The decline of nominal and sacral Christianity in America

[Ken]

I would refer you to the 10 Commandments. Hinduism most certainly violates the first three (or first two depending on how you count). According to scripture, a Hindu couple who is worshipping multiple false gods and keeping graven images and idols in their house is living in just as much sin as a gay couple. I'm not aware of any place in the bible that ranks sins on a scale of 1 to 10 and says we should tolerate some more than others. In 1 Kings 18 the prophet Elijah slaughtered 450 prophets of Baal for worshiping false gods.

The larger point is that you can find a near infinite number of ways in which the larger diverse outside world violates some tenant or teaching of Christianity found in the Old or New Testament. The question is, which ones should Christians make a stand on and attempt to impose on the outside world?

We follow Jesus and the teachings of the New Testament. It tells us how to interact with non-believers and how to interact with believers. It also tells us some general guidance on not participating in sin. To participate in a gay wedding or to aid it would be sin. To aid a Muslim first marriage is not sin. To aid the same Muslim in a ritual killing of a convert to say, Hinduism would be sin.
Impose isn't what is being done, rather the culture surrounding us is trying to impose its value system on us. Trying to avoid selling wedding cakes to two guys getting married when there is plenty of other options is not imposing your values but seeking out a Christian bakery to make the cake is. Hunting for the privately advertised Mennonite marriage retreat house and trying to rent it and then suing because they won't rent to a gay couple is trying to impose.

As to the answer to the last question... None of them. Our role is to call them to repentance and not to be involved in their sin.

I understand that you make the distinction. I'm not convinced that making such a distinction has a biblical basis. In both cases the couple will be living in sin according to the tenets of Christianity.

[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?

What are my sources? I have great uncles who were beaten and brutalized for refusing military induction in 1917. That's how they did it. Conscientious objectors were beaten and brutalized by the military in order to test the strength of their faith as a matter of policy. You want better sources? Here are a few:

The Plain Mennonite Face of the World War One Conscientious Objector: https://kb.osu.edu/bitstream/handle/181 ... 75-201.pdf

Kansas Mennonites during World War One: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/214531076.pdf

Remembering muted voices: WWI conscientious objectors: https://anabaptistworld.org/remembering ... objectors/

I'm sorry, I misread your post. For some reason I was thinking you were implying that the dominant Christian mainstream were the ones opposing the Mennonites.

[Soloist]

I understand that you make the distinction. I'm not convinced that making such a distinction has a biblical basis. In both cases the couple will be living in sin according to the tenets of Christianity.

Yes they are. We are not judging them as they are outside the church. Now if they were attending church and trying to hang on to their pagan worship... well we would deal with it.

How would you say that allowing a marriage on your property is sin?

[Josh]

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.

They got financially ruined by the state suing them. That's not the same thing as a "bad yelp review".

The homosexual "couple" specifically looked for a caterer that would not decorate a cake with words explicitly printed/spelled out, and then used that as grounds to sue. That's different than "refusing to sell to gay couples".

[Josh]

Should a Christian public school teacher tell her students who's parents and older siblings serve in the military that they are sinning against God's will by wearing uniforms and taking up arms?

Yes, we should teach children that killing other people is wrong, even if the person who does it wears a uniform.

Should a Christian public school teacher tell his wealthy students that their families are sinning by gathering up worldly treasures?

Yes. (Mennonite private school teachers should teach wealthy students the same thing.)

Should a Christian public school teacher advocate for the stoning of students who blaspheme or take the Lord's name in vain as Moses commanded? (Leviticus 24.11-23)

No, because Christians don't promote or believe in living under the old law.

Mormons ... Muslim ...

I'm not sure why false faiths are particularly relevant, although I would not object to Mormons and Muslims promoting many of their moral values. For example, I would welcome Muslim teaching on areas like wealth and finances, which teach against the sin of usury.

And honestly, if American Christianity can only survive if it is in the majority and able to wield the power of the state to enforce it's doctrine then it isn't much of a religion, and frankly isn't very Christian.

Of course not. I just challenge your narrative that it is somehow "better" to have a dominant secularist worldview that seems to only worship power and money. That's not an improvement over religious values.

[Josh]

I understand that you make the distinction. I'm not convinced that making such a distinction has a biblical basis. In both cases the couple will be living in sin according to the tenets of Christianity.

A Muslim marriage is not a sin in any Christian worldview I am aware of. And in fact, neither is a Christian marriage in a Muslim worldview.

Same-sex "marriages" are a sin in both Christian and Muslim worldviews, however.

[HondurasKeiser]

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.

