Syncretic merging of Christianity and "Sacred Democracy"

[lifepsyop]

Such a government appears to be in contradiction to Christ's own words, where He said "My kingdom is not of this world." The issue isn't that the state is a master in competition with Christ, it is a government appointed by God just as much as Domitian or Nero were. Where the serving of two masters comes in is committing oneself to the national interests of a state under nationalism since God has not set up a vassal kingdom in the New Covenant. There exists no Christian state, and such a thing would require God instituting it not it being thrust upon the land by human beings. So commiting oneself to the interests of a nation means excluding and going against other parts of the body of Christ.

The problem is that the early church didn't volunteer their families into the political-theological education of the Roman state. Government was something to be obeyed and to pay taxes, but you weren't supposed to surrender your hearts and minds over to them.

But Christians have been doing that with the modern liberal-democratic state for a long time. Christians celebrate the violent revolution of America's founding as a great ushering in of Liberty in the world. Christians volunteer their children over to the social-engineering of the secular state, for example, children learn that women have been 'liberated' through modern social reforms and that any suggestion that men should be the leaders in society is evil/authoritarian/fascist, etc. so Christians have accepted the moral framework of liberal democracy at the expense of a Christian framework.

You refuse to have a Christian state, but you also refuse to have a Christian community that is culturally set apart from the secular state.

The secular state is a "moralistic therapeutic state" and its managerial class informs and disciplines the Christian community on how to adjust and adapt their moral framework to that of the values of liberal democracy.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The problem is that the early church didn't volunteer their families into the political-theological education of the Roman state. Government was something to be obeyed and to pay taxes, but you weren't supposed to surrender your hearts and minds over to them.

But Christians have been doing that with the modern liberal-democratic state for a long time. Christians celebrate the violent revolution of America's founding as a great ushering in of Liberty in the world. Christians volunteer their children over to the social-engineering of the secular state, for example, children learn that women have been 'liberated' through modern social reforms and that any suggestion that men should be the leaders in society is evil/authoritarian/fascist, etc. so Christians have accepted the moral framework of liberal democracy at the expense of a Christian framework.

You refuse to have a Christian state, but you also refuse to have a Christian community that is culturally set apart from the secular state.

The secular state is a "moralistic therapeutic state" and its managerial class informs and disciplines the Christian community on how to adjust and adapt their moral framework to that of the values of liberal democracy.

Not all Christians in the U.S. celebrate the supposed moral 'value' of the American Revolutionary War ...

see the following: Noll, Mark A., Nathan O. Hatch, and George M. Marsden. The Search for Christian America. Crossway Books, 1983.​

You might want to edit your post to say that 'some Christians' value this bit of U.S. history in this way. Not all!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If a Christian government establishes itself as the Kingdom of Heaven then that would be a contradiction of Christ's injunction that his Kingdom is not of this world. If a Christian government establishes itself as Christian then it merely establishes itself as Christian and thus not a contradiction.

If you believe that the Kingdom is not of this world, do you believe any attempt of Christians to have political power is bad and should be avoided at all costs? That is, Christians should abstain from political power regardless of the consequences? Asides from this I don't understand how your advice could be followed.

... as Christians, I think we can avoid conflating political influence with political power ...

We can support the former of these without attempting to push for the complete gain of the latter. But the way you're making it sound, it's as if it's an Either/Or condition: Either we gain power, OR we are utterly subjugated and remain unheard and potentially oppressed.

I don't think these two conditions are the only possibilities on the political spectrum. We probably shouldn't talk as if they are.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

This is really touching on the problem I think... The church is pretending to be a totally non-active spectator to the atomization/secularization of society that has been steamrolling over that society for several generations.

But the church isn't really just spectating, because it has a general respect for modern political system of liberal democracy, and encourages its individual congregants to go out into the secular world and "vote their conscience", participating in democracy and influencing their community/state/nation but only as atomized secularized individuals... and then those atomized individuals are expected to recongregate into a Body of Christ on Sunday...

