Christian Nationaism

[Chuck Naill]

The embrace of Donald Trump by Evangelicals took me by surprise nearly six years ago. What so called national religious leaders have said for me is shocking. I recall Abraham Lincoln musing that both sides in the Civil War thought God was on their side.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/06/opinion/jan-6-christian-nationalism.html?unlocked_article_code=AAAAAAAAAAA AAAAACEIPuonUktbfqYhkSVUbBSbSRdkhrxqAwvrGxvliw3T-NimOVTdLyaETCpSB_EHEYat4Yp0zwzGfDpdnAYMYecZTnKVZLl A_DE6huIeFk5AIZC8-otvjBWlomsiXBr19rGK1ZyyzJe0jgePhtByLaTK7CPDa2WYzZ1 ow-esTflmo23EPwKfFEPckmYUtmKd8We0pAGsIdyKIvPL3Ch1hOdr gbhvU6QY-Xu0xSiiE1JfHqOpGKFMOfAqAGHBv4m8868deOMcXPcv8LR0gf8 n4htYBG_sgujpC4kMLzjf_v_SODz0&smid=url-share

[Bold2013]

Trump evangelicals and true biblical Christians are being conflated in this article.

Churches were unconstitutionally told not to meet. Some pastors were even prosecuted or harassed (others thrown into prison in Canada). These churches/men fought in the right and biblical ways (as oppose to the Trump Eva Jan 6 crowd).

[Chuck Naill]

Trump evangelicals and true biblical Christians are being conflated in this article.

Churches were unconstitutionally told not to meet. Some pastors were even prosecuted or harassed (others thrown into prison in Canada). These churches/men fought in the right and biblical ways (as oppose to the Trump Eva Jan 6 crowd).

I have to ask, do you think Trump "evangelicals" and true Biblical Christians are the same?

The article quotes infamous Evangelicals. Were they misquoted?

[Bold2013]

It’s a venn diagram. Many evangelicals will be having a surprise Matthew 7:21-23 moment at judgement. In other words the real church is much smaller than evangelicalism.

A big problem for our country is having two major political parties. People believe that there are only two choices and it’s becomes a lesser of two evils. In this case the side for Life will always get that religious vote (both evangelicals and biblical Christians) especially during an election where Supreme Court justices may be selected.

[Chuck Naill]

It’s a venn diagram. Many evangelicals will be having a surprise Matthew 7:21-23 moment at judgement. In other words the real church is much smaller than evangelicalism.

A big problem for our country is having two major political parties. People believe that there are only two choices and it’s becomes a lesser of two evils. In this case the side for Life will always get that religious vote (both evangelicals and biblical Christians) especially during an election where Supreme Court justices may be selected.

Fundamentalism and Evanglicalism have been the true meaning of the true church for decades. I admit that most denominational groups are not being educated in the scriptures. No one who is scripturally aware would support Trump. Folks in the modern US church are taught to sit in the pews and listen to the "man/woman" of God.

I was taught to read and interpret the texts objectivily. I am not suggesting that I am an expert, but I know enough of what Jesus said, or is said he said, to know a bit.

I totally agree the two party system is a problem. I consider myself now an independant.

[Bold2013]

Trump evangelicals and true biblical Christians are being conflated in this article.

Churches were unconstitutionally told not to meet. Some pastors were even prosecuted or harassed (others thrown into prison in Canada). These churches/men fought in the right and biblical ways (as oppose to the Trump Eva Jan 6 crowd).

I have to ask, do you think Trump "evangelicals" and true Biblical Christians are the same?

The article quotes infamous Evangelicals. Were they misquoted?

I wouldn’t have much faith in the evangelicals referenced in this peace.

Also crazy interesting that Christian Nationalism has taken the dominionism theology (again not biblical but definitely sprinkled out there in Big Eva).

[Bold2013]

You said “No one who is scripturally aware would support Trump.” I feel the same about Biden…

If you put Trump and Biden policies side by side there is one that is more Biblical than the other but I wholeheartedly agree they are both bad trees bearing bad fruit.

