anyway, as it is now on this thread, we're just going in circles from whatever else we've already ever said to each other of the past two years. I don't like going circles. So, I'm done.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Christendom, the church in the world, historically failed. Today, which of the 30,000 plus Christian churches will be The Christian Church that determines public policy?

Let's assume this to be true. Does said failure mean a world where Christianity did not dominate would have been more worth it? A world where Christians are a minority, have no influence or power and are subject to the whims of those who rule them?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

All that I have actually said so far is that revolution, coups and/or sedition are not options for Christians. Moreover, the ONLY context which I have so far addressed is in regard to Christians dealing with the culture in which they live. I've said little to nothing about dealing internationally with invaders from outside of one's own nation, kingdom or private domain.

Then deal with the consequences of your position. Was Armenian resistance to the Turkish Genocide of them impermissible?

 

[o_mlly]

Let's assume this to be true. Does said failure mean a world where Christianity did not dominate would have been more worth it? A world where Christians are a minority, have no influence or power and are subject to the whims of those who rule them?

In our representative democracy, every 2 years we have the opportunity to change those who rule us. Perhaps that is enough.

While I cannot comment on what might have been historically or will be in the future, I do believe the founders having experienced the European wars of religion, having read the despicable events of some Crusades, wisely chose to separate the church from the state as the state always has a monopoly on the use of power.

Islamists, I think, recognize these facts and target their immigration into our country in such a way to achieve political power. First, at the local level, then the state level, and further to the national level. I would not like to live under Sharia Law. If we attempt another Christendom then we may find ourselves in time to be another Islamist state.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

In our representative democracy, every 2 years we have the opportunity to change those who rule us. Perhaps that is enough.

While I cannot comment on what might have been historically or will be in the future, I do believe the founders having experienced the European wars of religion, having read the despicable events of some Crusades, wisely chose to separate the church from the state as the state always has a monopoly on the use of power.

Islamists, I think, recognize these facts and target their immigration into our country in such a way to achieve political power. First, at the local level, then the state level, and further to the national level. I would not like to live under Sharia Law. If we attempt another Christendom then we may find ourselves in time to be another Islamist state.

So your opinion is that religion causes wars that separating religion utterly from power was intended to prevent war? You are also of the opinion that if we tolerate a Christian law imposed on society we must tolerate Islamic law imposed on society?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Then deal with the consequences of your position. Was Armenian resistance to the Turkish Genocide of them impermissible?

There are no consequences from your WW I example to my position about what is taking place within U.S. political ideology between Americans today.

If you haven't figured it out yet, I have ONLY been addressing what I see is the Christian moral norm as it applies to what is going on today with IN-HOUSE politics between Americans and where some Christian Americans involve the concept of "Christian Nationalism."

My concern here has not yet been applied to whatever else is happening in the world, or has happened. Furthermore, I'm taken aback by people of any sort, even by Christians hailing from whatever supposed ancient heritage, who put post 1st century politics and polity BEFORE what we find in the New Testament writings.

I'm not Orthodox. I'm not Catholic. I don't even consider myself a Protestant. I am an Existentialist seeking the historical conceptual foundation of Christianity as it comes from Christ and His Apostles, taking into Critical Evaluation all commentary from Christians who have come after Jesus and His Apostles and 1st Century Disciples.

So again, you seem to be failing to realize where the contextual locus and focus of my evaluations on "resistance" are located. You only seem to be thinking in terms of Europe, and at the moment, I'm ONLY thinking in terms of how to deal politically with my fellow Americans.

I think part of the problem here is that somewhere in the mix, you and I also have as yet unspoken differences in our respective theologies that haven't been accounted for and thereby affect the ontology and epistemology of our positions.

 

[o_mlly]

So your opinion is that religion causes wars that separating religion utterly from power was intended to prevent war?

Intended to prevent religious wars. Why else would the founders agree to the First Amendment?

You are also of the opinion that if we tolerate a Christian law imposed on society we must tolerate Islamic law imposed on society?

No. We may have to tolerate a religion different to ours imposing their laws on us. That's the nature of a representative democracy.

Recent SOTUS decisions have moved power from the federal government back to the states. What happens to Christians living in an atheist or Islamist state? Some Christian faiths permit abortion, same-sex marriages and mutilating surgeries. Would they shop for a state that presently supports their particular faith principles knowing that the state they choose could change its religious preferences at each election cycle? I think the practicality of resurrecting Christendom has real dangers as we are no longer one but many.

A Christendom-like society does not eliminate concupiscence.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

There are no consequences from your WW I example to my position about what is taking place within U.S. political ideology between Americans today.

