The problem I have with Christian nationalism is that they focuses on the nation than Christianity. I heard quote like " America will save Christianity." I have seen many praising the the us constitution as holy text 100 times more than the bible and still call themselves Christian nationalism.
I'll offer a counterpoint: those Galilean fishermen went around preaching in Jerusalem and worshipping in the Temple, proclaiming the Gospel wherever they went until they died. They also didn't retreat and neither did the early church. In contrast, instead of preaching to the culture, we retreat from it and abandon the Great Comission in the process.
@redeemedzoomer6053 What usually happens *when Christ is not involved.* Jesus working through such people isn't the exception in scripture, its the rule- and a hard rule, at that. "But God has chosen the foolish things of the world that He might shame those who are wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world that He might shame the things that are strong," (1 Corinthians 1:27) Elitism goes against the spirit of the Bible. You're approaching this from a practical, *earthly* mindset. Walking by sight, heart set on earthly things, rather than the heavenly.
awesome to hear :) i think as well as 'retaking' big cities and mainstream culture, we ought to retake the support and belief from communities and demographics who are taught that Christianity is not for them.
"We cannot give approval to this movement. We cannot prevent the Jews from going to Jerusalem-but we could never sanction it. The soil of Jerusalem, if it was not always sacred, has been sanctified by the life of Jesus Christ. As the head of the Church I cannot tell you anything different. The Jews have not recognized our Lord, therefore we cannot recognize the Jewish people." - Pious X
Ok but as a dude going to an Eastern Orthodox Church, the chance of walking into a church with a pride flag and enacting any sort of change instead of getting called bigot and kicked out is very unrealistic.
I'm just watching Christian Nationalism as a bystander from Europe, but I can't help but agree with a lot of the things you say. From what I've seen, the American dissident (and Christian) right only seems to exist in online space. I even saw once how they called a group feds because they were actually doing activism outside of the Internet and didn't look like basement dwellers. Here in Western Europe this is completely normal, lol.
Actually it's EXTREMELY active. the VAST majority of outspoken rightists in the US don't have social media accounts. Not sure who told you it's mostly online, but they probably haven't been outside of the very largest cities. This sort of thing on the right isn't spoken about much, but it is quietly acted out over time. There are no protests among us. that's the sort of thing that Western Europeans do, and there isn't a greater example of failure across history than how western Europeans have handled the last 400 years. Activism is for people who don't know how to act. Again, I don't know where you've heard that the American right is mostly online, but that's a ridiculous notion when urban districts are literally the only ones that vote blue.
I’m not sure if it’s the same in Europe, but in America our three letter agencies have been bolshevized for decades now. The feds have been going out of their way to mole into seemingly innocuous small orgs to clamp down. All it takes is one fed mole to bring multiple groups down, and let’s be real, these groups aren’t exactly great at policing their own. Jan 6th made this very clear, and that wasn’t even an armed rally. Although the best example in recent memory would be Charlottesville in 2017. The protestors had a permit for this rally, then it was suddenly revoked for no reason, the police funneled the leaving protesters into violent leftist mobs, and a man got multiple life sentences for running over a woman he didn’t even kill after being literally targeted by leftists with rifles, and the guy was on the spectrum too. This one event was the fulcrum that gave the left the leverage to never let the right organize out in the open properly again. I would also look up the Waco incident and the Ruby Ridge incident. These types of groups have to be rigorously tested before they can ever shake off the label of “fed” in this age we live in here in the US. I’m interested to know if the same kind of things are going on in Europe.
You should have spoken about Christian Nationalism in Europe, it’s much more interesting there because from what I’ve seen, many people associate their far-right political and “Ultras” views with Christianity without being too informed about the faith
We should be extremely clear with people the distinction between Christians who are trying to call their nations to repentance and reform, versus politicos who are trying to wear Christianity as a skin suit. It’s very easy for our enemies to use the latter to straw man the former unjustly.
I mean honestly, Christian Nationalism in the States also “uses” Christian ideas and faith without knowing what true faith is, so I would say they are pretty much the same thing 😂
In my experience European far right have far more "neofolk" paganism influence than Christian influence. They generally view Christians as part of "the left. However some of the far rights started adopting some Christian rhetoric to appeal to a wider audience. The only exception to that can be Southern Europe where Christianity itself is way more aggressive and conservative.
I think that people should vote for candidates who have Christian values, but at the same time, I distrust all politicians, even those who claim they have the same religious beliefs that I do. I also think that vast amounts of political power will inevitably result in corruption, even for Christians. If you don’t believe that, please look at 1 and 2 Samuel and Kings and basically the last 2,000 years of human history. Even though they weren’t all Christians, I think the American founding fathers did a pretty good job of trying to limit that inevitable corruption through the Constitution and Bill of Rights. However, the growth of the federal government in terms of both size and power has resulted in the current mess we have politically. Focus on strengthening your communities first, then worry about the state and federal levels
God is superior to Caesar, no matter what Caesar says. Agreed we should be highly skeptical of earthly rulers and seek to limit their authority in line with Scripture.
Thank you for providing this, I believe, much-needed pushback. To add to this, I want to first say that I have a lot of respect for Zoomer. I believe his work is important, and I support his goal of retaking liberalized churches. But not only do I oppose his idea of Christian Nationalism, I'd actually go so far as to say it's nonbiblical, and even against the spirit of much of Jesus's teaching. Firstly, Jesus said "my kingdom is not of this world", and I believe He meant it. We salt the earth, yes, but as the *church,* not as countries. We salt by our own actions, and not through governance. Church and state are separate, and should remain so. It's true that the church can (and has in the past) have a positive impact on the world. But the world can only have a negative impact on the church. Yes, Constantine accepting Christianity as the religion of the empire had many positive effects on the empire. But the Church received a deluge of lukewarmth, people joining not because they believed, but because they were supposed to. Heck, Constantine even supported Arianism by the end of his life! Changing the world changes us too, and never for the better. Second, Jesus said that the age in which He would return would be "as in the days of Noah". Attempting to fix society by pushing our views in government would actually reverse that trend. In my view, the darker and more immoral the world gets, we should stand against it, but also rejoice, for the Lord's return may be drawing near. We shine as luminaries in the midst of a crooked and perverted generation. Jesus never called us to change that generation, only to call the chosen out of it.
