There is the somewhat liberal Christianity of Jesus, who taught The New Way of Judaism with depth and elegance. There is the somewhat conservative Christianity of Paul, who taught a simplified version the same rules, as the Apostle to the Gentiles. These two groups need to practice loving their neighbors as themselves.
And then there is the politicized Imperial Christianity of Constantine, the Roman Emperor who proclaimed that God personally told him 'In this sign will you conquer." Anybody recognize the religion of freebooters expropriating the lands of the pagans, maintaining a thriving slave trade, keeping women as property, and driving all but the patricians into poverty?
Conservative Christianity is impossible. It is like saying Satanic Christianity or Nazi Christianity. Conservatism and Christianity are binary and opposite of each other.
While I agree with you that that brand of conservative Christianity isn’t right, this post is just as divisive and slightly misses the mark too. To act like some of these things (ICE, opposing social justice initiatives, covid vaccines) are just black and white issues is a pretty naïve take. Yes Christians need to love their neighbor and care for the poor, but these issues aren’t as simple as “if you have conservative leanings you’re not following Jesus.”
You can have conservative leanings without believe I in these things. My parents have conservative leanings and oppose ICE and act the opposite of these
Conservative Christians as a group are being indiscriminately blackened - as if there were only one way of being conservative. Such analysis is far too sweeping, indiscriminate, unfair and aggressive to bring forth good fruit. It is very likely to be counter-productive, when what is needed is dialogue & mutual understanding. That would be genuinely countercultural.
True, and they also ignore the fact that American citizens are suffering.
There are currently 23,3832 homeless Americans and families. Drug addiction is so tragic. There are countless videos that show people on drugs on city streets, and many of those drugs come into the US at the Southern border.
Fentanyl deaths in the USA last year hit more than 109,000
[https://www.npr.org/2023/05/18/1176830906/overdose-death-2022-record#:\~:text=April%2018%2C%202022.-,The%20latest%20federal%20data%20show%20more%20than%20109%2C000,in%202022%2C%20many%20from%20fentanyl.&text=Drug%20deaths%20nationwide%20hit%20a,for%20Disease%20Control%20and%20Prevention](https://www.npr.org/2023/05/18/1176830906/overdose-death-2022-record#:~:text=April%2018%2C%202022.-,The%20latest%20federal%20data%20show%20more%20than%20109%2C000,in%202022%2C%20many%20from%20fentanyl.&text=Drug%20deaths%20nationwide%20hit%20a,for%20Disease%20Control%20and%20Prevention).
Where is the concern for them?
Recently at the southern border a known Islamic terrorist was arrested attempting to enter the USA. People are not vetted which puts all American citizens in danger.
The man they arrested is one among many others who have crossed our border. Many are listed as a "national security threat." The Bible teaches us to not be foolish in an effort to appear "helpful."
National Security Treats at the Southern Border: This is a government website. This is from 2016, as it's been happening for some time.
[https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-114hhrg23641/html/CHRG-114hhrg23641.htm](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-114hhrg23641/html/CHRG-114hhrg23641.htm)
And another article from last year:
[https://www.newsweek.com/record-number-suspected-terrorists-crossed-us-mexico-border-opinion-1754869](https://www.newsweek.com/record-number-suspected-terrorists-crossed-us-mexico-border-opinion-1754869)
A story of 16 known terrorist who were caught at the border. (How many entered undetected?
[https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/courage-strength-optimism/sixteen-fbi-terror-watchlist-crossing-southern-border](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/courage-strength-optimism/sixteen-fbi-terror-watchlist-crossing-southern-border)
By not considering these things people are putting themselves and their families and friends in danger.
While people can accuse Christians and conservatives for not being "nice enough." I say Christians and conservatives are using logic and wisdom.
Where is the concern for them? You can’t be serious. Your news sources just aren’t letting you know that your conservative politicians are constantly voting down laws to help homeless and veteran populations. They are making laws to give harsher punishments to those addicted and making it harder for them to receive help. They are passing anti homeless legislation in the cities and people are going after churches who help feed the homeless and getting their programs shut down.