The joy that I have in all of this is none of this is a surprise to God and he has used pagan kings in the past to do His will.

[Chuck Naill]

You said “No one who is scripturally aware would support Trump.” I feel the same about Biden…

If you put Trump and Biden policies side by side there is one that is more Biblical than the other but I wholeheartedly agree they are both bad trees bearing bad fruit.

The joy that I have in all of this is none of this is a surprise to God and he has used pagan kings in the past to do His will.

You could say that, but not using scripture. Biden's true nature for now is more hidden than Trump. Of course, not voting is never an option since it provides the other with an advantage, meaning the greater good comes into play. I can make a Bibilcal argument if you like. The only analogy I can think of now is King Saul. He was judged and replaced by an imperfect person. I do not think God, scripturally, ever encouraged a king.

God never endorsed chosing people like Trump. He might have "used" people like Trump. And, I do not think Trump is unredeemable, but he doesn't have a special path.

[Bold2013]

It’s funny you bring up biblical kingship. I taught a quarter long Sunday school course on it.

[Bold2013]

Trump. Biden.
Pro Life. Pro killing innocent children in the womb
Anti CRT. Pro CRT (which is at odds with biblical Christianity)


Biden also supports and even seems to celebrate gender fluidity and homosexuality

[Chuck Naill]

You didn't learn this from Jesus. You have to separate Paul from Jesus. I know, I know, you probably think all scriptures are inspired from God. It is what you were taught.

While I agree regarding abortion, I also have to be on the side of a pregnant girl whose Evangelical parents are abandoning her. I do think being pro-life is also being pro mother and pro adoption.

[Bold2013]

Oh I see you pick and chose what you want to believe from the Bible.

Jesus endorsed marriage as male and female. Jesus is the creator and made humans in God’s image, male and female not non-binary (see Gen 1 and John 1).

Jesus recounts Sodom and Gomorrah in Luke (I also believe that it was Jesus with Abraham who watch it be consumed but also sent angels to rescue the only righteous ones)

Jesus showing care for children in many areas.

[Chuck Naill]

Oh I see you pick and chose what you want to believe from the Bible.

Jesus endorsed marriage as male and female. Jesus is the creator and made humans in God’s image, male and female not non-binary (see Gen 1 and John 1).

Jesus recounts Sodom and Gomorrah in Luke (I also believe that it was Jesus with Abraham who watch it be consumed but also sent angels to rescue the only righteous ones)

Jesus showing care for children in many areas.

Not at all and you'd be hard pressed to prove otherwise. And again, prove me wrong. Saying I choose and pick is such a familar retort.

Endorsing marriage is not condemning anyone. He was said to be a friend of sinners. He was friends with at least one known protitute. Harab helped the spies. The problem is a lack of Biblical education and awareness of what Jesus said and did. The focus is mostly on Paul and others.

Ask yourself, how many sinners with whom do you have a friendship?

Jesus used the most dispised to explain "who is my neighbor". He could have used a homosexual in todays intolerant Evangelical circles.

[Bold2013]

Yeah you must be right.

Sodom and Gomorrah wasn’t condemnation of homosexuality.
Jesus didn’t endorse and fulfill the entire OT.
Jesus loves sinners so much He won’t judged them justly.

[Chuck Naill]

Yeah you must be right.

Sodom and Gomorrah wasn’t condemnation of homosexuality.
Jesus didn’t endorse and fulfill the entire OT.
Jesus loves sinners so much He won’t judged them justly.

Yours is a common rebutal, but not Biblical. Jesus was a friend of sinners. It was an accusation from those considered religious. Jesus can be a problem for some Chrisitans where he doen't fit into their box.

[Bold2013]

Sigh

[Chuck Naill]

I suppose that's the last resort. Just sigh, because not even Jesus' words and actions would make any difference.

[TSherbs]

I am not a present or former evangelical Christian. But I have lived among them, worked among them, talked with them, and read about their political aspirations and sense of mission.

