False Idol — Why the Christian Right Worships Donald Trump

[Judas Maccabeus]

Correct. But I don’t believe we should be trying to harness the coercive power of the armed state to enforce this. The weapons of OUR war are not those of the carnal state. We have better weapons.

J.M.

Right, so I don't lobby the govenrment or try to influence its elections and policies.

But I can still hold an opinion that murder should be illegal.

As do I, but we have far better ways to stop it than to use the state.

J.M.

[temporal1]

Correct. But I don’t believe we should be trying to harness the coercive power of the armed state to enforce this. The weapons of OUR war are not those of the carnal state. We have better weapons.
J.M.

Right, so I don't lobby the govenrment or try to influence its elections and policies.
But I can still hold an opinion that murder should be illegal.

As do I, but we have far better ways to stop it than to use the state.
J.M.

On this forum, there are Anabaptists who say they do not agree with abortion-infanticide-euthansaia, etc., but vote for it anyway. When questioned, they explain, “yes-but,” there are more pressing wrongs that justify their votes.

Some don’t vote, but agree with those who do. Or, something like that. It becomes confusing.
But, it seems to boil down to: conservatives are bad in general, Trump is particularly evil.

(In my view) this thread’s subject line is a false premise. Also confusing-distracting.

(In my view) altho the subject line is based on The Stones’ article, it might read more honestly if something more like, “False Idols - Christians beware of grave sins.”

A lot because (i think) everything about The Stones’ existence hovers around idol worship.
Pots+kettles.

J.M.,
i believe you are a medical physician?
In order to practice medicine, if gov mandated you to perform abortions-infanticide, and/or refer patients to abortionists, whether they were interested or not, how would you respond?

[Bootstrap]

I still think Christians would do better to create safe places for pregnant women to come and have their children, helping them provide for themselves, mentoring. I would much rather see billboards advertising where women can come to be helped by Christians who want to care for them and their babies. To me, that feels more like Jesus. And I suspect it might do more to change the way our culture feels about abortion.

Do you think that's how Christians should treat violent sex offenders? Create "safe places" for them to come, along with their victims, and try to provide "mentoring".

I don't understand your analogy.

How is providing a safe place for women to live and bring their children to birth similar to creating a safe place for sex offenders to reoffend? How is caring for women in need similar to enabling sex offenders?

[PeterG]

(My inner troll is sorely tempted to start a Clinton vs. Mugabe poll, btw.)

In your hypothetical poll, how would you respond?

Clinton.

[PeterG]

The debate that National Conservatives and the editors of First Things are fostering is important and necessary, it is decidedly not about "power and control" and has nothing to do with "Trump worship" as you so blithely refer to "much of the Christian Right". Rather it's about rethinking some of the radical, individualist assumptions that have heretofore undergirded our politics and which are now breaking down.

I don't understand how it can possibly *not* be about power and control. When I first read Ahmari's essay it just about gave me chills when I got to the part at the end about using civility and decency to "regulate compliance" and "enforce our order and our orthodoxy."

I re-read the last paragraph and maybe I'm desensitized but it doesn't give me chills.

To be clear, I'm not so concerned that Ahmari's vision would create an oppressive government. What deeply disturbs me is the way he talks so explicitly and positively about the Christian use of carnal power.

It seems quite rational. He asserts that the Progressive Left regulates compliance with established order and orthodoxy - and that we should in turn attempt to do the same. That strikes me as nothing more than using the democratic process to pass laws, laws that don't debase people but dignify them, laws that don't defy nature but accord with it, laws that encourage people to be virtuous instead of licentious libertines.

The democratic process and the use of civil law are part of the worldly, carnal power structure. And it's jarring to see a Christian conservative tell us that acting more like the Progressive Left would be a step in the right direction.

I know from previous conversations that you understand that radical, individual freedom is a potent and damaging force in American society.

Absolutely.

Restrictive, constraining law might be a good counter-balance to that force.

Probably sometimes. But such an end in no way justifies the use of carnal power in contradiction to the teaching and example of Jesus and the apostles.

Perhaps I am being to generous to Amhari but I simply do not read him as advocating theocracy and the actual physical destruction of the Left.

I don't suppose he aspires to remold America as some kind of Christian Iran, but I have to wonder a little when he says things like—

“The only way is through”—that is to say, to fight the culture war with the aim of defeating the enemy and enjoying the spoils in the form of a public square re-ordered to the common good and ultimately the Highest Good.

[PeterG]

As I understand Rom. 13, its statements on government are descriptive, not prescriptive. Rulers are presented as occupying their positions due to God's ordination of them, with no exceptions or qualifications—"There is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God." A ruler's presence in his position is sufficient to demonstrate that he is fulfilling God's sovereign purpose for him, to punish evil and reward good. This by no means suggests God's approval of any government, any more than his judgement of Israel through the Assyrians suggests his approval of the Assyrians.

I agree that all governments, good and bad, derive their power from God's ordination. I do not suggest that God approves in any sort of salutatory way of any one particular government. Nevertheless, and as you mention, God ordains government for a reason or reasons. What's more, both common sense and the OT prophets remind us that some governments are better than others. For what it's worth, the Honduran government is pretty awful but still not as bad as some of the other regimes that you mentioned. How do we define what a good or bad government is? In large part it must be the degree to which they are fulfilling their God-ordained purpose and the manner in which they do so.

I really am curious about how you'd answer the first question that I asked: "How is a government supposed to recognize what evil is and thusly punish it?"

I suppose that the closer a government's understanding of good and evil is to the understanding given by God in the Bible, the better that government will be. But due to the profoundly unchristian nature of civil government, such an understanding will be hopelessly compromised at best.

[PeterG]

Honest question—how is this position distinct from theonomy?

Very good question.

I don't understand why a rejection of liberal proceduralism and the mythical "Neutral Public Square" necessarily begets theonomy? Amhari isn't an integralist, theocrat or theonomist and his views are essentially drawn from Natural Law Theory which, is many things but not theonomistic.

You are clearly more familiar than I am with these positions. (I've heard of integralism, but I'd have to look it up...) Theonomy was probably an overly specific ideology for me to pick out. Nonetheless, Ahmari's views seem to lead in the general direction of something like Calvin's Geneva. If the public square will not be neutral, toward what will it be oriented, and what will keep it that way?

[PeterG]

I’m puzzled by any Christian who thinks it’s wrong for the government to pass laws making it a crime to murder babies, and argues instead that “we should try to change hearts instead”.

There's nothing wrong with opposition to abortion; what's wrong is the pursuit and exercise of carnal power, for any purpose.

[AnthonyMartin]

I’m puzzled by any Christian who thinks it’s wrong for the government to pass laws making it a crime to murder babies, and argues instead that “we should try to change hearts instead”.

There's nothing wrong with opposition to abortion; what's wrong is the pursuit and exercise of carnal power, for any purpose.

What about the carnal power played out in nearly all church settings? I struggle to see the difference. It seems to me that it frequently just ends up being earthly governance structure
and carnal power on a smaller scale.

[mike]

I’m puzzled by any Christian who thinks it’s wrong for the government to pass laws making it a crime to murder babies, and argues instead that “we should try to change hearts instead”.

There's nothing wrong with opposition to abortion; what's wrong is the pursuit and exercise of carnal power, for any purpose.

What about the carnal power played out in nearly all church settings? I struggle to see the difference. It seems to me that it frequently just ends up being earthly governance structure
and carnal power on a smaller scale.

You can't see a difference between shooting somebody with a gun and terminating someone's church membership because they are living in sin?