Ken, this is an example of what I think is your tendency to wave-off as silly or alarmist or having a martyr-complex, the concerns and worries of people to the right of you. What's more, the framing of your scenario as a binary option between privately held beliefs expressed in Houses of Worship vs. lobbying for rolling back Obergefell, is I think, too simplistic a characterization of the situation. Certainly, very few people here expect to see the Supreme Court rescind same-sex marriage and even fewer I think are lobbying in any sort of way to make "traditional marriage" the law of the land. What is amazing to those of who believe that same-sex mariage is not just sinful but an antinomic category error is the rapidity with which, in the words of Christopher Caldwell "gay marriage has gone from joke to dogma". That overnight shift from pipe dream (even among gay rights activists) to law of the land and the mark of an enlightened, moral, right-thinking person is emblematic of the decline that RZehr was getting at in the OP. What worries us then is not the fact that 2 gay men get married in Sheboygan, for us that's merely a poor imitation and a mockery of marriage. What truly worries us is the fact that increasingly all signs point to a future with a severely diminished ability to hold to a truthful understanding of marriage, even privately and in our Houses of Worship, without incurring serious repercussions, socially, economically, professionally, etc. To be sure, none of us here I think can claim any sort of special persecution on the part of the State or even some private entity for holding to right beliefs about marriage. Indeed, even the famous "cake artist" was vindicated by the Supreme Court; though curiously enough not on Religious Freedom grounds and only after he'd been declared persona non grata by the Colorado Human Rights Commission and at great personal expense. A fair reading of that particular case must also note that he has been subsequently and repeatedly targeted by LGBTQ activists and currently has another case working its way through the courts for his refusal to create a cake celebrating a trans person's transition. As observers to that dog and pony show, we traditionalists ask ourselves: "Is that an example of things to come?" - "What happens when the composition of the court changes, will it then become 'Bake the Cake Bigot'?" - "Could we potentially lose our livelihoods, not for teaching our students that gay marriage is sinful, but for simply refusing to wear the Pride in a loud and proud way?" These aren't illegitimate questions, however silly they may seem right now.

A few years ago, just on the heels of the Obergefell decision, David Gushee, a prominent and liberal-leaning Evangelical wrote over at RNS the following:

Middle ground is disappearing on the question of whether LGBT persons should be treated as full equals, without any discrimination in society — and on the related question of whether religious institutions should be allowed to continue discriminating due to their doctrinal beliefs.

It turns out that you are either for full and unequivocal social and legal equality for LGBT people, or you are against it, and your answer will at some point be revealed. This is true both for individuals and for institutions.

Neutrality is not an option. Neither is polite half-acceptance. Nor is avoiding the subject. Hide as you might, the issue will come and find you.

Legal changes are certainly playing a role. The 2015 Supreme Court decision mandating recognition of gay marriage in all 50 states was obviously important.

But most visible institutions of American life had abandoned discrimination against LGBT people before that. Today, these same groups are increasingly intolerant of any remaining discrimination, or even any effort to stay in a neutral middle ground. As with the fight against racial discrimination in the 1960s and 1970s, sexual-orientation and gender-identity discrimination is rapidly being rejected by society.

Institutions where full LGBT equality is mandatory now include any entity associated with the federal government, including the military and the civil service.

And the vast majority of the education sector, its schools, trade groups, accreditors and staff, both because of the values of most educators and because of federal regulations.

And most clinical, medical and helping professions, associations and leaders.

And most titans of corporate America.

And most of the media and entertainment business, including its most visible celebrities.

And most of the nonprofit and civil society sector, including former longtime holdouts like the Boy Scouts.

And most of the sports world, including its famous athletes.

And many state and local governments and their leaders.

And the vast majority of America’s secularists; minorities in many other American religious communities; and majorities in some of these religious communities.

...not only is LGBT equality now doctrine, sympathy for religious liberty exceptions is drying up quickly.
Openly discriminatory religious schools and parachurch organizations will feel the pinch first. Any entity that requires government accreditation or touches government dollars will be in the immediate line of fire. Some organizations will face the choice either to abandon discriminatory policies or risk potential closure. Others will simply face increasing social marginalization.

A vast host of neutralist, avoidist or de facto discriminatory institutions and individuals will also find that they can no longer finesse the LGBT issue. Space for neutrality or “mild” discrimination will close up as well.

Mr. Gushee is an eager advocate for full LGBTQ inclusion in the Church and so we take him and people like him at his word. This is the future they desire. A future that makes it increasingly difficult to be neutral on the gay inclusion question; a future that makes it increasingly difficult to hold retrograde views on same-sex marriage (even in private). The Overton Window has shifted and is shifting and we are increasingly outside of it. Will we be allowed to live outside the Window without serious detriment to our professional lives? How'd that work out for Brendan Eich?