But the Body of Christ isn't allowed to go out and influence the nation as a collective Body of Christ... advocating for the public teaching of Jesus Christ in schools, for example... teaching about Jesus would transgress the sanctity of our great democracy... and Church leaders would be horrified to violate the sacred tenets of Democracy, and offend the great goddess Liberty that watches over us. I'm laying on the snark here, but it really feels this way.

And then Christians perform this great gaslighting routine of wondering why it's becoming so hard to reach people with the Gospel. We've created this atomized, nihilistic, pornographic society... which the church has helped facilitate through their contradictory rules of upholding sacred democracy while remaining non-participants in democracy as a unified church body. Something is terribly wrong with this picture.

And what do you think we should be doing about it all? Do we have to adopt your Eschatological assumptions in order to be 'good citizens'?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

... as Christians, I think we can avoid conflating political influence with political power ...

We can support the former of these without attempting to push for the complete gain of the latter. But the way you're making it sound, it's as if it's an Either/Or condition: Either we gain power, OR we are utterly subjugated and remain unheard and potentially oppressed.

I don't think these two conditions are the only possibilities on the political spectrum. We probably shouldn't talk as if they are.

To abstain completely from political power is to allow for the bolded to potentially happen. Because if you are not willing to take up power and use it in your own interests, there will be those who will take it up and they will be more likely to use it against you and your interests. In my mind political influence is an exercise of political power. Since you are seeking to have an effect involving the use of power that benefits you. Or else you wouldn't bother trying to gain influence.

What I primarily object to above all is that Christians cannot have political sovereignty. This is a total secular position and not one warranted by Christianity.

 

[Fervent]

in your own interests

This is, in part, the issue. Christianity, at its core, calls us to be selfless and to set aside our interests for the sake of each other. So there will always be a strange relationship between the Christian and power, because we are to use whatever power we find ourselves with to serve others. And it is meant to be personal action, not by coercing others to go along with the program. So it is very easy for a Christian to take a good intention and use an illicit means, such as government coercion, to accomplish it. The issue with Christian nationalism is not a desire for Christian sovereignty, but the implicit subjugation of dissenting Christians and non-Christians to a particular set of Christian ideals.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

This is, in part, the issue. Christianity, at its core, calls us to be selfless and to set aside our interests for the sake of each other. So there will always be a strange relationship between the Christian and power, because we are to use whatever power we find ourselves with to serve others. And it is meant to be personal action, not by coercing others to go along with the program. So it is very easy for a Christian to take a good intention and use an illicit means, such as government coercion, to accomplish it. The issue with Christian nationalism is not a desire for Christian sovereignty, but the implicit subjugation of dissenting Christians and non-Christians to a particular set of Christian ideals.

It is a desire for Christian sovereignty. That does not mean giving non-Christian positions an equal place, as if they were on par with Christianity. Government being coercive by nature this cannot be avoided and if you only allow non-Christians to have that coercive power then you will reap the results of a purely non-Christian polity.

My question to you, is if you are opposed to coercion, are you opposed to coercion broadly or only when Christians engage in it?

 

[Fervent]

It is a desire for Christian sovereignty. That does not mean giving non-Christian positions an equal place, as if they were on par with Christianity. Government being coercive by nature this cannot be avoided and if you only allow non-Christians to have that coercive power then you will reap the results of a purely non-Christian polity.

My question to you, is if you are opposed to coercion, are you opposed to coercion broadly or only when Christians engage in it?

Our modern theory of government is that it is only legitimate so long as it has the consent of the governed, which limits the extent to which the state can legitimately extend its coercive influence. As for whether being opposed to coercion broadly, or as a Christian distinctive I would say that sacrificing one's ability to get their own way is a Christian distinctive. Ultimately, coercion(if appropriate at all) belongs to God and God alone, and Chistians are encouraged to submit and trust God to establish their rights. After all here's Christ on a Christian government:

But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. 26 It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant,[c] 27 and whoever would be first among you must be your slave,[d] 28 even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Our modern theory of government is that it is only legitimate so long as it has the consent of the governed, which limits the extent to which the state can legitimately extend its coercive influence. As for whether being opposed to coercion broadly, or as a Christian distinctive I would say that sacrificing one's ability to get their own way is a Christian distinctive. Ultimately, coercion(if appropriate at all) belongs to God and God alone, and Chistians are encouraged to submit and trust God to establish their rights. After all here's Christ on a Christian government:

But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. 26 It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant,[c] 27 and whoever would be first among you must be your slave,[d] 28 even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

THis assumes liberal democratic theory of government is true, rather than an elite theory which I would tend to subscribe to. Who has more influence in the USA today? The voter or those who contribute to the campaigns of senators/Presidents? It's obviously the latter and in a broader sense we can also see the influence of non-governmental entertainment entities over the masses to move opinion along certain trajectory. Even when the masses vote in favour of something, it can be overturned with a court ruling, thus the idea that we are governed by entities which we give our consent to is purely fantasy. Plus there is also the idea that Christian Nationalists are dissatisfied with the current governmental order and clearly don't give their complete consent to that order. You would argue the state has the authority to compel and coerce them to accept it's authority right? On anyone right? But only a secular state has that authority?

 

[Fervent]

THis assumes liberal democratic theory of government is true, rather than an elite theory which I would tend to subscribe to. Who has more influence in the USA today? The voter or those who contribute to the campaigns of senators/Presidents? It's obviously the latter and in a broader sense we can also see the influence of non-governmental entertainment entities over the masses to move opinion along certain trajectory. Even when the masses vote in favour of something, it can be overturned with a court ruling, thus the idea that we are governed by entities which we give our consent to is purely fantasy. Plus there is also the idea that Christian Nationalists are dissatisfied with the current governmental order and clearly don't give their complete consent to that order. You would argue the state has the authority to compel and coerce them to accept it's authority right? On anyone right? But only a secular state has that authority?

The practical activities compared to the govenmental theory are certainly often two different things, but ostensible popular sovereignty is the rule of the day even if imperfectly. As to the right of the state to compel and coerce to accept its authority, I would say not quite. As I said before, Christians are not citizens of the US or citizens of the world we are citizens of Christ. But the state is an authority established by God, so where Christians stand on God's sovereignty they must be willing to accept the consequences imposed by the state. As the early Christians who resisted illicit government edicts were willing to either flee or submit to martyrdom rather than attempt to establish Christian dominion. Secular authority, even that which is nominally Christian, inevitably must violate Christian values to operate in its functions as a coercive state. Christ cannot be set against Christ, so we must wait for Christ to reveal His kingdom in full rather than foolhartedly seeking to establish it for Him. In His time, the kingdom's reign will be made fully manifest and not a moment sooner.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

The practical activities compared to the govenmental theory are certainly often two different things, but ostensible popular sovereignty is the rule of the day even if imperfectly. As to the right of the state to compel and coerce to accept its authority, I would say not quite. As I said before, Christians are not citizens of the US or citizens of the world we are citizens of Christ. But the state is an authority established by God, so where Christians stand on God's sovereignty they must be willing to accept the consequences imposed by the state. As the early Christians who resisted illicit government edicts were willing to either flee or submit to martyrdom rather than attempt to establish Christian dominion. Secular authority, even that which is nominally Christian, inevitably must violate Christian values to operate in its functions as a coercive state. Christ cannot be set against Christ, so we must wait for Christ to reveal His kingdom in full rather than foolhartedly seeking to establish it for Him. In His time, the kingdom's reign will be made fully manifest and not a moment sooner.

So you would prefer Christians suffer the potential fate of early Japanese Christians or maybe the coptics, rather than exercise any power? I want to be clear here about what you're advocating. It is total powerlessness before non-Christians?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

To abstain completely from political power is to allow for the bolded to potentially happen. Because if you are not willing to take up power and use it in your own interests, there will be those who will take it up and they will be more likely to use it against you and your interests. In my mind political influence is an exercise of political power. Since you are seeking to have an effect involving the use of power that benefits you. Or else you wouldn't bother trying to gain influence.

What I primarily object to above all is that Christians cannot have political sovereignty. This is a total secular position and not one warranted by Christianity.