As Bold alluded to above, my sense is that in this two-party system, evangelicals will choose whichever party stands against abortion (in nearly all, if not ALL cases) and will favor anti-abortion morality over all other moral concerns in a two-party election. There are other issues around religious freedom and family structure that they care about, but these are subordinated in their desire to overturn Roe v Wade. To ask them to care more about caring for the poor or for the welfare of abused mothers or abused and abandoned children is to ask them to care for things further down their moral concern list. In politics, for them, Roe is #1. And even that abortion numbers have been falling does not matter: Roe is #1 mission (politically).

[Chuck Naill]

I am not a present or former evangelical Christian. But I have lived among them, worked among them, talked with them, and read about their political aspirations and sense of mission.

As Bold alluded to above, my sense is that in this two-party system, evangelicals will choose whichever party stands against abortion (in nearly all, if not ALL cases) and will favor anti-abortion morality over all other moral concerns in a two-party election. There are other issues around religious freedom and family structure that they care about, but these are subordinated in their desire to overturn Roe v Wade. To ask them to care more about caring for the poor or for the welfare of abused mothers or abused and abandoned children is to ask them to care for things further down their moral concern list. In politics, for them, Roe is #1. And even that abortion numbers have been falling does not matter: Roe is #1 mission (politically).

I do agree that abortion is the primary concern. That said, among those who identify as Christan also adopt and work to help young pregnant women, at least in my church gatherings experience. Not so much among Pentacostals and Charismatics, but more academically based/Bible groups.

The problem as I see it, if you think Jesus wants you to sleep with the Devil to accomplish the Kingdom of God as you define it, where did you get that notion?

[kazoolaw]

As Bold alluded to above, my sense is that in this two-party system, evangelicals will choose whichever party stands against abortion (in nearly all, if not ALL cases) and will favor anti-abortion morality over all other moral concerns in a two-party election. There are other issues around religious freedom and family structure that they care about, but these are subordinated in their desire to overturn Roe v Wade.

To ask them to care more about caring for the poor or for the welfare of abused mothers or abused and abandoned children is to ask them to care for things further down their moral concern list. In politics, for them, Roe is #1. And even that abortion numbers have been falling does not matter: Roe is #1 mission (politically).

Lest we get caught up in semantics the definition of "evangelical" can wait for another day. Abortion is not exclusively a political issue; it may not even be a mostly political issue.

Yes, abortion is a critical issue, a make-or-break issue, among anti-abortion/pro-life Christians. Which is logical if one understands their view of when life begins. Commonly cited figures have 62-63 million abortions have been performed since Roe. Hypothetically, if 62-63 million adults were killed during that same period for the same reasons that abortions are performed the focus on ending the killing would be recognized a honorable goal.

I did separate your second paragraph into two parts. "...to care more about caring from the poor or...abused mothers...or abused or abandoned children..." might be more an issue of priorities than concern. It's impossible to care about abused or abandoned children if they're killed before birth. I'd phrase it more in terms of bringing those concerns up to the same level. Can't speak for your experience, but those concerns are clearly expressed and acted upon.

"...abortion numbers have been fallling..." The quickest number I could find was for 2019, with about 629,000 abortions in the US. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/ss/ss7009a1.htm
If there were 629,000 adults killed in 2019 for the same reasons abortions are performed I'd expect the same concern and focus.

[TSherbs]

Maybe that should be in the other thread.

[kazoolaw]

Maybe that should be in the other thread.

Where ever you'd like. It's a direct follow up to your comments on evangelical politics. I've tried to phrase it to see if there is an understanding, not an agreement, with the motivation for the position.

[TSherbs]

I don't think that any Evangelical voted for Donald Trump to express the priority of raising up other issues around poverty and care for women and poor children to the same moral status or activism that the anti-abortion movement received. I don't think that the decades-long effort to train and then appoint conservative justices to various benches had anything to do with elevating political or moral concerns around poverty or the welfare of mothers and poor children. From my point of view the Evangelical commitment to the GOP has been about Roe most of all, and then to a lesser degree about religious liberty, low taxes, slowing down social change, and a healthy dash of holding on to white advantage.

