The Rise of the Political Christian

[Chuck Naill]

I am curious if the members here who identify as Christian agree with this assessment?
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/05/o...smid=share-url

"...a quasi-mystical connection with the profane ex-president..." (emphasis added)
That's not been my observation. Nor is the article clear as it uses the term "evangelical," sometimes an adjective and sometimes a noun.
The article also fails to assess the importance of who the Democrat candidate was.
And who that will be.

I take it, although a bit confused, that you don't agree.

And, are you saying for you, that DT, as a Christian yourself, is someone you could support although they are of no resemblance to obvious Christain teaching? And, is it because you see a Democrat as less of a follower of Jesus than DT?

[kazoolaw]

I am curious if the members here who identify as Christian agree with this assessment?
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/05/o...smid=share-url

"...a quasi-mystical connection with the profane ex-president..." (emphasis added)
That's not been my observation. Nor is the article clear as it uses the term "evangelical," sometimes an adjective and sometimes a noun.
The article also fails to assess the importance of who the Democrat candidate was.
And who that will be.

I take it, although a bit confused, that you don't agree.

And, are you saying for you, that DT, as a Christian yourself, is someone you could support although they are of no resemblance to obvious Christain teaching? And, is it because you see a Democrat as less of a follower of Jesus than DT?

I can see the article causing confusion. "Quasi-mystical" seems to be a term that sounds perjorative but without any genuine meaning. As I said, the article does not describe what has been my experience.

No, your second paragraph is not what I mean at all. I did not vote in 2016 or in 2020 by evaluating the candidates on their relative religious positions. I was voting for a candidate for a political office, not for a religious position. My evaluation of HRC and JRB was that they would say and do whatever they thought necessary to expand abortion in the US. In that I have been proven accurate. I am not alone on that position.

[Chuck Naill]

I am curious if the members here who identify as Christian agree with this assessment?
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/05/o...smid=share-url

"...a quasi-mystical connection with the profane ex-president..." (emphasis added)
That's not been my observation. Nor is the article clear as it uses the term "evangelical," sometimes an adjective and sometimes a noun.
The article also fails to assess the importance of who the Democrat candidate was.
And who that will be.

I take it, although a bit confused, that you don't agree.

And, are you saying for you, that DT, as a Christian yourself, is someone you could support although they are of no resemblance to obvious Christain teaching? And, is it because you see a Democrat as less of a follower of Jesus than DT?

I can see the article causing confusion. "Quasi-mystical" seems to be a term that sounds perjorative but without any genuine meaning. As I said, the article does not describe what has been my experience.

No, your second paragraph is not what I mean at all. I did not vote in 2016 or in 2020 by evaluating the candidates on their relative religious positions. I was voting for a candidate for a political office, not for a religious position. My evaluation of HRC and JRB was that they would say and do whatever they thought necessary to expand abortion in the US. In that I have been proven accurate. I am not alone on that position.

Regarding "quasi-mystical" I have read some Evangelical leaders saying Trump was anointed by God. Annointed is not my word. You can look up the use of this word relative to Trump if interested.

Like you, many are one position voters. I see this as problematic since other issues are now at stake, like free elections. Oddly the late W.A Criswell said, "“I have always felt that it was only after a child was born and had a life separate from its mother that it became an individual person, and it has always, therefore, seemed to me that what is best for the mother and for the future should be allowed.” I am not saying I agree, but I also note that other issue of freedom and justice are now being challenged.

[kazoolaw]

Regarding "quasi-mystical" I have read some Evangelical leaders saying Trump was anointed by God. Annointed is not my word. You can look up the use of this word relative to Trump if interested.

Like you, many are one position voters. I see this as problematic since other issues are now at stake, like free elections. Oddly the late W.A Criswell said, "“I have always felt that it was only after a child was born and had a life separate from its mother that it became an individual person, and it has always, therefore, seemed to me that what is best for the mother and for the future should be allowed.” I am not saying I agree, but I also note that other issue of freedom and justice are now being challenged.

Nope, not interested someone you describe as an "Evangelical leader" has to say; no one apparently can identify who that is. I'm guessing the author of the article wouldn't describe herself as on, and she's the one who used the word.

I think that's it's appalling that not until a child is emancipated ("a life separate from its mother") can it be reasonably secure from being killed, so long as that's what the mother thinks best for herself and for the future. That's your Criswell. I'll leave you to ponder why, as a man and father, you now have no say in the child's future. If we can't agree that children, before and after birth, shouldn't be killed, those entitled to "justice" are an ever decreasing number.

Isn't there something in American history about "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?" Without securing the right to live the issues of freedom and justice are illusory.

[Chuck Naill]

Regarding "quasi-mystical" I have read some Evangelical leaders saying Trump was anointed by God. Annointed is not my word. You can look up the use of this word relative to Trump if interested.

Like you, many are one position voters. I see this as problematic since other issues are now at stake, like free elections. Oddly the late W.A Criswell said, "“I have always felt that it was only after a child was born and had a life separate from its mother that it became an individual person, and it has always, therefore, seemed to me that what is best for the mother and for the future should be allowed.” I am not saying I agree, but I also note that other issue of freedom and justice are now being challenged.

Nope, not interested someone you describe as an "Evangelical leader" has to say; no one apparently can identify who that is. I'm guessing the author of the article wouldn't describe herself as on, and she's the one who used the word.

