At Pentagon Christmas Service, Franklin Graham Praises ‘God of War’ “We know that God loves. But did you know that God also hates?"

essentialsaltes said:

While that is true, it is also true that our secular government forbids itself from acknowledging him as anything more significant to us than any other religious figure.

The blurring of both of these lines is a big part of what Christian Nationalism is about.

Click to expand...

Did he tweet on official government stationery? Or is X for official use now?

essentialsaltes said:

View attachment 374731

Secretary of War oversteps his office and the constitution. We The People do not have a Lord.

Click to expand...

You do now.

Now I'm confused. Government officials arent even allowed to say such a thing? Where is that found in tge Constitution?

rjs330 said:

Now I'm confused. Government officials arent even allowed to say such a thing? Where is that found in tge Constitution?

Click to expand...

I guess it depends on whether X is an official government entity

Servus said:

I'm not asking for your interpretation of it, I'm asking what is the what is the Christian nationalist understanding of Christ? Do you actually know?

Click to expand...

The point seems to be that Christian Nationalism doesn't really have much use for Christ. If one were to do a study involving asking those who self-identify with Christian Nationalism what they believe and think about Jesus, there would probably be a very diverse set of answers. Some might be theologically orthodox, others less so.

In my personal experience what I see and experience from the Christian Nationalist milieu is that Jesus just isn't really that important. Jesus functions primarily as a religious mascot rather than as Lord and Teacher. I don't think this is a novel feature of Christian Nationalism, this is--unfortunately--the result of turning Christianity into a civil religion in America. Christianity not as the religious body of teaching and practice that is based on Jesus Christ (Who He is, what He did, what He said) but is Christianity as civilization and cultural marker.

I've been coming up against that problem for the last twenty years. I was talking about this 20 years ago back when Beliefnet was around, and it's something I've been talking about here on Christian Forums for the last 15 years since I first joined. It shows up every time someone points God's commandments, especially Jesus' commandments, and perhaps even most especially in His Sermon on the Mount, and the general response is to not take it seriously. It happens every time when the point is made that Christ says that when He judges the nations He says to those on His right and on His left, "I was hungry" and "I was thirsty" but the response I get is, "That only applies to other Christians" or I'm told that we should prioritize certain groups of people. Why should I care about the stranger who is without food, I should instead only worry about if my kids are hungry.

It is in every attempt to remove Jesus as the ultimate authority of Christian life. To replace the Jesus we read about in Scripture with another Jesus. It's when someone like Mark Driscoll tried to say that Jesus was "A Dude" and that we can't have some wimpy sissy Jesus but some rugged manly man man Jesus. Rather than the Jesus of Mt. Calvary, the Jesus who weeps at the grave of His friend Lazarus, the Jesus who looks at the downtrodden and His heart breaks for them--He's replaced with a totally different fake Jesus. I'm told I can't believe in the Lamb because Jesus is "a lion now" or "will be a lion in the future"--but I don't know, my Bible says there is a Lamb slain from before the foundation of the world, that Lamb is seated at the right hand of God, worthy to open the scroll, and it is a Lamb who judges the world.

essentialsaltes said:

Federal officials remain free to celebrate and express their personal religious beliefs on their own time and on their personal platforms. What they may not do is use official government channels to proselytize.

These posts crossed a clear constitutional line by using the authority and platforms of the federal government to promote Christianity and specific Christian doctrine.

It shouldn't be confusing unless the blurring of the lines by the Christian Nationalists have confused you.

Click to expand...

So rhe Freedom Frim Religion crowd now dictates what officials can say? I don't think so. They can express whatever they wish to express. And you are free to not like it and express your feelings in rhe matter.

So yes, they may do that if they wish. They crossed no constitutional line.

RileyG said:

Correct, because Abraham was faithful to God and was even willing to sacrifice to his son Isaac, God blessed him and his seed for all time.

And yes, to modern, secular ears that sounds quite odd.

Click to expand...

It has always sounded odd to some. The couple of variations I posted were from ancient Jewish commentary.

ViaCrucis said:

It shows up every time someone points God's commandments, especially Jesus' commandments, and perhaps even most especially in His Sermon on the Mount, and the general response is to not take it seriously. It happens every time when the point is made that Christ says that when He judges the nations He says to those on His right and on His left, "I was hungry" and "I was thirsty" but the response I get is, "That only applies to other Christians" or I'm told that we should prioritize certain groups of people. Why should I care about the stranger who is without food, I should instead only worry about if my kids are hungry.

Click to expand...

If this is used as a national requirement then both are guilty of Christian Nationalism. Anyone that says we need to follow certain biblical commands, but ignore others as a nation is guilty of the same thing. The difference is those that proclaim we should follow the hungry and thirsty commands are using Christ as a motivation to establish Christian principles in governement. Christian nationalism at its best. They are no different than the crowd who says we should outlaw homosexuality.

We as believers should absolutely care about those who have no food and we should be giving of our own to help.with that. But to establish it as governmental policy based on Christian principles is a form of Christian Nationalism.

ViaCrucis said:

In my personal experience what I see and experience from the Christian Nationalist milieu is that Jesus just isn't really that important. Jesus functions primarily as a religious mascot rather than as Lord and Teacher. I don't think this is a novel feature of Christian Nationalism, this is--unfortunately--the result of turning Christianity into a civil religion in America. Christianity not as the religious body of teaching and practice that is based on Jesus Christ (Who He is, what He did, what He said) but is Christianity as civilization and cultural marker.

Click to expand...

You may be correct to a point. But I'm not sure that you are completely correct. I think there are thise that are using Christ as a mascot and are not really following him in their personal lives. But there are two sides to the same coin. There are those who on the left also use him as a mascot and are not following his teachings either. Many are atheists who like to trot out the Jesus mascot for their political opinions. There are are also ledt leaning Christians who are just as Christian Nationalists as any right leaning Christian is. Wanting to use their Christ as their version of how America should be. Saying we as a nation should be following the teachings of Christ they think we should follow as a matter of government policy. In their view our nation should be a Christian nation, but one that is of their view and the teaching they like.

Christ and his reaching was about far more than feeding the hungry or letting asylum seekers into the country. The first commandment is to love the Lord Your God with All Your Heart, Mind and Strength. Yet that is utterly rejected as a function of government to promote.

Christ's teachings? Nobody wants to follow Christ's teachings. Why do you think we strung him up? But that's OK, we've got Paul's teachings instead.

"Behave yourself, Billy, or the Christian Nationalists will get you".

BCP1928 said:

Christ's teachings? Nobody wants to follow Christ's teachings. Why do you think we strung him up? But that's OK, we've got Paul's teachings instead.

Click to expand...

Paul is almost as radical as Jesus. Paul's vision for the Church is that of a multi-cultural Christ-shaped community that lives by the principles of love and mercy.

I don't really understand Paul hate. I know that there are those who quote-mine and cherry-pick from the Pauline corpus for self-serving ends. But as someone who has spent a lot of time studying and reading Paul's letters for most of his life, what I see is a radical preacher of mercy, advocating for radical love even when it costs one everything. There's no better advocate for the Jesus-shaped life than St. Paul of Tarsus.