Replace the Symbols of the Gay Regime
As our institutions attempt to foist pride month on us again, the pushback from Christians against LGBTQ radicalism may already be having an effect.
Though Raytheon still desires to drop rainbow-painted missiles on our regime’s many enemies, numerous Fortune 500 companies seem hesitant to feature pride symbols on their social media accounts this year. Due to last year’s backlash, Target will be featuring its pride collection online and only in select stores—and will not offer any LGBTQ-themed clothing for kids. Major League Baseball put up a rainbow on its X account only to quickly take it down, while other sports leagues that have previously platformed pride icons noticeably did not do so.
From looking at recent trends, Americans seem to be having second thoughts about the latest stages in our ongoing sexual revolution. A recent Gallup poll shows that Americans’ acceptance of the morality of gay and lesbian relationships has actually decreased seven points between 2022 and 2023, from 71 to 64 percent approval. Even Americans’ overall support for same-sex marriage has slightly decreased, according to a recent Public Religion Research Institute survey. Among Gen Z-ers, a historic shift could be taking place. AEI’s Survey Center on American Life discovered that between 2021 and 2023, there’s been an astonishing 11-point drop in support of same-sex marriage among that cohort, especially among men.
But even with these setbacks, LGBTQ radicalism is still a powerful, dangerous wolf on the prowl. Sesame Street wished its viewers—which are mainly between the ages of 2 to 5—a “Happy #PrideMonth.” “Today and every day, we celebrate and uplift the LGBTQIA+ members of our community,” the kid’s show posted on X. “Together, let’s build a world where every person and family feels loved and welcomed for who they are.”
In the popular Call of Duty video game franchise, players can now use guns and bullets decked out in a trans flag (which is notable in light of the recent spate of trans shooters). The series is created by a developer owned by Microsoft, a recipient of a perfect equality score from the Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index (595 companies received that designation in 2023-24).
Almost unknown on the Right save for some scattered pieces, CEI is the extremely potent, DEI-esque arm that powers LGBTQ radicalism.
According to the Human Rights Campaign’s website, CEI is “the national benchmarking tool on corporate policies.” It ranks the corporations that took “concrete steps to establish and implement comprehensive policies, benefits and practices that ensure greater equity for LGBTQ+ workers and their families.” In other words, CEI is a social credit system that ensures corporations’ fealty to the LGBTQ agenda.
At The American Conservative, James McElroy wrote that CEI “is one of the primary tools used to inject extreme gender ideology into corporate America.” It functions as the tip of the spear, prodding even seemingly traditional companies like Cracker Barrel to fall in line with the gay consensus.
Pride month is the time of year in which the strength of LGBTQ radicalism especially shows itself. As Nate Hochman says at America 2100, it is “a symbolic tool of an ongoing revolution meant to undermine and replace the symbols of American history and identity and ultimately to redefine the country itself.” Pride month sometimes promotes fully nude, deformed people gyrating in front of children. It showcases drag queens at public venues who fill young minds with filth. President Biden honors trans people at the White House, damning them in their sin (character matters!).
In fact, as Hochman notes, pride month is part of the same project undertaken by radicals during the French Revolution. Like the Jacobins, LGBTQ radicals are bent on ripping down every vestige of decency and order and installing moral depravity in its place. But even worse than the Jacobins, theirs is a deeply subversive project that undermines the foundational tenets of the created order itself. As the influential teacher of political philosophy Harry Jaffa once wrote, “The so-called ‘gay rights’ movement is then the ultimate repudiation of nature, and therewith the ground of all morality.”
Daniel Mahoney has pointed out that the Jacobins even began hoisting red flags “in a mendacious reference to all the blood” they had spilled in their vicious quest. Pride month, of course, features its own ever-transitioning flag. It’s a more innocuous but nevertheless insidious marker of what Jeremy Carl correctly describes as “Baal worship” that advances a “destructive, crazed, and libertine cultural and sexual revolution.”