I think that's it's appalling that not until a child is emancipated ("a life separate from its mother") can it be reasonably secure from being killed, so long as that's what the mother thinks best for herself and for the future. That's your Criswell. I'll leave you to ponder why, as a man and father, you now have no say in the child's future. If we can't agree that children, before and after birth, shouldn't be killed, those entitled to "justice" are an ever decreasing number.

Isn't there something in American history about "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?" Without securing the right to live the issues of freedom and justice are illusory.

Sorry, in my previous Evangelical world, "leadership" was a term used for pastors and elders. The OP-Ed specifically identified these men.

I agree with you on the tragedy of abortion. So, FYI, I have four adopted or saved from abortion family members.

Yes, you are correct about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I extend that to black and brown, immigrants, abused children, elderly Americans, those without healthcare, young folks with the burden of educational dept, and other conditions for which can be easily remedied. Perhaps for some, being pro-life is a broad perspective.

[kazoolaw]

Thanks for the thoughtful response.
"Leader" I got, "evangelical" as used above remains unclear to me.

[Chuck Naill]

Thanks for the thoughtful response.
"Leader" I got, "evangelical" as used above remains unclear to me.

The Chrisitan sect whose focus is on the gospel is a common definition of the term.

[TSherbs]

Britannica definition of "Evangelical church"

[Chuck Naill]

Seriously Ted!!!

Do you really think this was necessary?

[kazoolaw]

Appreciate your efforts.

[TSherbs]

Seriously Ted!!!

Do you really think this was necessary?

??

Chuck, he has asked this question multiple times. I thought the link was pretty good. I learned from it. Did I do something bad?

[Chuck Naill]

Seriously Ted!!!

Do you really think this was necessary?

??

Chuck, he has asked this question multiple times. I thought the link was pretty good. I learned from it. Did I do something bad?

I'm sorry, you're good. I just get tired of Kaz's deflections. He knows what the word means.

[kazoolaw]

CN-
Compare your definition to that of the Britannica: did you mean all that in your definition? Yours was just fine, but it isn't as detailed as the encyclopedia. Which excluded Catholics, by the way.
The point? People use words without knowing, or being able to explain, what they mean. If they don't know how is the listener supposed to understand?

[Chuck Naill]

CN-
Compare your definition to that of the Britannica: did you mean all that in your definition? Yours was just fine, but it isn't as detailed as the encyclopedia. Which excluded Catholics, by the way.
The point? People use words without knowing, or being able to explain, what they mean. If they don't know how is the listener supposed to understand?

Evangelical Catholics do exist. Evangelical just means gospel centered or spreading the good news. The problem as I have come to see it a lack of education inside the American churches. Jesus specifically said, "as you go, make disciples". Some thought the emphasis was to go instead of teaching and instruction on discipleship.

As we have discussed, Jesus didn't condemn the woman caught in adultery, met with a divorced woman at a local well, use a half breed Samaritan to teach about what it means to be a neighbor, and told a dying thief he would be with him that day in paradise. Think about what would happen if Americans decided to follow his lead rather than build buildings and amass large wealth. It would be transformative and make the Amercian believer relevant today.

[TSherbs]

Jesus was a radical egalitarian who defied authority and spoke to crowds at gathering places. Society can't tolerate millions of those types. I actually think that churches in America domesticate and neutralize the rebellious spirit of the life and teachings of Jesus so that they serve society rather than disrupt it.

[Chuck Naill]

Jesus was a radical egalitarian who defied authority and spoke to crowds at gathering places. Society can't tolerate millions of those types. I actually think that churches in America domesticate and neutralize the rebellious spirit of the life and teachings of Jesus so that they serve society rather than disrupt it.

Jesus radically changed me.

[Chuck Naill]

A title X discussion,

"As if right on cue, Trump-appointed Texas judge Matthew Kacsmaryk last week handed down a decision claiming that Title X, a federal program that offers grants to family-planning services, which can treat minors, “violates the constitutional right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children.” If upheld, according to Ian Millhiser of Vox, that decision would undermine a minor’s right to privacy, including the right to contraception. The plaintiff in the case says he is “raising each of his daughters in accordance with Christian teaching on matters of sexuality, which requires unmarried children to practice abstinence and refrain from sexual intercourse until marriage,” and while he doesn’t say they’ve used contraceptive services, he doesn’t want them to have that option. "

https://heathercoxrichardson.substac...m_medium=email


Some religious folks are against abortion and at the same time, contraception. The very idea that some parents think their children will not experience sex before marriage is a delusion.

[Chuck Naill]

Oh come all ye faithful except when Christmas falls on Sunday.

How many religious evangelicals attending this Sunday?

I’m not judging at all since I don’t hold the Sabbath or first day of the week any different from Wednesday.

[Chuck Naill]

What if God uses politics to make live human?

Do only some religious systems own God?

What if people figured out what God is doing and joined in?

[Chuck Naill]

I was reminded of this passage yesterday.
"Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams,
with ten thousand rivers of olive oil?
Shall I offer my firstborn for my transgression,
the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?
8 He has shown you, O mortal, what is good.
And what does the Lord require of you?
To act justly and to love mercy
and to walk humbly[a] with your God."

How do we make this become a practice? Does the immigrant not deserve justice and mercy? Does the LGBT community not deserve for each of us to allow them to have the same freedoms we enjoy?

Do we walk humbly or do was pride ourselves in what we think and think we have done good?