I understand the sentiment, but the U.S. Republic has been set up in such a way as to eschew complete control by any one interested party, even though they may wield the majority of political leverage during any given decade. So, even if I wanted to assert myself very firmly in the political machine, I can't simply "gain power." It doesn't work like that here.

I suppose that under ideal circumstances Christians could have political sovereignty, but to say this isn't saying all that much where human political power is concern. And I have just three words that serve as a warning to those who think "Christians can do it best": European Religious Wars (17th century, specifically), which was an influence in the thinking of the Founders of the U.S.

I don't know much about politics in New Zealand, but the U.S. has it's 'own thing.'

 

[Fervent]

So you would prefer Christians suffer the potential fate of early Japanese Christians or maybe the coptics, rather than exercise any power? I want to be clear here about what you're advocating. It is total powerlessness before non-Christians?

I'm not opposed to Christians having political power within a state, I am opposed to establishing a Christian nation independently because any nation not established by Christ is not a Christian nation. If you can point me to the nation that Christ established, I will gladly become a member of it and swear allegience. Until then, I'll live my life in subjection to the authorities that be to the extent that they do not impede my exclusive worship of Christ.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I understand the sentiment, but the U.S. Republic has been set up in such a way as to eschew complete control by any one interested party, even though they may wield the majority of political leverage during any given decade. So, even if I wanted to assert myself very firmly in the political machine, I can't simply "gain power." It doesn't work like that here.

I suppose that under ideal circumstances Christians could have political sovereignty, but to say this isn't saying all that much where human political power is concern. And I have just three words that serve as a warning to those who think "Christians can do it best": European Religious Wars (17th century, specifically), which was an influence in the thinking of the Founders of the U.S.

I don't know much about politics in New Zealand, but the U.S. has it's 'own thing.'

The US Republic has been set up in such a way that the bureaucracy is basically in charge and the establishment wings of the Democrats and Republicans own the country and take it in the same direction. The idea that you are exceptional or or beyond these considerations is an American delusion and you would do well to read critiques of democratic liberalism. Maybe start with Hans Herman Hoppe, Democracy the God that failed.

As for the idea that avoiding Christian sovereignty prevents wars, the USA's record on warfare is not pacifistic. You have been engaged in various conflicts all over the world in the effort to advance Democracy and Americanize the world while maintaining hegemony. When the USA stops being a militaristic empire then maybe you can criticize the religious wars of Europe.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I'm not opposed to Christians having political power within a state, I am opposed to establishing a Christian nation independently because any nation not established by Christ is not a Christian nation. If you can point me to the nation that Christ established, I will gladly become a member of it and swear allegience. Until then, I'll live my life in subjection to the authorities that be to the extent that they do not impede my exclusive worship of Christ.

Just so we're clear. Non-Christians may hold power and Christians must submit to them as the legitimate God given rulers/authorities. Christians may not have power and Christians must reject any Christian ruler who claims to rule as a Christian because God would never approve of said Christian assuming political authority?

This is your standard, right?

 

[Fervent]

Just so we're clear. Non-Christians may hold power and Christians must submit to them as the legitimate God given rulers/authorities. Christians may not have power and Christians must reject any Christian ruler who claims to rule as a Christian because God would never approve of said Christian assuming political authority?

This is your standard, right?

You sure have a way of completely ignoring what has been said and build arguments of straw. If you truly think that's what I've said, I'd suggest you re-read the thread.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

You sure have a way of completely ignoring what has been said and build arguments of straw. If you truly think that's what I've said, I'd suggest you re-read the thread.

Is it not what you've said? You would reject any Christian polity because it was not established by Jesus directly. Okay, then virtually all Christian states in history were illegitimate. In a competition between any two competing authorities of Christian and non-Christian the non-Christian will always have more legitimacy in your view. Say between Constantine and Maxentius. Obviously the Pagan latter was more legitimate no? Julian the Apostate was more legitimate than Theodosius and etc.

Explain to me how I have misunderstood you. Explain to me how your view does not surrender all power to non-Christians since you think we are forbidden as Christians to rule as Christians in Christian interests.