[TSherbs]

I am not a present or former evangelical Christian. But I have lived among them, worked among them, talked with them, and read about their political aspirations and sense of mission.

As Bold alluded to above, my sense is that in this two-party system, evangelicals will choose whichever party stands against abortion (in nearly all, if not ALL cases) and will favor anti-abortion morality over all other moral concerns in a two-party election. There are other issues around religious freedom and family structure that they care about, but these are subordinated in their desire to overturn Roe v Wade. To ask them to care more about caring for the poor or for the welfare of abused mothers or abused and abandoned children is to ask them to care for things further down their moral concern list. In politics, for them, Roe is #1. And even that abortion numbers have been falling does not matter: Roe is #1 mission (politically).

I do agree that abortion is the primary concern. That said, among those who identify as Christan also adopt and work to help young pregnant women, at least in my church gatherings experience. Not so much among Pentacostals and Charismatics, but more academically based/Bible groups.

The problem as I see it, if you think Jesus wants you to sleep with the Devil to accomplish the Kingdom of God as you define it, where did you get that notion?
Yes. I have had a few conservative Christian voting friends tell me that voting for Trump was a real strain on their religious conscience. Deeply worrisome for them. But finally, to help them get past the moral wrong they knew that they were doing (voting for an unrepentant openly sinning blasphemer) they would remind themselves of the statistics of legal abortion. Only then could they justify the "sin" of their support for Trump. I felt for them and was angered by them at the same time. But there it is.

[Bold2013]

I don't think that any Evangelical voted for Donald Trump to express the priority of raising up other issues around poverty and care for women and poor children to the same moral status or activism that the anti-abortion movement received. I don't think that the decades-long effort to train and then appoint conservative justices to various benches had anything to do with elevating political or moral concerns around poverty or the welfare of mothers and poor children. From my point of view the Evangelical commitment to the GOP has been about Roe most of all, and then to a lesser degree about religious liberty, low taxes, slowing down social change, and a healthy dash of holding on to white advantage.

All about saving babies, religious liberty, low taxes and slowing down social depravity.

Please don’t generalize Christian as being for partiality.

[Chuck Naill]

Abortions were decreased when contraceptions were made available by insurance providers during the Obama administration. There has consistanly been a push back by Republicans on this benefit. They want fewer unwanted pregnancies, but won't provide a method.

Religious liberty applies to more than White Evangelicals, there are and continue to be Muslim and Jewish religoius folk who suffer discrimination. Black Evangelicals have not faired much better.

That tax reform for the middle class did not benefit and several deductions were taken away. It is more of a con man's claim that you are better off when you are not.

If slowing depravity is a goal, White Evangelicals are providing a very very poor example of what it needs to look like. By supoorting a known con man and the religious leaders being vocally supportive, even making excuses for his behavior, many just see the hyocracy and say, clean up your own house first before being critical about ours.

[kazoolaw]

The problem as I see it, if you think Jesus wants you to sleep with the Devil to accomplish the Kingdom of God as you define it, where did you get that notion?

And, other than your imagination, where did you get the idea that anyone thinks Jesus wants someone to sleep with the Devil? Your problem is that you keep positing that one candidate is the embodiment of evil, and the other a bright shining model of purity.

[kazoolaw]

Yes. I have had a few conservative Christian voting friends tell me that voting for Trump was a real strain on their religious conscience. Deeply worrisome for them. But finally, to help them get past the moral wrong they knew that they were doing (voting for an unrepentant openly sinning blasphemer) they would remind themselves of the statistics of legal abortion. Only then could they justify the "sin" of their support for Trump. I felt for them and was angered by them at the same time. But there it is.

What level of moral purity do you suppose would allow your conservative Christian friends to vote for any candidate? If you listed the moral flaws of Joe Biden could one reach a point that they would be "sinning," and thus disqualified from voting for either candidate?

[Chuck Naill]

Biden won not because of moral purity, but because people preferred him over another four years of obvious daily displays of lying and corruption.

[kazoolaw]

Biden won not because of moral purity, but because people preferred him over another four years of obvious daily displays of lying and corruption.

