"Mainline" Christianity is Also to Blame for Christian Nationalism
My understanding of the founding fathers' attitude toward church and state is they were suspicious as to how to put the brakes on religious zeal. Nearly all of them seemed to believe church going citizens would behave themselves better than the opposite. I've never read about any of them saying Christians had "better morals" than non Christians, though somewhere one may have said that.
Today, what are called "right wing" Christians want to impose national laws codifying their beliefs about gay marriage, abortion and trans. They are almost uniformly criticise by what are considered "main line" denominations. It was refreshing to read a statement recently by someone representing the Lutheran Missouri Synod which criticized Christian nationalism. There are not enough such statements.
Yet, truth be told, mainline Christian denominations have served as the gateway to Christian nationalism for decades. It was not "right wing Christians" who drove the politics of the 1950's which put "under God" in our Pledge of Allegiance." I would guess the Founding Fathers would have disapproved. But, Communism was "godless." What better way to be politically popular than to pair capitalism with God and Communism to atheism. At the front of that effort were the Presbyterians, Lutherans, Methodists and so on.
The link admonishes preachers to remove the U.S. flag from the front of their churches. I don't recall being in a church that did not have a U.S. flag. The tiny church I grew up in had a U.S. flag. Yet, I'm willing to bet the U.S. flag was not present in Christian churches when white people arrived on the North American continent. It must have started when politics pushed the idea.
I recall being stunned when President Reagan's first Secretary of Interior, Jim Watt, visited Fargo when I was Mayor. He had just returned to his little home town in Wyoming and got all emotional when he looked at the Christian and U. S. flag standing together in the front of his church. Fortunately, he was sent back to Wyoming quickly. Later he pleaded guilty to lying to a Grand Jury and was sentenced to five years' probation.
If you are a Christian but hate Christian nationalism, take down the U.S. flag in your church.
Jon; If you look up "Mainline Christianity", see the root of the term, ;" along the mainline of the railroad as Christianity spread West." You will see who is included, and you will see the LCMS is not "Mainline". No flag.
ReplyDeletethere probably are some (flags that is) in some Catholic churches but I have not seen them. where there are flags, I assume that the church is merely showing respect for the civil order. seems innocent enuf for me. so what is your hangup with this Christian nationalism stuff that seems to give you nightmares. seems to me that a retired economics prof should have better things to do than rant about gays, trans and abortion, and what you call Christian nationalism.
ReplyDeleteActually, in proper context, the flag, "the US flag" has it's place, but only to represent the civil realm, as distinct from the Christian flag which represents the sacred. (church and state.) "The Distinction Between Law and Gospel". In the church, " the law" represents the area around the ten commandments. (The thou shalts) In the church, concisely, John 3;16 represents the Gospel. Outside the church, the law of the land, as enacted by Congress is a different set of law. Again notice the context.
DeleteAn afterthought : many churches, Catholic included, may have the US flag in their schools, auditoriums, etc. any way, what's the big deal. And while I'm at it-- an admittedly non germaine comment, especially for Jon the Climate Knight-- a fellow named Neil Winton, a long standing Reutuer' s science and tech reporter, has recently changed his "tune" on CO2 and climate change. says that, some years back, he swallowed the climate/global warming hype but then after interviewing many of the world's "finest climate scientists" he found that there is no solid agreement re the cause of climate change or the role that COs plays in it. he does know that the world, on balance, is warming. is it CO2 caused exclusively? is it just a natural change as we emerge from the ice of the last 20 to 10M years? is it a mix of causes? does it relate to changes in the sun? or, my view, does it have causes that we have not yet identified? I know that Jon will not be moved by this man's questions. and he, Jon, will call me a Denier. yet, some of the 100,000 people who view this blog every month might be interested in a skeptical take on the warming issue.
ReplyDeletetsm "Jon the Climate Knight.."
DeleteI think I've made it clear everyone agrees there are many variables causing the global warming. Probably there are variables we do not yet know about. Scientists who study this say they know of no other variable that has changed as much as CO in the atmosphere. That points to the likely culprit, though we cannot be 100% certain. That it is a leading suspect and that dealing with it is mostly an inconvenience rather that a crisis, a practical person would go after the most likely suspect, not ignore the entire mess.
Rather than just complain about my blog, you would better spend your time reading the book "Treeline" by Ben Rawlings. He lays out the actual events taking place and projects into the future the implications. Neither he nor I can say for certain these events will play out, but there is reason to be concerned. A future of mass migration and food shortages is not the one I want for future generations.
sounds to me as if you have modified your views a tad. as I recall you were big fan of the CO2 explains all theory. BTW, the ice age was 10-20K past, not 10-20M. my goof.
Deleteas long as you are pushing books. I have one for you" Hubris by Micheal Hart. 500+
ReplyDeletepages filled with techie stuff'.
tsm At your suggestion I did read a review of Hart, "Hubris." It is not a technical book but a self published narrative of his opinions. The review notes several flat out false statements. Lots of what you write here reflects what is apparently in that self published book. The reviewer says there is lots of "Catholic sounding" language.