Even worse, pride month is a clear repudiation of biblical morality. It calls everyone to affirm what is sinful and to admonish what is good. It grossly misappropriates the symbol of the Noahic covenant for the mandated worship of acts that Scripture harshly condemns. (Satan’s twisting is evident here, as the rainbow—or more properly translated “war bow”—was, according to Jonathan Edwards, “appointed of God as a token of his gracious covenant with mankind.”)
Against this, Christians need a positive project that can move us out of our defensive crouch. We must replace the symbols of LGBTQ radicalism with those that are taught in Scripture and reinforced by nature.
Instead of celebrating the sin of pride, some on the Right have begun putting a bevy of options in its place. A saloon in Idaho promotes June as “Heterosexual Awareness Month.” For others, it’s White Boy Summer all the way down.
The best option in my view is to make June Fatherhood Month. Pastor Michael Foster has been showcasing the glories of fatherhood using #30DaysofFatherhood on X. He has posted a video of a father having a water balloon fight with his kids, demonstrating the importance of fathers being involved in the lives of their children. At a time when fathers, and masculinity overall, have been attacked from every high place in America, lifting up fatherhood as a good to which every man should aspire is a critical message.
Alastair Roberts has rightly argued that in addition to God being our “Judge, Sovereign, Ruler, King, Avenger,” and “Lord,” Christians must see him also as our Father. He is not a cozy, “maternal figure” but “a fatherly authority that stands” over us whose commands we must obey.
In fact, Foster writes, “Fatherhood is at the heart of the gospel.” God the Father sent His Son into the world to deliver His elect, incorporating them “into the family of God.” Because of this reconciliation through Christ’s work on our behalf, “we now pray to God by saying, ‘Our Father who is in heaven.’”
We need fathers today who follow the example of their Father in Heaven. They must find the courage to publicly push back against the crushing waves of evil and degeneracy to which many Christians have submitted, and even celebrated. Yes, we need fathers who will protect their families. But fathers must also assert themselves outside of their homes and churches, helping to guide our country to prosperity, happiness, and godliness.
Paul Gottfried has written in the latest edition of Chronicles that American Christians—fathers included—need to learn from the American Indians’ defeat: “What happened to the Indians is what happens when you can’t or won’t stop those who have come to replace you.” Christians today “lack the Indians’ instinct for survival,” he maintains. Fathers must lead by reasserting the public will of Christians and refuse to submit to the symbols of sin. As Ephesians 5:3 teaches, “sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you.”
Fathers must lead the way down “the ancient paths” (Jeremiah 6:16), for that is the “good way.” For Scripture teaches that if we walk along them, there we will “find rest for [our] souls.”
Image Credit: Unsplash
The above is more than a call to celebrate Fatherhood. That is exemplified by the joyous reaction to some changes in the polls, the silencing of some gay pride public support, and the opposing of CEI. Of course the constant referencing of LGBT radicals is ambiguous. What indicates that someone in the LGBT community a radical?
Add to that the following quote from the above article:
‘Against this, Christians need a positive project that can move us out of our defensive crouch. We must replace the symbols of LGBTQ radicalism with those that are taught in Scripture and reinforced by nature. ‘
Why do we need to be offensive with the Gospel? Isn’t the Gospel itself already offensive enough to those who are perishing? And for whom are we replacing the symbols of LGBT radicalism? Are we replacing it for society at large or for those in the Church?
It seems that the general theme of the above article is to send the LGBT community back to the margins of society, to Make Others Invisible Again. Hasn’t the LGBT community been made invisible in society for for long enough and what did that accomplish? And is making the LGBT community invisible again. our call as Christians? Are we to compete for influence in the public square like businesses compete for customers so that eventually drive the other away from the market?
Isn’t the mere faithful preaching of the Gospel all we need to confront whatever “threats” that the LGBT community poses? Do we really need to pressure groups or businesses from publicly supporting human rights for those in the LGBT community?
The above article uses 2 of the 3 Fs that authoritarian groups use to manipulate the public. The above article incites fear of LGBT radicals and enflames fury at those radicals for wanting to totally replace our past with their agenda. But is it really a total replacement, or a replacement at all, of the past? Or are we seeing a normal emergence of a group that has had to live in the margins of society for centuries and which merely wants to coexist in society as equals? The black-white worldview seen in calling such an emergence the work of radicals and the claims of there being a total replacement of our past with the LGBT agenda promotes more than just anti-LGBT sentiment; it promotes an authoritarian mentality in those who are persuaded by the above article.