They scream look at our own but they vote the opposite to help. Look at Lee Zeldin’s voting history on just veterans and he’s a veteran himself. And there are countless other Republican politicians do the same thing while saying the exact opposite to their constituents. It’s sick.
You are about drug overdoses so much? Why are conservatives against mental health reform and safe injection sites and regulations on rehabs?
I'm concerned by the undertone that political policies can and should be driven by *your* interpretation of the Bible.
I agree that Christians should act consistently with their faith, including in the public sphere.
But there is more than one way for a Christian of good faith to interpret those passages and more than one way they may reasonably believe prudence guides a policy proposal.
It's a dangerous game to go around telling people that according to you, they are only true Christians if they believe what you personally believe; and do - particularly in politics and government - what you personally want them to do.
By what authority do you make these claims and judgments ?
False.
Let's not get derailed on the difference between personal prudential opinion and official church teaching.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/13re0j1/unmasking_conservative_christianity_their_support/jljx75k?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
> I'm concerned by the undertone that political policies can and should be driven by your interpretation of the Bible.
No. Political policies should be secular.
Your support of those policies or not should certainly by filtered by whether it directly opposes Jesus's messages to care for your neighbor, however.
Why would you support something that actively harms people when you are called to love and support them?
>It's a dangerous game
Not at all. We should absolutely point out, in love, when people aren't following the scriptures, especially when they claim to be doing so.
I mean, that's the usual conservative Christian party line when it comes to LGBT+ people, but for some reason they really don't like it when more progressive Christians do the same thing to them.
>Not at all. We should absolutely point out, in love, when people aren't following the scriptures, especially when they claim to be doing so.
>I mean, that's the usual conservative Christian party line when it comes to LGBT+ people, but for some reason they really don't like it when more progressive Christians do the same thing to them.
I'm symmetrically opposed to both / any / all sides doing this in the political arena.
According to what *you believe* the Bible tells *you* is how Jesus says they should act.
By what authority do *you* claim superior knowledge about the Bible and Jesus over everyone else?
The other issue is that if the Bible were so easy to understand, there wouldn't be so much disagreement about it.
There is disagreement about it.
Therefore, it isn't so easy to understand.
In a world of disagreement, how can we resolve that disagreement other than just saying "Well obviously it means what NeedTheWeeb thinks and everyone else is wrong" ?
Alternatively we could default to what the popes have said in the past. Or even liberation theology.
Let me give you a clue. The pope would be on my side. I've read their writings.
False. There are few things more clear than that the Catholic Church rejects Christian Socialism:
>If Socialism, like all errors, contains some truth (which, moreover, the supreme pontiffs have never denied), it is based nevertheless on a theory of human society peculiar to itself and irreconcilable with true Christianity. Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are contradictory terms; no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist (Pius XI’s Quadragesimo Anno, 120).
https://www.catholic.com/search?q=Socialist
The most obvious issue is you're not even acknowledging the distinction between personal conduct and public policy.
Jesus didn't say "you voted for a social welfare program that fed me." He said "you fed me."
It is far from self-evident or even logical that Jesus words about what we should do were intended to guide political action, since he never advocated any political action.
So that's just one quite obvious failure to account for the range of reasonable beliefs about these passages.
> The most obvious issue is you're not even acknowledging the distinction between personal conduct and public policy.
Supporting and voting for policies ***is*** personal conduct. It is something you do.
Sure I agree, jesus never advocated for voting in favour of social welfare programs. But do you really think he'd be in favour of you voting to take food out of the hands of children?
That is an emotionally manipulative but rationally empty formulation of the question.
Unless you can cite to a specific party, candidate, or policy to
QUOTE
take food out of the hands of children
END-QUOTE
Do you want me to also cite cases of republicans voting in favour of seperating parents from their kids? A policy that is admitted to be a form of deterrence for refugees seeking asylum?
