On this point... "You cannot have a Christian state without a state church" I think that's too narrow as stated. Now by Christian state I would not mean Christian nationalism, but rather a state that is sublimely influenced by primarily Christian values. It seems there is no question America from its founding forward (and now waning) was primarily functioning with assumed Christian principles and values, and yet without any "state church". I think this is the way it should be.
And it becomes separately the job of the church via evangelism and discipleship to maintain a general Christian ethos to maintain said values (which we are not doing great at). This of course need not in any way take away freedoms of other faiths.
So separation of church and state are maintained, but not so much separation of God and state as we are called to be salt and light. Influencers and prophets, but not kings.
Randy, I see what you're saying, BUT who nominates, mediates, and legislates the Christian values. Who are the arbiters of what is and is not Christian in this Christian State. You need a clerical class or a church to be the mediators of religion and state power. That's the problem.
As I would see it, the power is in our 3 branches of government, and the people are involved in the election processes. If Christian values and principles are put forth as salt and light, definitely coming from a variety of Christian groups, and the church is vibrant, then we accept the various outcomes and trust the processes to work. So it isn't a Christian state, but rather a Christian influenced state that by democratic processes becomes a country representing Christian values. The state is not the church, and its values won't look like any one particular church, but its values will reflect Christianity. I think this is the true effect of salt and light, and is actually how the American governmental system came to be.
Excellent point about Muslims! All the Muslims that I come in contact with have very very strong family units. They are modest. They don’t drink. And they not only value but practice family values far more than we do in most American families. They take care of their elderly. In turn, the elderly have a valued place of mentorship with the young. But it’s not expedient to mention these things when we’ve framed all Muslims as terrorists.
I didn't watch Mohler's speech so the summary and critique are definitely appreciated! I think if I could critique Mohler from your perspective I would also add the following:
James Eglinton wrote an article about Keller's porch building in Gospel Life and there were several notable things I found worthwhile to take heart. One is that American Christianity is suffused with broadly Christian and Nietzschean ideals. This is a problem because the contradiction between Jesus and Nietzsche, that dialectic, will synthesize into a hybrid individualism that problem will take the worse parts of Epictetan Stoicism fused with "Christian language." If Mohler wants a Christian state sans church, he's hoping for a double edged sword. This is where said benign secularism is beneficial because it gives non-Christians space to exist freely within a plurality without the threat of their rights and liberties being eroded. What we're seeing with MAGA and Trump, particularly in the language of "Pull yourself up by your bootstrap" that some conservatives have used to denounce social justice, is that they're taking this Ubermensch ideology of Nietzsche as the justification for social mobility rather than charity and love to help those who are unable to move up.
This is a super-helpful blog post. The idea of a "Christian state" needing a state church to affirm and defend Christian ideals is, as you rightly pointed, out essential to that state. It reminds me of Calvin's Geneva, no?
On this point... "You cannot have a Christian state without a state church" I think that's too narrow as stated. Now by Christian state I would not mean Christian nationalism, but rather a state that is sublimely influenced by primarily Christian values. It seems there is no question America from its founding forward (and now waning) was primarily functioning with assumed Christian principles and values, and yet without any "state church". I think this is the way it should be.
And it becomes separately the job of the church via evangelism and discipleship to maintain a general Christian ethos to maintain said values (which we are not doing great at). This of course need not in any way take away freedoms of other faiths.
So separation of church and state are maintained, but not so much separation of God and state as we are called to be salt and light. Influencers and prophets, but not kings.
Randy, I see what you're saying, BUT who nominates, mediates, and legislates the Christian values. Who are the arbiters of what is and is not Christian in this Christian State. You need a clerical class or a church to be the mediators of religion and state power. That's the problem.
As I would see it, the power is in our 3 branches of government, and the people are involved in the election processes. If Christian values and principles are put forth as salt and light, definitely coming from a variety of Christian groups, and the church is vibrant, then we accept the various outcomes and trust the processes to work. So it isn't a Christian state, but rather a Christian influenced state that by democratic processes becomes a country representing Christian values. The state is not the church, and its values won't look like any one particular church, but its values will reflect Christianity. I think this is the true effect of salt and light, and is actually how the American governmental system came to be.
Excellent point about Muslims! All the Muslims that I come in contact with have very very strong family units. They are modest. They don’t drink. And they not only value but practice family values far more than we do in most American families. They take care of their elderly. In turn, the elderly have a valued place of mentorship with the young. But it’s not expedient to mention these things when we’ve framed all Muslims as terrorists.
I didn't watch Mohler's speech so the summary and critique are definitely appreciated! I think if I could critique Mohler from your perspective I would also add the following:
James Eglinton wrote an article about Keller's porch building in Gospel Life and there were several notable things I found worthwhile to take heart. One is that American Christianity is suffused with broadly Christian and Nietzschean ideals. This is a problem because the contradiction between Jesus and Nietzsche, that dialectic, will synthesize into a hybrid individualism that problem will take the worse parts of Epictetan Stoicism fused with "Christian language." If Mohler wants a Christian state sans church, he's hoping for a double edged sword. This is where said benign secularism is beneficial because it gives non-Christians space to exist freely within a plurality without the threat of their rights and liberties being eroded. What we're seeing with MAGA and Trump, particularly in the language of "Pull yourself up by your bootstrap" that some conservatives have used to denounce social justice, is that they're taking this Ubermensch ideology of Nietzsche as the justification for social mobility rather than charity and love to help those who are unable to move up.
Thanks for this, brother. And your book you mentioned in this post is excellent.
This is a super-helpful blog post. The idea of a "Christian state" needing a state church to affirm and defend Christian ideals is, as you rightly pointed, out essential to that state. It reminds me of Calvin's Geneva, no?
Or Putin's Russia? Another Christian Nationalism albeit adorned by icons and wreathed in clouds of incense.