When we have the Gospel to evangelize, why do we need to try to silence the LGBT community?
Mr. Day:
Is this “anti-LGBT” stance more or less extreme than the stance of the Lord, who rained literal fire and brimstone on two entire cities for their sexual deviance?
Perhaps you should fear the Lord more than you fear this nebulous “authoritarianism.” And take your watered-down Ned Flanders Christianity to the back pew while the real men finally take the reins.
Anon,
If authoritarian tendencies cause us to misread or misapply the Scriptures, then they are to be greatly feared. That is especially true when authoritarian tendencies cause us to commit injustices against others. Why? It is because when we call ourselves Christians, whatever we do or say or refrain from doing or saying can be associated with the Gospel and thus unnecessarily harming the reputation of the Gospel. And that thought should strike fear in all of us because as James said in chapter 3 of his epistle: ‘we all stumble in many ways.’
But please answer the questions that I asked in my first comment:
‘Isn’t the mere faithful preaching of the Gospel all we need to confront whatever “threats” that the LGBT community poses? Do we really need to pressure groups or businesses from publicly supporting human rights for those in the LGBT community?‘
Wickedness should be marginalized.
Dylan,
Think about all of the sins that Romans 1 lists and describes as evil. Should we marginalize everyone who commits those sins? Think about Ezekiel 16:48-50. What sins preceded the sexual sins committed in Sodom?
And what about Romans 2? After describing how sinful the Gentiles are, what does Paul say to those who believe in God? And why does he say that? And what about Romans 3:9 after Paul has listed the sins of unbelievers and those who believe in God?
If wickedness is to be marginalized, then who is left to marginalize them? Is it those who pray the prayer of the Pharisee from the parable of the 2 men praying in Luke 18:9-14? When is it safe to pray the prayer of the Pharisee? Or when is it safe to no longer pray the prayer of the Publican?
Because they’re sexually degenerate deviants that should, by rights, be relegated to the margins unless they keep their perversions under wraps.
Ryan,
First, see my last response to Dylan.
Second, why use the term ‘sexually degenerate deviants’? It seems like a term you would use to describe someone who has merited your anger, your rage. Are you afraid of them?
But why use that term anyway when same-sex behavior has been observed in over 1,000 species of animals? Why use that term when Paul describes homosexuality as something we could expect to see in unbelievers? Why use that term when the sin that Paul discusses in I Cor 5 is a sin that is not even committed by pagans, which would include those mentioned in Romans 1? And what is Paul’s response to the sin in I Cor 5 and what was the goal of his response?
Hello Curt,
In your replies above, you ask a lot of questions. It seems to me that they are in order to cast doubt, and not really get to a truth claim or understand the author’s or other commenter’s position.
But since I have a minute, I’ll answer a couple of questions that you’ve raised from my perspective and ask a few questions of you as well.
Your first question on the post: What indicates that a member of the LGBT community is radical? Celebrating sin. Pride in sin. Disrespect of God’s order for men and women since the garden, and what appears to this lay person at least as deliberately calling evil good and good, evil.
You referenced the sins of Romans 1. Do you agree that LGBT behavior is well described in Romans 1:26-28? I believe that all the sins that follow (Vs. 29-31) certainly fall within verse 28 as well. I would hope that if I celebrated any of those sins listed that someone who loved me would confront me. That type of behavior threatened my family as a child, and they held me accountable. If that behavior threatened my employer, I would be dismissed. If it threatened my community, marginalization should result.
I try not to envy, judge, slander and gossip…because I once practiced those things regularly. It didn’t take too much work to find a like-minded group to accept those behaviors and even encourage them. Acceptance by a group doesn’t make those behaviors any less sinful. I believe you’ve mentioned a disposition towards Marxism. Don’t the tenets of Marxism require a type of arbitrary and capricious judgement?