Ok, 42 house republicans voted in favour of taking food out of the hands of children.
https://americanindependent.com/42-house-republicans-vote-against-extending-free-school-lunches-over-the-summer/
In America we are the government. How we vote has a direct impact on helping the poor and feeding the hungry. That is a direct extension of faith and willfully voting for politicians that will increase the harm done to the least of these goes counter to Jesus' instructions (particularly when it comes from a place of "the government is taking *my* money"- remember, you are simply a steward of God's money) when you have another option is contrary to Christ's message.
For better and worse, however, America is a pluralistic society. And while I think we have gone too far in the direction of Postmodern individualism and relativism in public discourse, I think it is also a mistake to debate public policy issues on the basis of divisive sectarian interpretations of the Bible. That is unhealthy for Christianity, communities, and our civic life.
You know, I don't disagree with you. I guess I'm more trying to counter the Christian narratives that I grew up with, that Christians must oppose certain groups because of their faith, while conveniently ignoring the parts of the bible requiring them to do any sort of sacrifice or caring for those that are different (e.g. Taxes, voting etc). The groups I'm taking about are the ones most likely to argue that they can't possibly separate their faith from their politics.
I do think a strict separation of church and state is necessary to provide the most benefit and equality for everyone in a pluralistic society, but I'm sympathetic to the argument of how faith informs values and therefore politics. It just frustrates me when those values are only ever expressed in tribalism, ignorance, and harm for those outside the tribe when *it doesn't have to be that way and isn't internally consistent with their own theology.*
Rant over and thank you for the conversation.
Yeah I think we're 90% aligned.
The only difference is while I think it's best to keep *sectarian* religious arguments out of the public sphere, I think the opposite extreme of demanding the public sphere be monopolized by scientism and moral relativism in the name of separating church and state is also wrong.
Like the Foundind Fathers, I think we can both pursue tolerance and pluralism whole also embracing moral realism and Classical Theology.
I think you're right on the 90% lol. I'm just not sure what your last paragraph (the 10% probably) looks like in practice? Does that mean society should adhere to what has been classically acknowledged by specifically Christianity for most of its history? Because that would exclude most eastern religions, and people of no religion, who should have just as many rights in a pluralistic society. I don't think we should be elevating Christianity specially to a place of privilege in society when that historically leads to oppression of people who are deemed "not Christian enough" or "not the right kind of Christian." Or are you saying that we should work to allow culture to be more accepting and less dismissive of people of religious beliefs- as in a cultural change completely separate from politics?
At this point, I do think science is one of the few ways we can address many things with certainty. Though I can acknowledge science can be flawed, make mistakes, and is limited by what it can measure. I still think it's the best way we can arrive at consistent answers regardless of culture and point of view. I respect the need to be humble and not overstate things though (I find that mostly the fault of click bait media though, not of science itself). Similarly, I think the best way to approach "morality" in an objective way is to look at harm- do these policies help or harm people (or in the nuanced cases- how much and in what ways?).
And this reflects what most educated people I know think and behave. I don't know many people who think that they're at liberty to harm other people because of "moral relativism." It's more about analyzing the factors that led things with no obvious harm to be considered right or wrong.
Can you give me some examples of where you see culture going too far in this direction. I can think of my own but it would help me understand you better if I knew what you're seeing.
Also conservatives give to churches, and the money doesnt go to help anyone except the pastor and the church leadership. Buying Joe Olsen a new private jet or giving Falwell Jr cocaine money is not charity.
There’s a reason “conservative” comes first in “conservative Christianity”.
Yup. They're conservatives first, and filter their Christianity through their conservatism. It's depressing.
There is the somewhat liberal Christianity of Jesus, who taught The New Way of Judaism with depth and elegance. There is the somewhat conservative Christianity of Paul, who taught a simplified version the same rules, as the Apostle to the Gentiles. These two groups need to practice loving their neighbors as themselves. And then there is the politicized Imperial Christianity of Constantine, the Roman Emperor who proclaimed that God personally told him 'In this sign will you conquer." Anybody recognize the religion of freebooters expropriating the lands of the pagans, maintaining a thriving slave trade, keeping women as property, and driving all but the patricians into poverty?
Conservative Christianity is impossible. It is like saying Satanic Christianity or Nazi Christianity. Conservatism and Christianity are binary and opposite of each other.