Well they've got to be disappointed as they've gotten both.

[TSherbs]

Yes. I have had a few conservative Christian voting friends tell me that voting for Trump was a real strain on their religious conscience. Deeply worrisome for them. But finally, to help them get past the moral wrong they knew that they were doing (voting for an unrepentant openly sinning blasphemer) they would remind themselves of the statistics of legal abortion. Only then could they justify the "sin" of their support for Trump. I felt for them and was angered by them at the same time. But there it is.

What level of moral purity do you suppose would allow your conservative Christian friends to vote for any candidate? If you listed the moral flaws of Joe Biden could one reach a point that they would be "sinning," and thus disqualified from voting for either candidate?


Yes, certainly. One has to make a moral priority list to make these choices (or have no moral list at all and choose for other reasons). Legal abortion, as I have said, is a deal breaker for some. For others, like myself, it is not, and other values rise to the top. The fact of having to choose only between two old white men of privilege stank, and is part of the moral problem of choice for me. It often becomes a "lesser evil" exercise when the options suck.

[Chuck Naill]

Biden won not because of moral purity, but because people preferred him over another four years of obvious daily displays of lying and corruption.

Well they've got to be disappointed as they've gotten both.


I don’t see it that way myself. I see a big difference just on a day to day basis. I have no regrets, but like Ted reminded you, only had two old white men from which to choose. I took the lesser of two evils.

I did a comprehensive study of Trump circa 2015.

[Chuck Naill]

Let’s discuss Jerry Falwell Jr. He imposed rules on the student while participating i some pretty strange practices

[kazoolaw]

Chuck,
You said, "I took the lesser of two evils."
You chose to align yourself with evil, lesser though you believed it to be.

[TSherbs]

Chuck,
You said, "I took the lesser of two evils."
You chose to align yourself with evil, lesser though you believed it to be.


You asked Chuck this, but I can answer for me: I knowingly vote for sinners every time I cast a vote. I often know what some of their sins are, but often I know also that I don't know them all. I decide which sins and which degree of sinning is more tolerable (like how I am with friends and family and myself) and then make decisions from there. Not all sins are equal (thus the list that I described above) nor is each sin committed to the same degree. Sinners aren't all equal in this regard. In morality, as in law, there are degrees of wrong-doing.

[Bold2013]

True there are worse sins than others however they all get the eternal death penalty

[Chuck Naill]

I disagree

[Bold2013]

Romans 6
23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in[a] Christ Jesus our Lord.

John 19

11 Jesus answered, “You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin.”

[kazoolaw]

Chuck,
You said, "I took the lesser of two evils."
You chose to align yourself with evil, lesser though you believed it to be.


You asked Chuck this, but I can answer for me: I knowingly vote for sinners every time I cast a vote. I often know what some of their sins are, but often I know also that I don't know them all. I decide which sins and which degree of sinning is more tolerable (like how I am with friends and family and myself) and then make decisions from there. Not all sins are equal (thus the list that I described above) nor is each sin committed to the same degree. Sinners aren't all equal in this regard. In morality, as in law, there are degrees of wrong-doing.

TS-
No question mark in Post 34.
You haven't made the same claim as Chuck.
But your weighing of morality should help you understand, not necessarily agreewith, why people would vote against a candidate who is in favor of abortion.

[TSherbs]

Chuck,
You said, "I took the lesser of two evils."
You chose to align yourself with evil, lesser though you believed it to be.


You asked Chuck this, but I can answer for me: I knowingly vote for sinners every time I cast a vote. I often know what some of their sins are, but often I know also that I don't know them all. I decide which sins and which degree of sinning is more tolerable (like how I am with friends and family and myself) and then make decisions from there. Not all sins are equal (thus the list that I described above) nor is each sin committed to the same degree. Sinners aren't all equal in this regard. In morality, as in law, there are degrees of wrong-doing.

TS-
No question mark in Post 34.
You haven't made the same claim as Chuck.
But your weighing of morality should help you understand, not necessarily agreewith, why people would vote against a candidate who is in favor of abortion.