In what appears to be a justification for same-sex behavior, you often reference behaviors of many species within the animal kingdom. “It has been recently hypothesized that indiscriminate sexual behavior, with the presence of same-sex sexual behavior coexisting with different-sex sexual behavior, is an ancestral condition for sexually reproducing animals.” (Nature Magazine – Article number: 5719 (2023)). Humans who practice same-sex behavior are clearly not improving reproductive odds. But why do you continually reference the animal practice? How do you reconcile the animals which mate for life? But more importantly, do you agree that we were made separately and distinctly from animals by God, with the responsibility to exercise dominion (not emulate)? Male and female He made them, and Old and New Testament both say a man shall leave father and mother, hold fast to his wife and the two shall become one flesh. LGBT proponents want to change God’s clear standard or promote another standard as equally acceptable before God and man.
Lastly, your question about confronting LGBT behavior in a community seems reasonable on its face. Shouldn’t we just ‘live and let live’ and let the gospel message draw those who have a heart to hear? If it was just competition for space in the marketplace of ideas that might be a position to take. However, as the father of teenagers, society is anything but fair competition. Entertainment, Education, Media and most disappointingly, the Government are all promoting the LGBT lifestyle. I used to think we couldn’t legislate morality…but that has sent the morals of the country downward. Sexual sin in all forms defiles a temple of the Holy Spirit. If there were adultery parades, or prostitution story hour, I would be opposed to those as well. Why do you seem to oppose every idea/suggestion that the writers of American Reformer posit? You certainly have made a time investment to do so.
Curt, I hope that I have responded to you in good faith. I look forward to sincere answers. I’ll be attending Pride Day in the park tomorrow in my town with my church’s ‘Jesus People’ t-shirt on. Perhaps I’ll be able to help return one silver coin. Be blessed!
Word of advice: don’t bother with Curt. He’s not acting in good faith.
John,
Thank you for your respectful response.
First, I posed questions rather than speaking didactically in hopes that people would focus on what the Scriptures say about the issues. It is also an attempt to find common ground, some partial agreement.
Second, I disagree with your definition of an LGBT radical. The term radical, from what I know, is a relative measurement based on what is the norm. And so I don’t find someone from that community who celebrates their lifestyles to be a radical. It would seem to me that someone who is an LGBT radical does something far more than celebrate a lifestyle with which they are comfortable in the first place. Would we call heterosexuals who celebrate heterosexuality as heterosexual radicals? And so it seems to me that radical is a term that is most applied to those who are imposing something on someone else.
As for marginalizing those in the LGBT community, if someone else’s lifestyle threatened my holding to the Christian faith, then wouldn’t that include everyone who sins? Do those who adhere to other religious faiths threaten me? If the answer is yes, then we shouldn’t we marginalize all in society who follow different religious faiths? BTW, that was part of the justification for the inquisitions and even the executions of those who held to different versions of Christianity as well as different religions Do those who exhibit SSB threaten me with sin? They would only if I have SSA. So we should marginalize in society who exhibit SSB? But then what about those who are heterosexually promiscuous? If they threaten my faith, then shouldn’t we marginalize all in society who are heterosexually promiscuous? Do those who are greedy threaten my Christianity by their example? If so, do we not have to marginalize them in society too? But with all of these marginalizations, what do we read in I Cor 5:
‘9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people; 10 I did not at all mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the greedy and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to leave the world. 11 But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is a sexually immoral person, or a greedy person, or an idolater, or is verbally abusive, or habitually drunk, or a swindler—not even to eat with such a person.‘
And so if we marginalize every group of people represented in I Cor 5, are we not doing a version of what Paul said we would have to do: ‘leave the world.’ In other words, it is Paul’s expectation that we live in the world with people some of whom might entice us into sin. And we are to be in the world with such people in order to bring the Gospel to them. And as Paul says in Galatians 6, we should work humbly with fellow Christians because we can be tempted by sin. And some sins are more tempting than others, especially sexual sins. That is why Paul said in Corinthians that we should have spouses because not all of us have the gifts that Paul has.
