The decline of nominal and sacral Christianity in America

[Josh]

Except you’ve conflated building the kingdom with promoting a specific political faction’s views on migration and economic policy.

[MaxPC]

Ephesians 6:10-18

Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm. Stand therefore, having fastened on the belt of truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, ...

Romans 8:31-39
God's Everlasting Love

What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? As it is written,
“For your sake we are being killed all the day long;
    we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered.”
No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

John 16:33
I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world.”

Romans 13:11
Besides this you know the time, that the hour has come for you to wake from sleep. For salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed.

[Bootstrap]

Except you’ve conflated building the kingdom with promoting a specific political faction’s views on migration and economic policy.

I don't think so, I think I am letting the Bible tell me that we should care about refugees. Christians should start with the Bible, not with political rhetoric. Where I live, the largest Southern Baptist church is also the biggest supporter of refugees, this used to be something that Christians agreed on across the political spectrum.

I think this is relevant: What does the Bible say about refugees?

I don't like the way that some political factions have turned refugees into scapegoats, teaching people to resent them. That doesn't seem Christlike to me. Or biblical. Remember the Good Samaritan? I think we, as Christians, should be good neighbors to those around us, especially those in real need. Doesn't mean the country can or should let everyone in, but it does say something about the attitude we should have toward them.

Christians are here to love and serve and build the Kingdom of God.

[Josh]

Except you’ve conflated building the kingdom with promoting a specific political faction’s views on migration and economic policy.

I don't think so, I think I am letting the Bible tell me that we should care about refugees. Christians should start with the Bible, not with political rhetoric. Where I live, the largest Southern Baptist church is also the biggest supporter of refugees, this used to be something that Christians agreed on across the political spectrum.

The Bible doesn't say anything about encouraging economic migration, which is what most "refugees" actually are. I know you keep wanting to deny this, but the lived experience of anyone actually in Central America is that, indeed, nearly all impetus for migration is for economic reasons.

Christians don't have a duty to help other people pursue as much wealth as possible.

I think this is relevant: What does the Bible say about refugees?

I don't like the way that some political factions have turned refugees into scapegoats, teaching people to resent them. That doesn't seem Christlike to me. Or biblical. Remember the Good Samaritan? I think we, as Christians, should be good neighbors to those around us, especially those in real need. Doesn't mean the country can or should let everyone in, but it does say something about the attitude we should have toward them.

Christians are here to love and serve and build the Kingdom of God.

Correct. And the Kingdom of God is not about promoting "economic opportunity" by encouraging endless population churn, which has the interesting side effect of making the wealthy even wealthier - but makes the poor poorer, depresses working class wages, and hollows out poor communities that lose residents to migration and results in a brain drain of highly skilled people. Nothing about this is the "kingdom of God".

[Ken]

Except you’ve conflated building the kingdom with promoting a specific political faction’s views on migration and economic policy.

I don't think so, I think I am letting the Bible tell me that we should care about refugees. Christians should start with the Bible, not with political rhetoric. Where I live, the largest Southern Baptist church is also the biggest supporter of refugees, this used to be something that Christians agreed on across the political spectrum.

The Bible doesn't say anything about encouraging economic migration, which is what most "refugees" actually are. I know you keep wanting to deny this, but the lived experience of anyone actually in Central America is that, indeed, nearly all impetus for migration is for economic reasons.

Christians don't have a duty to help other people pursue as much wealth as possible.

I think this is relevant: What does the Bible say about refugees?

I don't like the way that some political factions have turned refugees into scapegoats, teaching people to resent them. That doesn't seem Christlike to me. Or biblical. Remember the Good Samaritan? I think we, as Christians, should be good neighbors to those around us, especially those in real need. Doesn't mean the country can or should let everyone in, but it does say something about the attitude we should have toward them.

Christians are here to love and serve and build the Kingdom of God.

Correct. And the Kingdom of God is not about promoting "economic opportunity" by encouraging endless population churn, which has the interesting side effect of making the wealthy even wealthier - but makes the poor poorer, depresses working class wages, and hollows out poor communities that lose residents to migration and results in a brain drain of highly skilled people. Nothing about this is the "kingdom of God".

Some are actually fleeing starvation and homelessness. Which is ultimately economic as there is plenty of food in Central America. But it is hardly just folks looking to get rich. They are economic refugees in the sense that they are fleeing dire economic circumstances, as opposed to say political or religious persecution.

I don't recall the bible making any such distinctions about which strangers and immigrants are worthy of help and which are not. In fact there is an awful lot in the bible about helping the poor.

[RZehr]

I consider myself pretty pro immigration, whether economic or otherwise. However, it is hard for me to justify illegal economic migration as any more superior ethically speaking, than fraud. If it's okay to break laws to come, in order to enrich oneself, how is it different than a business ignoring licensing fees? Or how about practicing medicine, or construction without a license? Or hiring under age people? At the core, it is all people cheating the system in order to make money, isn't it? Although its pretty hard to put Bernie Madoff in the same category as a Guatemalan immigrant.

But as far as the OP-
As religion declines in America, so will its political power and influence. While that may be a good thing in the big picture, the spiritual picture, it will eventually have repercussions for true Christians. There will be immense pressure in years to come over speech. Preaching against sin, particularly sexual sin will probably be grounds to be "cancelled". True Christians will become very unpopular, and labeled "bigots" and "haters", etc. Today, there is still enough cultural understanding in America to at least grasp what Christianity teaches, but probably at some point it will become strange. It already is in some quarters.

