There is noise in the public arena either praising or, much, much more often, crucifying the concept of "Christian nationalism." Christian nationalism is the belief that one's nation should pass laws that reflect Christian values. Christian nationlism in America is the pursuit of keeping America a "Christian nation." Of course, the loudest part of the nation is violently opposed to God in the public square and just won't have it. They deem it radical, dangerous, and worse.
I'm not writing here about Christian nationalism -- for or against. What I'm looking at is the underlying problem. Americans today like to tell us that we can have our religion in private, but just don't force it down their throats. Of course, in all honesty, forcing Christianity down someone's throat is just plain stupid, but neither those who try it or those who complain seem to notice. So, no, it makes no ssense to force Christianity. It does make sense to encourage moral behavior and sometimes to pass laws that might concur with Christian values because the values are good for the people, but, in truth, morality and legality are not always in sync. We don't always need laws to enforce what's right. Further, the idea of a "Christian nation" is just plain silly. We are saved by faith, not by laws. And Christ died for people, not nations. And, ultimately, we will never have (this side of heaven) entire nations following Christ (the definition of "Christian") nor will anyone in the country be saved by obeying Christian laws. So, no, we don't want to force Christianity down people's throats. And as everyone sighs a sigh of relief, we run headlong into the problem. If not Christian values, whose?
Most of society concurs; Christians are not supposed to force their beliefs onto anyone else. Especially on government. It appears, however, that Christianity is the only one that is thusly limited. It's okay for pro-aborts to force their beliefs on the world or LGBTians to force their beliefs on the rest of us. We all need to bow to "woke" thinking and submit to atheist preferences. Even the "Left" religion is happy forcing their beliefs on the rest of us, by force of law if at all possible. Oh, mind you, I'm not complaining that they -- all of them -- do this. It's what you would expect from any firmly-held beliefs. What's odd, however, is this double standard of "You Christians are not allowed to influence the world around you with your beliefs" followed with "but we are and we will." At the bottom line, we all share a host of difficulties we must deal with. Crime, punishment, drugs, disease, poverty, racism, sexism, on and on ad infinitum. These aren't Christian problems; they're everyone problems. So we -- everyone -- have to deal with them. The question is, how? So we work out some sort of approach to a problem, but how do we do that? We do it from our underlying presuppositions. If, for instance, you believe that all people are basically good and criminals are just good people in bad circumstances, you will work to improve their circumstances to bring out their goodness. If you believe that people are basically evil, your approach will obviously be quite different. We all work from our basic assumptions. And, oh, yeah, aren't those the things that we just determined were not supposed to be forced on anyone? Oh, no, we didn't. We determined that Christian basic assumptions were not allowed, but anyone else can force theirs. So ... what if Christian beliefs are right?
There's the problem. We're not going to allow Christian beliefs in the public square. We are going to allow just about everything else. Just about. Whoever can bring the most weight to bear will be allowed to bludgeon the rest into basic assumptions. But surely you can see that forcing your beliefs on me is just as wrong as me forcing my beliefs on you. So why do you get the pass? What we should be looking at is which ones are right. And, of course, that won't be allowed (2 Cor 4:4).
9 comments:
What, people having double standards? You mean atheism and scientism and agnosticism are their own religions? (End sarcasm) I get wanting to see your beliefs as being right and mine being wrong, but don't go telling me mine are wrong simply because they are religious and yours aren't. Yours may be based on a different set of beliefs, but they are still simply that. And to argue that you shouldn't legislate morality is utter foolishness, we do it with every law.
I was baffled by that whole thing when I saw something where a lesbian complained to a pastor that his beliefs made her feel like a sinner and, therefore, he needed to change them. She didn't even hear the double standard -- "My beliefs are my beliefs, so mine are right and yours are wrong and you need to change yours." I suppose it's that last part that bugs me. "You need to change yours."
I don't know how familiar you are with Scheaffer's writings, but he talks a lot about this phenomenon in various books. The notion that religious beliefs should be segregated to the realm of the subjective, which then makes all religious beliefs equal in the sense that they aren't to be taken seriously.
If Christian Nationalism means that the US should be a theocracy, I'm not good with that. If Christian Nationalism means that Christians are allowed to bring their ideas and beliefs into the public square and that those ideas compete with others, then absolutely. I honestly think that the left objects more to nationalism, than Christianity.
Given the natural "hostility to God" nature of Man (Rom 8:7), I'd guess it is more objection to Christianity than nationalism, but I get your point.
In a broad sense I agree with you. I think that we're in a period where many people object to the notion of nationalism, national pride, patriotism, or American exceptionalism at a higher level. But that doesn't diminish that underlying hostility to Christianity. I think it's kind of a "How dare you suggest that your country/religion/ethnic group/etc is superior." attitude.
I understand and mostly agree with you, but a LOT of voices are saying that so-called Christian nationalism is a threat to democracy and "American freedom," so they DO appear to be affirm that our country is superior and simply define "our country" different.
Indeed, the argument seems to be more that if it's from any faith, it can't be good, rather than looking at what is proposed and debating on its merits whether or not it will be of benefit to all, regardless of what they believe. Imagine if laws against murder were opposed because Scripture opposes murder. Clearly the Christian opposition to murder provides benefit to all and does so regardless of Scriptural influences. But as David suggests, the argument is simply a rote objection to religion and not a true consideration of what is proposed.
"The argument seems to be more that if it's from any faith, it can't be good."
Yes, they simply eliminate the evaluation of the idea, dismissing it out of hand as "faith." Ignoring completely the fact that "Believe all women," "Trust the science," "All white people are racist," and so much more are all matters of faith, not fact. It is faith that is disdained if that faith is in God or, at the very least, not in an "approved source."
Stan,
There are definitely different permutations of distaste for the concept. A few years ago the Christian part would definitely have been more offensive, but I think that we're seeing more push back on the nationalism part. But, yes we generally agree.
Post a Comment