I am no longer a father of 2 children, I am a grandfather of 4. But not only that, didn’t Christians who lived during the times of the Apostles face even a more negative society where sexual and other sins were on full display? And what did the Apostles teach those 1st century Christians about how to respond to those temptations? My 2 children were kept relatively safe from temptation because of who they hung around with both in high school and college.
Here is the problem I see with marginalizing the LGBT community in society: it has damaged the reputation of the Gospel. When marginalizing a given community in society, one has given them reasons to further hide their activities as well as created unnecessary animosity. And when 3rd parties see us try to marginalize the LGBT community in society, they see us attacking those who appear to those 3rd parties as being innocent. Now we have created stumbling blocks to hearing the Gospel for 2 groups of people. In addition, I mention SSB in well over 1,000 species of animals because it strongly suggests, if not implies, that there are physical causes for SSA and SSB. And if there are physical causes for SSA and SSB, then shouldn’t that mitigate how we share the Gospel with and how we view them?
Also, regarding the LGBT lifestyles and Romans 1, of course I see the connection. But there are two dangers that face us here. The danger most complained about by my fellow religiously conservative Christians is that we understate the sins mentioned in Romans 1, especially homosexuality. But I also see a danger in overstating the seriousness of homosexuality. As I have mentioned before, homosexuality is described by Paul in a way that tells us not to be surprised when we see that lifestyle practiced among unbelievers. And so even though homosexuality goes against nature as God designed it, it shouldn’t surprise us. And noting that there are probably, if not definitely, physical causes for SSA an SSB according to a person’s own physical nature, then homosexuality is not the outlier of behavior that we have made it out to be. That one could make the case that the sexual sin addressed in I Cor 5 would be counted as a more serious sin than homosexuality as described in Romans 1. And then, how do the Apostles react to this sin and what other sins do they have the same reaction to? And so we need to seek a balance in how we react to the LGBT community.
Finally, as someone who grew up during the final years of Jim Crow, I find the reaction to sexual sins to be extreme compared to the reactions to the different forms of white supremacy. How is it that our time period is more immoral than the times of slavery and Jim Crow in the South, harsh segregation in the North, and the ethnic cleansing of Native Americans throughout America. Many of the people that American forces killed were women and children and we attacked Native Americans because there was at least the appearance of a financial benefit to gaining their land.
John,
Will try to cover issues you brought up that my first comment didn’t address.
There are multiple reasons for why we see SSB in animal species. But one thing that you mentioned that I don’t see. How is it that what has been hypothesized about SSB in animals contributes to reproduction? Such a hypothesis suggests the existence culture within some species. In addition, not sexual activity in animals exists solely for reproduction. Consider the self-stimulation and other practices using different objects by animals in some species.
Regarding Marxism, what tenets in Marxism produce arbitrary and capricious judgements? And here are you referring to a more Stalin approach, which was not Marxism, or a Trotsky approach?
Regarding all of the influences you mentioned that seem to be pushing the LGBT lifestyles, are they pushing those lifestyles on others or promoting equality for the LGBT community?
John,
There is one final issue that I have not addressed yet. There are articles on American Reformer with which I have expressed substantial agreement with. One recent one was on Church music. Another recent one was Ben Dunson’s article opposing the new proposed law on anti-Semitism. Another article a while back was on abortion. And yet another opposed gambling.
I have partial agreement in stating that homosexuality is sin. My disagreement there is with how we react to homosexuals in society.
Why am I here when I disagree with so much? One reason is that to only stay in those internet spaces where one is in substantial agreement promotes ideological, including theological, internet ghettos. Another reason is that I view Christian Nationalism as a serious error, but not heresy, in the Church. I am trying to point out that the main impetus for Christian Nationalism in some of my fellow believers in Christ comes more from authoritarian tendencies and thinking than from the Scriptures. That is why most articles appeal to Reformed and Protestant traditions rather than to the Scriptures. And so what is really being promoted here is an authoritarian follower response to those traditions rather than to what the Scriptures teach.
Thank you Ryan for your warning, and Curt for your responses.