The rapidity with which gay marriage was accepted as good and right by society-at-large, the strange way in which Brendan Eich lost his job, the ongoing and systematic targeting of Jack Phillips for refusing to violate his conscience, the utterances of Democratic wunderkinds in favor of rescinding tax-exempt status for Churches that "deny the full human rights and the full civil rights of every single one of us.", the prognostications and smarmy finger-waggings from liberal theologians; taken in the aggregate, signal to us that the screws are about to be turned if we persist in our thinking. Your dismissal of our reading of the signs may be correct, we may be reading far too much into things, after all, we still have the Courts, none of us is being hauled off to jail for refusing to attend gay weddings, churches that refuse to engage in dialogue with militant Pink factions of their own membership are still allowed to meet on Zoom. Or, your response to us could be another example of the 'Law of Merited Impossibility':

It’s a complete absurdity to believe that Christians will suffer a single thing from the expansion of gay rights, and boy, do they deserve what they’re going to get.

I will close with this and I do hope you take what I've written not as an attack but as my perception of your perception of we traditionalists. After David Gushee published his predictions of the narrowing of space for neutrality on gay rights; Andrew T. Walker published a response to him in which he asked the following questions. I would be curious to see how you and SZD would respond to these questions:

1. Are Christians who hold to the historical position on sexual ethics engaging in invidious discrimination?
2. Are Christians who hold to the historic position on sexual ethics holding the same type of beliefs and engaging in the same types of
actions as avowed racists?
3. Can there be actual disagreement on this issue that doesn’t impute to the other side the worst possible motivations?
4. Can there be a state of mutual respect that allows for different people to reach different conclusions about the purposes of human
embodiment?

[silentreader]

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.

Ken, this is an example of what I think is your tendency to wave-off as silly or alarmist or having a martyr-complex, the concerns and worries of people to the right of you. What's more, the framing of your scenario as a binary option between privately held beliefs expressed in Houses of Worship vs. lobbying for rolling back Obergefell, is I think, too simplistic a characterization of the situation. Certainly, very few people here expect to see the Supreme Court rescind same-sex marriage and even fewer I think are lobbying in any sort of way to make "traditional marriage" the law of the land. What is amazing to those of who believe that same-sex mariage is not just sinful but an antinomic category error is the rapidity with which, in the words of Christopher Caldwell "gay marriage has gone from joke to dogma". That overnight shift from pipe dream (even among gay rights activists) to law of the land and the mark of an enlightened, moral, right-thinking person is emblematic of the decline that RZehr was getting at in the OP. What worries us then is not the fact that 2 gay men get married in Sheboygan, for us that's merely a poor imitation and a mockery of marriage. What truly worries us is the fact that increasingly all signs point to a future with a severely diminished ability to hold to a truthful understanding of marriage, even privately and in our Houses of Worship, without incurring serious repercussions, socially, economically, professionally, etc. To be sure, none of us here I think can claim any sort of special persecution on the part of the State or even some private entity for holding to right beliefs about marriage. Indeed, even the famous "cake artist" was vindicated by the Supreme Court; though curiously enough not on Religious Freedom grounds and only after he'd been declared persona non grata by the Colorado Human Rights Commission and at great personal expense. A fair reading of that particular case must also note that he has been subsequently and repeatedly targeted by LGBTQ activists and currently has another case working its way through the courts for his refusal to create a cake celebrating a trans person's transition. As observers to that dog and pony show, we traditionalists ask ourselves: "Is that an example of things to come?" - "What happens when the composition of the court changes, will it then become 'Bake the Cake Bigot'?" - "Could we potentially lose our livelihoods, not for teaching our students that gay marriage is sinful, but for simply refusing to wear the Pride in a loud and proud way?" These aren't illegitimate questions, however silly they may seem right now.

A few years ago, just on the heels of the Obergefell decision, David Gushee, a prominent and liberal-leaning Evangelical wrote over at RNS the following:

Middle ground is disappearing on the question of whether LGBT persons should be treated as full equals, without any discrimination in society — and on the related question of whether religious institutions should be allowed to continue discriminating due to their doctrinal beliefs.

It turns out that you are either for full and unequivocal social and legal equality for LGBT people, or you are against it, and your answer will at some point be revealed. This is true both for individuals and for institutions.

Neutrality is not an option. Neither is polite half-acceptance. Nor is avoiding the subject. Hide as you might, the issue will come and find you.

Legal changes are certainly playing a role. The 2015 Supreme Court decision mandating recognition of gay marriage in all 50 states was obviously important.

But most visible institutions of American life had abandoned discrimination against LGBT people before that. Today, these same groups are increasingly intolerant of any remaining discrimination, or even any effort to stay in a neutral middle ground. As with the fight against racial discrimination in the 1960s and 1970s, sexual-orientation and gender-identity discrimination is rapidly being rejected by society.

Institutions where full LGBT equality is mandatory now include any entity associated with the federal government, including the military and the civil service.