?? I've never said that I don't understand. I entered the thread stating that I feel that I do understand.

I would add that appealing to these same voters is why (major reason, not *only one*) Trump picked Pence for VP. I understand the move (I don't think that it is complicated).

[Chuck Naill]

Romans 6
23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in[a] Christ Jesus our Lord.

John 19

11 Jesus answered, “You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin.”

I disagreed with you that all sin is the same. I don't think a case could be made that Biden has as bad of a history as Trump. The lesser of evils and greater good concepts are well rooted in ancient ethtical studies. It is how we make better decisions.

You being a healthcare provider might have to choose which patient receives an ICU bed based on their condition. You are doing the greater good for the person with the best chances to survive that has a better outcome.

[Chuck Naill]

Chuck,
You said, "I took the lesser of two evils."
You chose to align yourself with evil, lesser though you believed it to be.


This is a common human dilemma. Like I explained to Bold, he might be faced with having to choose between two patients who both need an ICU bed while only one exits. You might come along and call him a murderer for choosing not to give one a bed, but you would be wrong because he was simply doing the greater good.

We can disagree and you can think Biden is a worse person than Trump. Like I've said before, I began to study Trump six years ago. So, I might know more than you, maybe not. Doesn't really matter, but my position has a basis rooted in reliable information.

What I think goes on with many Republcians is that they do not approve of Trump, but he is giving them something they want. They want there white priviledge restored, their Christian religion to be the bases of all things, that want to tote a gun, and they want no babies aborted. I had a friend last week, who is white, say he was tired of being made to feel guilty. I am white and I don't feel guilty. So, what's going on? I think it is that I have been self educated in the history of black and brown people in the US. I accept it. However, if you choose not to be informed and think tearing down a statue of Robert E. Lee is a loss of something sacred, you might start to get uneasy and think the coutry is going downhill.

And, Trump wants loyality. If you are not for him, he is against you. You might consider what would happen if you choose to be ruled by someone like that. Would you want to be ruled by Trump or Biden? Biden is more likely to let you disagree with him and not consider you his enemy. I may be wrong, but that's the way I see it.

And, can you think of one person who joined Trump's administration and left who is now better off? That dude from Exxon, Tillerson, and all the generals were poorly treated and critized as if they were fools.

[kazoolaw]

Chuck, you do realize that this has nothing to do with what I actually said, right?
Confederate statues? White privilege? I thought the Constitution had something to say about the right to carry, not Trump conferring any rights. Are you saying that you'd make your decision on who gets a hospital bed on how you weigh a patient's respective moral merits?
At least you had a moment of reason when you conceded that even Biden is evil.

[Chuck Naill]

Chuck, you do realize that this has nothing to do with what I actually said, right?
Confederate statues? White privilege? I thought the Constitution had something to say about the right to carry, not Trump conferring any rights. Are you saying that you'd make your decision on who gets a hospital bed on how you weigh a patient's respective moral merits?
At least you had a moment of reason when you conceded that even Biden is evil.

I never said Biden is evil.

Look up triage.

[kazoolaw]

I took the lesser of two evils.



I never said Biden is evil.

You said "lesser" which is a term of degree, meaning Biden is evil but not as evil as Trump.

[Chuck Naill]

I never said Biden is evil.

You said "lesser" which is a term of degree, meaning Biden is evil but not as evil as Trump.


There is a difference between what I wrote and saying Biden is evil. I have to think you know this already, but you like playing the pest.

[kazoolaw]

Chuck, you chose to say you picked the lesser of two evils, not that you picked between good and evil.
Your words.

[Chuck Naill]

Chuck, you chose to say you picked the lesser of two evils, not that you picked between good and evil.
Your words.


It is a common saying. I figured you'd heard of it before. My bad...LOL!!

[kazoolaw]

Chuck, you chose to say you picked the lesser of two evils, not that you picked between good and evil.
Your words.


It is a common saying. I figured you'd heard of it before.

It sure is. Happy to explain it to you.