I recognize that my apologetics is weak. Time permitting, I find that my replies to articles or comments are more about me trying to communicate my own understanding in relation to what is written, than to defend doctrine. I am poor at describing what I sense is unbiblical…yet here I am.
Curt, as for radical – perhaps I don’t have a robust definition. If I go to a sporting event, I am celebrating athletic competition. Even when I’m an ultra-biased parent rooting for my children, I respect skill and sportsmanship and teamwork. If I go to the county fair, I like to celebrate the effort people have put into their animals or their crops; I’m not as much into the arts and crafts. But I can still appreciate the skill and investment and enjoyment that exhibitors clearly have. Saturday, I walked the Pride event at our City Park. Clearly I did not wish to celebrate; it was a low-key event…however my sense was a spirit of defensiveness and ‘in your face’ defiance. God doesn’t need me to be offended for Him…I was sad to see so many support what God hates. My prayers were weak.
I also attended a community drug and alcohol recovery event the same day. Certainly there are those who support drunkenness every day at any given bar; however at this event there was a spirit of understanding and support for those who are struggling with substance addiction. The main difference is that those who want help, and those who are giving it, were at the same place.
The good news of the gospel is the greatest gift anyone can receive. From the few LGBT people I talked to…they don’t want that gift, because they don’t think they need it. They don’t see what they are doing as wrong. So as a Christian, all I can do is be present and available when their relationship fails, when the abuse mounts, when their lifestyle doesn’t bring the satisfaction that they were expecting…and point them to the source of all joy and peace, Jesus Christ.
Marginalization is another word I’m probably not using correctly. However, as a young military officer – I was encouraged by many of my peers to be promiscuous and a drunkard. More likely, that’s what I wanted to do, so I hung around people who encouraged it. That lifestyle failed me. The consequences of it brought me to Jesus. I believe that’s want all consequences of wrongdoing are ultimately designed by God to do…bring people before Him. ‘God disciplines those He loves’ was a truth first found in my life before I could see it in anyone else’s.
Switching topics, you clearly have a greater breadth of knowledge about SSB/SSA in animals than I do. Having raised rabbits as a kid…my bucks would attempt to mate with any other rabbit I put in their pen, male or female. My interpretation was that behavior is just what bucks do…try to spread their seed. I don’t see how it really relates to the behavior of humans, guided by conscience (or lack of it) rather than instinct…but I grant that you see it as significantly important. My interpretation of creation in Genesis is that our distinct separation from animals is every bit as distant as it is from angels. Created by God for a special purpose, not on some spectrum of animal or even mammalian behavior.
Your pushback here at American Reformer may be a suffering to be endured; may be iron sharpening iron; or may be a sound resistance to authoritarianism…sorry if I said you were ALWAYS opposed…all or nothing thinking gets me in trouble. As I live in Idaho, where many consider us to be the reddest of states, I’d be open to Christian State-ism or Christian County-ism to see if putting beliefs into practice can bear Godly fruit. Anyhow, thanks for making me think.
John,
Though knowing enough to do apologetics with words can be important, the most important apologetics we can do is with our lives. That is because once we call ourselves a Christian, whatever we do or say as well as what we refrain from doing and saying can be associated with the Gospel by unbelievers. And since James, in chapter 3, reminds us that we all stumble in many ways, that idea that we are the possible cause for people associating negative things with the Gospel should strike fear in our hearts. I know there are quite a few times when my actions and/or words have not reflected well on the Gospel, and I need to work on that. So don’t worry so much about your apologetics being “weak.” Because of how you live, your apologetics might be much stronger than you think and the apologetics of wordy people like me might be weaker than you think. We are all peers here.
What I worry about with any kind of Christian ethnocratic rule over unbelievers, such as Christian Nationalism, is how will it affect the reputation of the Gospel. Think of how we would feel if someone from another religion told us that they were spiritually and morally superior to us and thus they have the right to determine the laws of our nation. Plus Jesus warned us not to ‘lord it over others.’ In addition, I see no justification for Christian Nationalism in the New Testament.