Is the USA more special than any other nation? I am merely taking issue with your position that rebellion or sedition is not warranted. You did not say that it was only within the context of the USA. Yet even in the context of the USA, there might be a point in time where conditions for Christians become intolerable and secession becomes more and more attractive. I see no reason why the unity of the USA is to be maintained above the interests of Christians. Bottomline is, there are justifiable reasons to rebel and you cannot deny this.

If you haven't figured it out yet, I have ONLY been addressing what I see is the Christian moral norm as it applies to what is going on today with IN-HOUSE politics between Americans and where some Christian Americans involve the concept of "Christian Nationalism."

Of which you have not demonstrated how Christian Nationalism violates any Christian norms. Perhaps Christian Nationalism violates the secularist view of America but I see no reason why an American Christian can't be a Christian Nationalist and advocate within the USA as such. Do you believe Christians are to submit to the USA first and then their religious interests second?

My concern here has not yet been applied to whatever else is happening in the world, or has happened. Furthermore, I'm taken aback by people of any sort, even by Christians hailing from whatever supposed ancient heritage, who put post 1st century politics and polity BEFORE what we find in the New Testament writings.

Nothing of what I've said has contradicted what is written in the New Testament. Where in the New Testament are we told to submit to America in whatever it does?

I'm not Orthodox. I'm not Catholic. I don't even consider myself a Protestant. I am an Existentialist seeking the historical conceptual foundation of Christianity as it comes from Christ and His Apostles, taking into Critical Evaluation all commentary from Christians who have come after Jesus and His Apostles and 1st Century Disciples.

Then you aren't anything if you don't belong to any Christian community. If you are a lone individual Christian, the first of your kind and there was no one whom you received the faith from, then you are atomized individual separated from the communion of Christians who lived before you.

So again, you seem to be failing to realize where the contextual locus and focus of my evaluations on "resistance" are located. You only thinking in terms of Europe, and at the moment, I'm ONLY thinking in terms of how to deal politically with my fellow Americans.

I am thinking in Universal terms about what Christians should do. America is not an exceptional nation and we can treat it as the early Christians treated Rome. This to me, makes the most sense especially with how horrendous the American Empire is becoming.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Intended to prevent religious wars. Why else would the founders agree to the First Amendment?

Alright, prevent religious wars but not prevent secular wars? Are secular wars inherently better? That is, do you prefer WW1 and WW2 and the American crusades for Democracy over the 30 years war and actual Catholic Crusades? Why should I privledge secular warfare and it's legitimacy over religious warfare?

No. We may have to tolerate a religion different to ours imposing their laws on us. That's the nature of a representative democracy.

Why should a Christian community tolerate it's own values being supplanted with another's? That doesn't make sense.

Recent SOTUS decisions have moved power from the federal government back to the states. What happens to Christians living in an atheist or Islamist state? Some Christian faiths permit abortion, same-sex marriages and mutilating surgeries.

Are those Christian faiths? Those seem entirely apostate to me. Are you of the opinion that it is a legitimate position for Christians to believe those things?

Would they shop for a state that presently supports their particular faith principles knowing that the state they choose could change its religious preferences at each election cycle? I think the practicality of resurrecting Christendom has real dangers as we are no longer one but many.

Dangers such as what? What does Christianity threaten that you would defend?

A Christendom-like society does not eliminate concupiscence.

Does a non-Christian society eliminate concupiscence? Has the west become better or worse in your estimation as we have become less Christian?

 

[MarkSB]

If Christians cannot have a government of their own then we are committed to ideological systems which do not act in our best interests but in the interests of others.

Not true. The entire point of a democratic government for "We the people" is to protect everyone's rights and interests. The thing is, you're never going to get everyone to agree what the best way is to do that, so you come together and do it as best you can - with everyone having representation in the best way possible.

Will that model be perfect? Most certainly not - but I would argue that its a better approach to governing than having separate religious sects / philosophical groups battling for power in a "my way or the highway" approach. That sounds more like a middle-eastern or communist country than western democracy. Moreover - does that striving and desire for absolute power line up with the loving and respectful attitude toward one's neighbor which is clearly communicated in the Bible, and which was modeled by Christ? I think not.

Your statement that a government which looks out for everyone's best interests is impossible is easily proven wrong by numerous countries who have managed to do that. Again - none of them have been perfect, and there are certainly groups of people who have suffered more than others in the process - but that doesn't mean we throw in the towel and opt for a theocratic takeover instead. (Which, as I've stated already, would most likely be something of man and not of God.)