Deletehttp://scribili.ca/michael_hart.php#:~:text=I%20think%20those%20two%20quotes%2C%20from,stands%20up%20better%20against%20further%20scrutiny.&text=I%20think%20those%20two,better%20against%20further%20scrutiny.&text=those%20two%20quotes%2C%20from,stands%20up%20better%20against
as I recall there is, among other things, a good tecnical discussion of the models used by the climate sciences. and what, pray tell, are the false statements that you noted. let's get specific here. and you just can't get over the Catholic stuff. any thing "Catholic" is rejected as false, automatically, a priori. not good especially coming from someone who claims to be an academican. of course, the reviewer is probably hostile. like you he probably has to find a Catholic woodchuck in every wood pile.
Deletetsm "what...are the false statements.."
DeleteThey are pointed out in the link I provided. This is a repeat of something you and I talked about a while back. You are quite careless in checking out the credibility of people you use as sources. This guy, Hart, did not publish at a reputable publishing house--probably he tried and it was turned down. So, he paid to have it published himself. Sometimes self published material is wonderful. In this case it has serious flaws and would not be accepted at a reputable publisher. I hope you will avail yourself to reliable information in the future.
I did not see any active link. sorry. BTW what is a "reputable" publishing house. one that you happen to like? are all self-published books to be rejected out of hand? are errors of fact or opinion to be found only in so-called "reputable" books. an elitist view of the world there old chap? I looked up the reviews of your tree line book. seems to me that there is alot to question. the fellow looks more like a poet than a scientist.
DeleteI, also, looked up your Tree Line man. his book was published by St Martin's Press an outfit that you told me was a last resort for second or third rate authors. more to the point, we know that plants (and animals) advance or retreat in response to climate change. ho hum. did he note, tho' that plants tend to flourish when there is more CO2 available. and does he really say that the earth will become treeless because of warming? (I couldn't find any reference to that part of the story). seems to me that your book could stand a little scrutiny itself.
Deletetsm "Seems to me that your book could stand a little scrutiny itself."
DeleteI agree 100%. I have not found a science based critic--surely there will be one. The book was given a quick review in the New Yorker so it is being read by many. My cousin the San Francisco found his public library had a long waiting list to check it out. Another cousin with a M.S. in science and former professor read it and found it sobering.
For myself, we know history of our globe is one of wild and weird climate changes. The Ice Age just 10,000 years ago would today take a huge part of global food production out of service. We have no reason to question findings that the current change is much more rapid than those of the past. Air change from man-made sources is the leading culprit.
Once the Catholic male hierarchy has declared the greatest moral issue facing human kind is abortion, millions like yourself just blindly jump on board. Could it be there is another even larger moral issue you are ignoring, trying to disregard as hype over nothing? In my humble opinion there is.
several random comments re your last post. first, abortion, especially in the massive form that it has taken, is not 'Nothing.. it is, rather, a despicable and profoundly evil matter. I won't go into the matter of exceptions: just am not in the mood to argue with you today. second, you do not seem to be much concerned with the intellectual and moral deterioration that marks so much of today's political and even scientific discourse. lying, hype (which can be, and often is no more than, lying), corruption, whether of the intellectual or criminal kind. for me, that sort of thing should be of greater concern than climate change, damaging as it does the very integerity of a society. destroying trust and turning political and group dialog into little more than a hog calling contest. which, come to think of it. is relfected in your condesending and nonsensical remark about the male Catholic hierarchy and my falling in line with it. apparently, neither I nor the hierachy is capable of reasoned discorse. 'nuf for now.
Deletetsm "...abortion..is, rather, a despicable and profoundly evil matter."
DeleteI wish you could abandon the religion of old white men and join with current society. You could train yourself to write "abortion, according to my religion, considers abortion to be evil." There is no way outside of religion to make the adjective "evil" fit abortion. Use of the word "evil" requires one first have the opinion one fertilized cell is a human being. If that cell is not a human being then abortion is not "evil."
According to polls, the majority of people who identify as Catholic prefer that most kinds of abortion should be legal. This has to mean those who retain the old view it is "evil" are older white Catholics including the male clergy who benefit by more births to Catholics and more $ in the collection plates.
My assignment to you is to work on a more objective way of thinking about abortion.
my first response to this post was, ignore it, it's just the same old crap. but after looking at it again, I decided to revisit. am I to think that evil is in the eye of the beholder: if you don't think that X is evil then it's not evil. murder is not evil unless the serial killer thinks that it is evel? and then there is the usual nonsense about one fertilized cell. you have been asked many times to tell us in some detail as to when a fertilied egg becomes human. so far as I recall we never got a straightforward answer, leaving us to guess as to what you think about the matter. and you claim to be "objective" re abortion? is that supposed to be a joke? and more dollars in the collection plates? and how many dollars in PP's collection plates for every abortion? or are they doing them for free these days?
DeleteJon wrote, “Today, what are called "right wing" Christians want to impose national laws codifying their beliefs about gay marriage, abortion and trans.”
ReplyDeleteRead the quote below in the Letters section of the Opinion pages on the inForum site. A little satire by Neil Schloesser, Fargo,ND. Lots of talk about freedom on the Right. Whose freedom?
“I will raise my family how I want and you will raise your family how I want. I know my mind, it belongs to God, so I know your mind and it must be like mine because how could it not?”,
https://www.inforum.com/opinion/letters/letter-freedom-in-america
Ardy B-- Neil Schloesser's letter to the editor
DeleteI also liked his last sentence portraying the voice of one from the Christian right explaining why his/her Christian views (on abortion and gay marriage) absolutely must be codified, "..because I am special and you are not."