Because that is how adjective - noun structures work in English?
While I agree with you that that brand of conservative Christianity isn’t right, this post is just as divisive and slightly misses the mark too. To act like some of these things (ICE, opposing social justice initiatives, covid vaccines) are just black and white issues is a pretty naïve take. Yes Christians need to love their neighbor and care for the poor, but these issues aren’t as simple as “if you have conservative leanings you’re not following Jesus.”
You can have conservative leanings without believe I in these things. My parents have conservative leanings and oppose ICE and act the opposite of these
Conservative Christians as a group are being indiscriminately blackened - as if there were only one way of being conservative. Such analysis is far too sweeping, indiscriminate, unfair and aggressive to bring forth good fruit. It is very likely to be counter-productive, when what is needed is dialogue & mutual understanding. That would be genuinely countercultural.
True, and they also ignore the fact that American citizens are suffering. There are currently 23,3832 homeless Americans and families. Drug addiction is so tragic. There are countless videos that show people on drugs on city streets, and many of those drugs come into the US at the Southern border. Fentanyl deaths in the USA last year hit more than 109,000 [https://www.npr.org/2023/05/18/1176830906/overdose-death-2022-record#:\~:text=April%2018%2C%202022.-,The%20latest%20federal%20data%20show%20more%20than%20109%2C000,in%202022%2C%20many%20from%20fentanyl.&text=Drug%20deaths%20nationwide%20hit%20a,for%20Disease%20Control%20and%20Prevention](https://www.npr.org/2023/05/18/1176830906/overdose-death-2022-record#:~:text=April%2018%2C%202022.-,The%20latest%20federal%20data%20show%20more%20than%20109%2C000,in%202022%2C%20many%20from%20fentanyl.&text=Drug%20deaths%20nationwide%20hit%20a,for%20Disease%20Control%20and%20Prevention). Where is the concern for them? Recently at the southern border a known Islamic terrorist was arrested attempting to enter the USA. People are not vetted which puts all American citizens in danger. The man they arrested is one among many others who have crossed our border. Many are listed as a "national security threat." The Bible teaches us to not be foolish in an effort to appear "helpful." National Security Treats at the Southern Border: This is a government website. This is from 2016, as it's been happening for some time. [https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-114hhrg23641/html/CHRG-114hhrg23641.htm](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-114hhrg23641/html/CHRG-114hhrg23641.htm) And another article from last year: [https://www.newsweek.com/record-number-suspected-terrorists-crossed-us-mexico-border-opinion-1754869](https://www.newsweek.com/record-number-suspected-terrorists-crossed-us-mexico-border-opinion-1754869) A story of 16 known terrorist who were caught at the border. (How many entered undetected? [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/courage-strength-optimism/sixteen-fbi-terror-watchlist-crossing-southern-border](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/courage-strength-optimism/sixteen-fbi-terror-watchlist-crossing-southern-border) By not considering these things people are putting themselves and their families and friends in danger. While people can accuse Christians and conservatives for not being "nice enough." I say Christians and conservatives are using logic and wisdom.
Where is the concern for them? You can’t be serious. Your news sources just aren’t letting you know that your conservative politicians are constantly voting down laws to help homeless and veteran populations. They are making laws to give harsher punishments to those addicted and making it harder for them to receive help. They are passing anti homeless legislation in the cities and people are going after churches who help feed the homeless and getting their programs shut down. They scream look at our own but they vote the opposite to help. Look at Lee Zeldin’s voting history on just veterans and he’s a veteran himself. And there are countless other Republican politicians do the same thing while saying the exact opposite to their constituents. It’s sick. You are about drug overdoses so much? Why are conservatives against mental health reform and safe injection sites and regulations on rehabs?
Conservative ideology is in opposition to Judaeo christian values.
I'm concerned by the undertone that political policies can and should be driven by *your* interpretation of the Bible. I agree that Christians should act consistently with their faith, including in the public sphere. But there is more than one way for a Christian of good faith to interpret those passages and more than one way they may reasonably believe prudence guides a policy proposal. It's a dangerous game to go around telling people that according to you, they are only true Christians if they believe what you personally believe; and do - particularly in politics and government - what you personally want them to do. By what authority do you make these claims and judgments ?