And the vast majority of the education sector, its schools, trade groups, accreditors and staff, both because of the values of most educators and because of federal regulations.

And most clinical, medical and helping professions, associations and leaders.

And most titans of corporate America.

And most of the media and entertainment business, including its most visible celebrities.

And most of the nonprofit and civil society sector, including former longtime holdouts like the Boy Scouts.

And most of the sports world, including its famous athletes.

And many state and local governments and their leaders.

And the vast majority of America’s secularists; minorities in many other American religious communities; and majorities in some of these religious communities.

...not only is LGBT equality now doctrine, sympathy for religious liberty exceptions is drying up quickly.
Openly discriminatory religious schools and parachurch organizations will feel the pinch first. Any entity that requires government accreditation or touches government dollars will be in the immediate line of fire. Some organizations will face the choice either to abandon discriminatory policies or risk potential closure. Others will simply face increasing social marginalization.

A vast host of neutralist, avoidist or de facto discriminatory institutions and individuals will also find that they can no longer finesse the LGBT issue. Space for neutrality or “mild” discrimination will close up as well.

Mr. Gushee is an eager advocate for full LGBTQ inclusion in the Church and so we take him and people like him at his word. This is the future they desire. A future that makes it increasingly difficult to be neutral on the gay inclusion question; a future that makes it increasingly difficult to hold retrograde views on same-sex marriage (even in private). The Overton Window has shifted and is shifting and we are increasingly outside of it. Will we be allowed to live outside the Window without serious detriment to our professional lives? How'd that work out for Brendan Eich?

The rapidity with which gay marriage was accepted as good and right by society-at-large, the strange way in which Brendan Eich lost his job, the ongoing and systematic targeting of Jack Phillips for refusing to violate his conscience, the utterances of Democratic wunderkinds in favor of rescinding tax-exempt status for Churches that "deny the full human rights and the full civil rights of every single one of us.", the prognostications and smarmy finger-waggings from liberal theologians; taken in the aggregate, signal to us that the screws are about to be turned if we persist in our thinking. Your dismissal of our reading of the signs may be correct, we may be reading far too much into things, after all, we still have the Courts, none of us is being hauled off to jail for refusing to attend gay weddings, churches that refuse to engage in dialogue with militant Pink factions of their own membership are still allowed to meet on Zoom. Or, your response to us could be another example of the 'Law of Merited Impossibility':

It’s a complete absurdity to believe that Christians will suffer a single thing from the expansion of gay rights, and boy, do they deserve what they’re going to get.

I will close with this and I do hope you take what I've written not as an attack but as my perception of your perception of we traditionalists. After David Gushee published his predictions of the narrowing of space for neutrality on gay rights; Andrew T. Walker published a response to him in which he asked the following questions. I would be curious to see how you and SZD would respond to these questions:

1. Are Christians who hold to the historical position on sexual ethics engaging in invidious discrimination?
2. Are Christians who hold to the historic position on sexual ethics holding the same type of beliefs and engaging in the same types of
actions as avowed racists?
3. Can there be actual disagreement on this issue that doesn’t impute to the other side the worst possible motivations?
4. Can there be a state of mutual respect that allows for different people to reach different conclusions about the purposes of human
embodiment?

And these are Paul's statements in Romans 1 playing out in real time. How does Romans 13 play out in relation to this?

[Josh]

Romans 13 talks about obedience to the law in areas that are things Christians should also be doing, like not stealing (which apparently was enough of an issue it's mentioned multiple times in the epistles). Christians are urged to obey the magistrate, including in areas that may be inconvenient. There isn't a need to speed on the way to church (although where I live that happens to be legal, but I can't imagine going to court and trotting out that defence).

A group of believers must discern when the government is imposting a reasonable restriction on them versus something that they should rebel against. If the government tells us that we need to help them round up people to be sent to concentration camps, I don't think one needs to dutifully submit and say "Well, Romans 13 applies".

[temporal1]

From another thread:
Gun shop / Page 7 / viewtopic.php?f=24&t=3724&p=119782#p119782

i replied:

RZEhr asked:
Do you have any suggestion how Obama could have effectively mitigated the Chicago gun violence in a focused and local manner?

no, i don’t. like many of his starry-eyed supporters, i hoped he would bring not only special insights, but special “heart” for the problems. he didn’t. which supports an important lesson for the U.S.: skin color really doesn’t make a big difference.
it doesn’t solve specific problems, but it should help the U.S. mature as it moves ahead.

obama’s “special insights and special heart” were for homosexuals.
(which, btw, he claimed otherwise in his campaign, for the purpose of winning the election.) he later admitted.
in general, black voters, largely Christian, and Muslim, were not big proponents of special protections+rights for homosexuals.

as POTUS he was effective in creating this identified group of super citizens. equal is not sufficient.