[Ken]

I consider myself pretty pro immigration, whether economic or otherwise. However, it is hard for me to justify illegal economic migration as any more superior ethically speaking, than fraud. If it's okay to break laws to come, in order to enrich oneself, how is it different than a business ignoring licensing fees? Or how about practicing medicine, or construction without a license? Or hiring under age people? At the core, it is all people cheating the system in order to make money, isn't it? Although its pretty hard to put Bernie Madoff in the same category as a Guatemalan immigrant.

But as far as the OP-
As religion declines in America, so will its political power and influence. While that may be a good thing in the big picture, the spiritual picture, it will eventually have repercussions for true Christians. There will be immense pressure in years to come over speech. Preaching against sin, particularly sexual sin will probably be grounds to be "cancelled". True Christians will become very unpopular, and labeled "bigots" and "haters", etc. Today, there is still enough cultural understanding in America to at least grasp what Christianity teaches, but probably at some point it will become strange. It already is in some quarters.

Except that none of the migrants presenting themselves at the border with asylum claims, or any of the minor children doing the same thing are breaking any laws at all. They are following them.

As for religion? I tend to think that the farther Christianity separates itself from politics the healthier it will be. Almost all of the pushback against Christianity is in the political realm. People generally don’t care about ministers preaching against sin within their own churches and congregations. They object when religious teachings are expanded into the political realm and religious leaders try to implement them as policy, applicable to all whether Christian or non-Christian.

Preach all you want about marriage within your own church or congregation and no one will notice or care. No one anywhere cares what the Amish position on marriage is, for example. But lobby for a state law that prohibits gay marriage for everyone and expect to get political pushback and be labeled a bigot.

[RZehr]

When the vast majority in this country shared a common Christian culture, Christians were not sued for rejecting gay cakes. Nor were their businesses boycotted because of their Christian beliefs. Nor were they under threat of being “cancelled” for “hate” speech.
These are things that we can expect to see more of as the country becomes less “Christian” culturally. And there will become a time when it is not accepted to preach truth. Maybe within the four walls of a church building will be the last refuge of preaching freely, but to preach and broadcast truth, whether on radio, television or internet will become a high risk endeavor with real consequences.
Sure, we can preach 100% truth now. But there will become 1% then 2% etc of topics that will slowly become extremely risky to speak truth on.
You think there’s no consequences for speaking against homosexuality in SanFran? You think you could climb the social ladder in Waco by speaking out against the military?

[Ken]

When the vast majority in this country shared a common Christian culture, Christians were not sued for rejecting gay cakes. Nor were their businesses boycotted because of their Christian beliefs. Nor were they under threat of being “cancelled” for “hate” speech.
These are things that we can expect to see more of as the country becomes less “Christian” culturally. And there will become a time when it is not accepted to preach truth. Maybe within the four walls of a church building will be the last refuge of preaching freely, but to preach and broadcast truth, whether on radio, television or internet will become a high risk endeavor with real consequences.
Sure, we can preach 100% truth now. But there will become 1% then 2% etc of topics that will slowly become extremely risky to speak truth on.
You think there’s no consequences for speaking against homosexuality in SanFran? You think you could climb the social ladder in Waco by speaking out against the military?

We forget our history. I would argue that persecution of Mennonites and Catholics and other sects who weren't part of the dominant Christian mainstream was FAR more severe in previous generations than today. I expect we both have have ancestors who were brutalized for their pacifist stands during WW1 and to a lesser extend during WW2. And perhaps the Civil War, although those stories are fading from memory. None of that would happen today.

Anti-Catholic sentiment was absolutely virulent in the 19th Century. The main reason why Catholics built such a large network of religious schools and universities in this country was that they were discriminated against in the public schools and universities run by mainstream protestants. The Ku Klux Klan wasn't just an anti-black organization. It was just as anti-Catholic and terrorized Catholic families and institutions in many southern towns.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story ... cs-213177/

Some evangelical wedding cake baker who gets bad yelp reviews for refusing to sell to gay couples is not remotely in the same league as the discrimination and hatred that previous generations of Christians faced in the US who were not part of the dominant white protestant majority.

As for your examples? Taking a pacifist stand from a Christian perspective would be utterly uncontroversial in Waco. There are peace churches there including Mennonites and Quakers and various other groups with a pacifist perspective. What would ruin one's social and professional standing would be to take an overtly secular or atheist stand in public.

And honestly there are anti-gay preachers all the time in San Francisco. No one pays them any attention. I was just there last summer with my family visiting colleges and getting passports renewed at the Chilean Consulate in downtown San Francisco. Our hotel was a block from Union Square and there were anti-gay preachers out preaching away in the center of Union Square, which is the center of the city and frankly no one was paying any attention. But start a POLITICAL campaign to repeal gay marriage in San Francisco and you will get instant and furious pushback. Guaranteed. Speak and preach whatever you want in a big city and frankly no one cares. It is a cacophony of voices of every kind. But organize a political campaign to strip away the rights of others and you will generate furious and intense political opposition. Its the politics not the religion that inspires opposition.

[GaryK]

We forget our history. I would argue that persecution of Mennonites and Catholics and other sects who weren't part of the dominant Christian mainstream was FAR more severe in previous generations than today. I expect we both have have ancestors who were brutalized for their pacifist stands during WW1 and to a lesser extend during WW2. And perhaps the Civil War, although those stories are fading from memory. None of that would happen today.

Are you talking about US history in reference to the persecution of Mennonites by the dominant Christian mainstream? If so, what are your sources? I thought the early Mennonites left the old world for the new world because of persecution. When there was opposition to pacifism during the wars, did that opposition come from the dominant Christian mainstream or was it from government?