 

[Fervent]

Is it not what you've said? You would reject any Christian polity because it was not established by Jesus directly. Okay, then virtually all Christian states in history were illegitimate. In a competition between any two competing authorities of Christian and non-Christian the non-Christian will always have more legitimacy in your view. Say between Constantine and Maxentius. Obviously the Pagan latter was more legitimate no? Julian the Apostate was more legitimate than Theodosius and etc.

Explain to me how I have misunderstood you. Explain to me how your view does not surrender all power to non-Christians since you think we are forbidden as Christians to rule as Christians in Christian interests.

The legitimacy(or illegitimacy) of a government is independent of its status as Christian or non-Christian. Constantine, while bringing many positive contributions to Christianity, may have legitimately been a Roman emperor, but his claims to establishing a Christian nation were illegitimate. Same with Justinian or any other emperor. God established them as secular powers, but they did not represent Christ's kingdom on Earth and neither would a "Christian nationalist" nation. The pope, also, is a legitimate worldly power in so far as his governance of Vatican city but his claim to be the vicar of Christ is illegitimate. Your insistence that it is either complete national sovereignty or else absolute helplessness is where you seem to be twisting what I am saying as there is no need for such a black and white view.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

The legitimacy(or illegitimacy) of a government is independent of its status as Christian or non-Christian. Constantine, while bringing many positive contributions to Christianity, may have legitimately been a Roman emperor, but his claims to establishing a Christian nation were illegitimate. Same with Justinian or any other emperor. God established them as secular powers, but they did not represent Christ's kingdom on Earth and neither would a "Christian nationalist" nation.

So Maxentius was more legitimate than Constantine in this view right? Mind you Constantine didn't make the Empire officially Christian, he only favoured Christianity (which I presume was wrong in your view).

The pope, also, is a legitimate worldly power in so far as his governance of Vatican city but his claim to be the vicar of Christ is illegitimate. Your insistence that it is either complete national sovereignty or else absolute helplessness is where you seem to be twisting what I am saying as there is no need for such a black and white view.

I never said it was choice between the two extremes. There are gradations between the two extremes, but your view wherein Christians cannot exercise power or sovereignty allows for complete subjugation. It tilts all power in one direction. Not only that, but it approves of all power being in the hands of non-Christians.

I'll bring up the example of the Japanese Christians again. It was better that they were all killed and forced into hiding than one of them be successful and have power or a Japanese Lord assume power for the benefit of Christians. Or what about the Copts? It was better that they were ruled by a Muslim rather than a Christian Prince who might act in their interests.

Power in the hands of Christians for Christian interests is totally illegitimate right? How do you avoid this conclusion since you don't allow for the legitimate existence of a Christianity polity? It's not my claim that the Kingdom of Heaven exists in a Christian polity, rather my only claim is that Christians can and should try to establish some sovereignty and control over themselves. To not do so, is foolish and can only result in what happened to the Japanese Christians or the Copts.

 

[Fervent]

So Maxentius was more legitimate than Constantine in this view right? Mind you Constantine didn't make the Empire officially Christian, he only favoured Christianity (which I presume was wrong in your view).

I make no comment on Roman politics, but Constantine went a bit further than simply favoring Christianity in attempting to install himself as the leader of the church.

I never said it was choice between the two extremes. There are degradations between but your view wherein Christians cannot exercise power or sovereignty allows for complete subjugation. I'll bring up the example of the Japanese Christians. It was better that they were all killed and forced into hiding than one of them be successful and have power or a Japanese Lord assume power for the benefit of Christians. Or what about the Copts? It was better that they were ruled by a Muslim rather than a Christian Prince who might act in their interests.

Power in the hands of Christians for Christian interests is totally illegitimate right? How do you avoid this conclusion since you don't allow for the legitimate existence of a Christianity polity?

God is at all time acting in our interests, why do we need to rely on the winds of politics? You seem to be conflating the exercise of power with the seizing of it, as I have no qualms with a Christian who finds themselves in a position of power exercising that power in a way they believe would benefit the kingdom nor have I made any claim that a Christian should abdicate power. But how do you propose the power of a nation be attained? How do you propose Christians attain and maintain coercive power over those who disagree with their ideals?