I will provide a quote from Jeff Halper on ethnocracies. Halper is one of the founding members of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD) in Israel and the Occupied territories (see pg 74 from Halper’s An Israeli In Palestine:Resisting Dispossession, Redeeming Israel):
‘An ethnocracy is the opposite of a democracy, although it might incorporate some elements of democracy such as universal citizenship and elections. It arises when one particular group—the Jews in Israel, the Russians in Russia, the Protestants in pre-1972 Northern Ireland, the whites in apartheid South Africa, the Shi’ite Muslims of Iran, the Malay of Malaysia and, if they had their way, the white Christian fundamentalist in the US—seizes control of the government and the armed forces in order to enforce a regime of exclusive privilege over other groups in what is in fact a multi-ethic or multi-religious society. Ethnocracy, or ethno-nationalism, privileges ethnos over demos. whereby one’s ethnic affiliation, be it defined by race, descent, religion, language or national origin, takes precedence over citizenship in determining to whom a country actually “belongs.” Israel is referred to explicitly by its political leaders as a “Jewish Democracy.”‘
Curt, I’d like to be an example of “the Bible bound in shoe leather” or “Jesus with skin on” as some put it, but I know I fall short. It’s probably a good thing that I’ve not been a very good example, lest I become conceited. Thankfully, God’s grace is sufficient, and His power is made perfect in weakness.
There’s a saying in recovery; “Don’t let anyone else take your chair.” I take it to mean that I shouldn’t let the behavior of another, or my feelings towards them prevent me from coming to a meeting. My limited experience is that unbelievers who blame their unbelief on the behaviors or feelings toward believers are really just making excuses. Giving someone else the power to prevent me from having a relationship with the Creator of the universe is weak justification for something I didn’t want to do anyway.
So many people see religion as restrictive or a list of ‘don’ts’ that they never even consider the true freedom that is available in Christ. So too, seem the negative arguments about Christian Nationalism. Perhaps I’m too naively for King and Country (God as King, just to be clear), that I don’t fear the effort to establish a clear national hierarchy of God -> Bible -> Constitution -> Representative Government & Lesser Magistrate -> Citizen. The quote you posted uses the terms “seize control” and “enforce a regime.” I don’t hear anyone supporting Christian Nationalism using those terms, only those who fear it and don’t want to really think about what obeying God and loving people looks like as a national anthem.
The earliest civics lesson I can remember is majority rules/minority rights. If we had a majority in America that believed/followed the hierarchy I listed, we wouldn’t have to name it, Christian Nationalism would just exist. Those in the minority would be protected…though I’m sure there would be abuses that would many would count as failures. So I pray that one day soon there will be a city on a hill, then a county, then a state that shows that looking to God and His word can be a successful government platform.
As for what the Bible says…if I were President, King or Grand Poobah for a day – Romans 13 seems like a good place to start. Be blessed!
John,
I hear different things than you do from Christian Nationalists, including from those writers whose articles appear here. Seizing control is a prerequisite to. being make laws that prohibit blasphemy and enforce other religiously banned behaviors. After all, to enforce those laws, one must at least have control of law enforcement and the justice system if not other parts of the government too. But also consider that, in America, whoever has the Presidency has control of the military since the President is the Commander and Chief of the Military. And what would make an ethnic seizing of the military is if the President rules in a way that privileges an ethnic group or groups over people from other ethnicities. And religion is an ethnicity.
Halper is describing an ethnocracy from an Israeli context. In short, the privileging of an ethnic group or groups over the other ethnic groups in laws, policies, positions of power and so forth is an ethnocracy. Halper hits on this when he says that we have an ethnocracy when the nation is said to belong more to one or more ethnic groups than it does to the rest of the people. That is what they have in Israel, and that is what we would have with Christian Nationalism. According to the Christian Nationalists here and elsewhere, they are seeking to take their country back. But back from whom? And what position would those from whom the country was taken back then have in the nation? Right there we have two groups. There is one or more ethnic groups to whom the nation belongs to more than to the rest and you have the rest.
BTW, in terms of how many times you have failed to live out the Christian life, remember that we are all peers. We have all failed quite often to live the way we should.