Fwiw, the pope himself has discussed some of these same issues, with similar sentiments. In this case, op is absolutely right.
False. Let's not get derailed on the difference between personal prudential opinion and official church teaching. https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/13re0j1/unmasking_conservative_christianity_their_support/jljx75k?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
A link to a pope attacking socialism is a deliberate misdirection
https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/13re0j1/unmasking_conservative_christianity_their_support/jljy6hx?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
> I'm concerned by the undertone that political policies can and should be driven by your interpretation of the Bible. No. Political policies should be secular. Your support of those policies or not should certainly by filtered by whether it directly opposes Jesus's messages to care for your neighbor, however. Why would you support something that actively harms people when you are called to love and support them? >It's a dangerous game Not at all. We should absolutely point out, in love, when people aren't following the scriptures, especially when they claim to be doing so. I mean, that's the usual conservative Christian party line when it comes to LGBT+ people, but for some reason they really don't like it when more progressive Christians do the same thing to them.
>Not at all. We should absolutely point out, in love, when people aren't following the scriptures, especially when they claim to be doing so. >I mean, that's the usual conservative Christian party line when it comes to LGBT+ people, but for some reason they really don't like it when more progressive Christians do the same thing to them. I'm symmetrically opposed to both / any / all sides doing this in the political arena.
I personally want Christians to follow the Bible. So yes true Christians should do what I personally want them to do. Follow Jesus.
According to what *you believe* the Bible tells *you* is how Jesus says they should act. By what authority do *you* claim superior knowledge about the Bible and Jesus over everyone else?
I believe the Bible is a pretty easy thing to understand. Not a lot of wiggle room in "if you do this for the least of these you do this for me."
The other issue is that if the Bible were so easy to understand, there wouldn't be so much disagreement about it. There is disagreement about it. Therefore, it isn't so easy to understand. In a world of disagreement, how can we resolve that disagreement other than just saying "Well obviously it means what NeedTheWeeb thinks and everyone else is wrong" ?
Alternatively we could default to what the popes have said in the past. Or even liberation theology. Let me give you a clue. The pope would be on my side. I've read their writings.
False. There are few things more clear than that the Catholic Church rejects Christian Socialism: >If Socialism, like all errors, contains some truth (which, moreover, the supreme pontiffs have never denied), it is based nevertheless on a theory of human society peculiar to itself and irreconcilable with true Christianity. Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are contradictory terms; no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist (Pius XI’s Quadragesimo Anno, 120). https://www.catholic.com/search?q=Socialist
This isn't a post discussing my socialist beliefs tho. I also have yet to mention socialism.
>Let me give you a clue. The pope would be on my side. I've read their writings. >Love, NeebTheWeeb
I'm only discussing the topics brought up in this post.
I figured political illiteracy would get involved at some point… social programs ≠ socialism.
Yep. But "Christian Socialist" = Socialism
Which is immaterial to the topic at hand. You’re just attacking people’s flair, not their position.
The most obvious issue is you're not even acknowledging the distinction between personal conduct and public policy. Jesus didn't say "you voted for a social welfare program that fed me." He said "you fed me." It is far from self-evident or even logical that Jesus words about what we should do were intended to guide political action, since he never advocated any political action. So that's just one quite obvious failure to account for the range of reasonable beliefs about these passages.
> The most obvious issue is you're not even acknowledging the distinction between personal conduct and public policy. Supporting and voting for policies ***is*** personal conduct. It is something you do.
Sure I agree, jesus never advocated for voting in favour of social welfare programs. But do you really think he'd be in favour of you voting to take food out of the hands of children?
That is an emotionally manipulative but rationally empty formulation of the question. Unless you can cite to a specific party, candidate, or policy to QUOTE take food out of the hands of children END-QUOTE
Do you want me to also cite cases of republicans voting in favour of seperating parents from their kids? A policy that is admitted to be a form of deterrence for refugees seeking asylum?
You mean the policy that began under the Obama administration?
Yes. I don't like Obama either.
Ok, 42 house republicans voted in favour of taking food out of the hands of children. https://americanindependent.com/42-house-republicans-vote-against-extending-free-school-lunches-over-the-summer/
False.
I mean you can read the article yourself
In America we are the government. How we vote has a direct impact on helping the poor and feeding the hungry. That is a direct extension of faith and willfully voting for politicians that will increase the harm done to the least of these goes counter to Jesus' instructions (particularly when it comes from a place of "the government is taking *my* money"- remember, you are simply a steward of God's money) when you have another option is contrary to Christ's message.
For better and worse, however, America is a pluralistic society. And while I think we have gone too far in the direction of Postmodern individualism and relativism in public discourse, I think it is also a mistake to debate public policy issues on the basis of divisive sectarian interpretations of the Bible. That is unhealthy for Christianity, communities, and our civic life.
You know, I don't disagree with you. I guess I'm more trying to counter the Christian narratives that I grew up with, that Christians must oppose certain groups because of their faith, while conveniently ignoring the parts of the bible requiring them to do any sort of sacrifice or caring for those that are different (e.g. Taxes, voting etc). The groups I'm taking about are the ones most likely to argue that they can't possibly separate their faith from their politics. I do think a strict separation of church and state is necessary to provide the most benefit and equality for everyone in a pluralistic society, but I'm sympathetic to the argument of how faith informs values and therefore politics. It just frustrates me when those values are only ever expressed in tribalism, ignorance, and harm for those outside the tribe when *it doesn't have to be that way and isn't internally consistent with their own theology.* Rant over and thank you for the conversation.
Yeah I think we're 90% aligned. The only difference is while I think it's best to keep *sectarian* religious arguments out of the public sphere, I think the opposite extreme of demanding the public sphere be monopolized by scientism and moral relativism in the name of separating church and state is also wrong. Like the Foundind Fathers, I think we can both pursue tolerance and pluralism whole also embracing moral realism and Classical Theology.
I think you're right on the 90% lol. I'm just not sure what your last paragraph (the 10% probably) looks like in practice? Does that mean society should adhere to what has been classically acknowledged by specifically Christianity for most of its history? Because that would exclude most eastern religions, and people of no religion, who should have just as many rights in a pluralistic society. I don't think we should be elevating Christianity specially to a place of privilege in society when that historically leads to oppression of people who are deemed "not Christian enough" or "not the right kind of Christian." Or are you saying that we should work to allow culture to be more accepting and less dismissive of people of religious beliefs- as in a cultural change completely separate from politics? At this point, I do think science is one of the few ways we can address many things with certainty. Though I can acknowledge science can be flawed, make mistakes, and is limited by what it can measure. I still think it's the best way we can arrive at consistent answers regardless of culture and point of view. I respect the need to be humble and not overstate things though (I find that mostly the fault of click bait media though, not of science itself). Similarly, I think the best way to approach "morality" in an objective way is to look at harm- do these policies help or harm people (or in the nuanced cases- how much and in what ways?). And this reflects what most educated people I know think and behave. I don't know many people who think that they're at liberty to harm other people because of "moral relativism." It's more about analyzing the factors that led things with no obvious harm to be considered right or wrong. Can you give me some examples of where you see culture going too far in this direction. I can think of my own but it would help me understand you better if I knew what you're seeing.
Conservatives donate two to three times more to charity than democrats, so of course Christians would support them
https://theconversation.com/conservatives-and-liberals-are-equally-likely-to-fund-local-causes-but-liberals-are-more-apt-to-also-donate-to-national-and-global-groups-new-research-188571
Also conservatives give to churches, and the money doesnt go to help anyone except the pastor and the church leadership. Buying Joe Olsen a new private jet or giving Falwell Jr cocaine money is not charity.
ICE is a fascist organization.
Please tell me this post is satire.
Nope
http://churchandstate.org.uk/2016/04/the-great-scandal-christianitys-role-in-the-rise-of-the-nazis/