Retreatism and a lack of charitability. One big flaw is the attitude. There is too much smugness and comfortability for crass speech, including slurs. One reason Christians failed to capture public discourse was because they failed to show the culture we can be trusted with big ideas, and able to discuss complex issues, including in regards to sexuality and other worldviews, without losing our marbles. Jesus was always humble even though He was in the right all the time. If we dont know how to proclaim truth without being jerks, that's a problem.
The lack of humbleness probably comes from wanting revenge against the anti-theists that run the world and have been controling the public discourse for at least the past 80 years. Jts understandable, but Christ indeed wouldn't have acted that way.
Are we being jerks or are they just comfortable sinning? You bring up sexuality and it's impossible to truly reason with people on this. Especially this late in the game, you either make it the dealbreaker or you're already on board. I would argue that people gatekeep Christians on purpose. It's not that we've proven we can't be trusted it's we've been cut off right out of the gate. We need to be disruptive and yes that includes crass speech within reason. We live in a generation where most people are cowards and we should call people out on that. Jesus knew how to send a message. Remember the taxes in the temple? He knew when being forceful but not violent was a very valid reason. I agree and disagree with this. Especially since I am no fan of Joel Webbon in particular but "being jerks" is very much a subjective term and it's very easy to be a doormat to people when you're being charitable.
@timfreerksen6735 Oh yeah, definitely be crass when you need to confront sin. But people were often selective about how they confronted sins. Divorce, emotional adultery, in vitro fertilization. They don't really get the facetime they do in the Bible. Part of it is because not everyone in the visible church are actually Christians. But it's also not all of it. Let's be honest. We are louder about sins that personally offend us.
@timfreerksen6735 As well as immodesty, self-righteousness, mishandling of scripture. Sadly we are known for moralism, not repentance. We need to also stop playing defense and be proactive again, like the ancient church was. Instead of reacting to each provocative movie, set the tone for the culture by making God-honoring content. Not just Pureflix stuff but things thay are actually watchable and compelling. I know it's easier said than done, but we are allowed to dream. Often I see too many Christians too fearful to even dream.
@@gummylens5465how is in vitro fertilization a sin? Is there some Bible verse that proteins specifically to something of the sort because as far as I'm aware, helping people have children who otherwise wouldn't be able to seems like a pretty good thing.
always, when it comes to the Reconquista, I am reminded of 1 Corinthians 5:9-13 *"I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people- not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.* *What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.” "* For the first time, I am agreeing with a Catholic who described RZ's Reconquista as "undermining the faith and holiness of the faithful". Encouraging Christians to reside with and serve under the authority of the immoral, greedy, swindlers and idolaters who lead these "mainline" churches seems antithetical to the image of church purity and discipline we see throughout the bible. What individual church is indispensable to God? What economic power or influence is necessary for God to bring about change? For it is the meek, the poor in spirit, the lowly who will inherit the kingdom of God. Therefore, do not worry whether your church is great or small; powerful, influential, or respected in the community. For we serve a God of power and might. Do not place your pride in an institution, do not seek power and unity with the world, for *"That is why Scripture says:* *“God opposes the proud* *but shows favour to the humble.”* *Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Come near to God and he will come near to you. Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded."* (James 4:6-8)
Also from a pragmatic view we are dividing resources in manpower doing the Reconquista. It's not like all LCMS churches are busting with youth. If you want to re-invigorate an ELCA when there's an LCMS church closer or even doable driving. You should back the confessional one. Which is better in the long run? Actually having a meaningful spiritual life in a confessional church that's smaller but legitimate or an apostate church that's pretty?
You're way too sure of the impact of the elites, and kinda focused on the USA too much. Counterexample: it wasn't the elites who disbanded the godless communist systems in Central Europe eg. Poland, Romania: it was very much a popular Christian working class movement, the elites with power were communist. And elitism isn't really a good thing: it is a very, very thin line between what you're describing and by favoritism condemned by St. James in chapter 2 of his letter.
@xtremebanana1998 no, those revolutions definitely had more than peasant support, even ignoring foreign NGOs and the CIA's radio free Europe, there was support among a 'new elite' if you will
I think the flaw in your argument about elitism is that you in fact actually do need both populist and elite forces of change. I encourage you to read the congressional logs on the New Jersey and Virginia plans. You should use leadership to empower the populace to make change.
Jesus was also a working class hillbilly... not to mention John Bunyan and William Carey. Elitism will drive away so many young men, they need scripture, a catechism and courage.
The issue with reviving old churches, even evangelical ones, is they are very comfortable where they are. Outsiders will often violently seize power in a harmful way or the vanguard of the church resists necessary changes, especially changes designed to mobilize people with the message of the Gospel. They just want to continue receiving without letting the Spirit change them through the Word and through Christ's Church.
@@Lexster918 Well its not just the degeneracy. I just can't stand being that crowded. I've been in cities all over the place for a little while at a time, but I need my space. I need woods and greenery and solitude and suchlike. I'd go crazy in a high-rise type environment.
Same, I had my fill of big cities. They are good to visit a handful of times a year for museum exhibits, plays or sports events but I’d never want to live there. They are too big, I want the quiet, having a backyard and most importantly trees.
@@theredneckcatholic1417 it’s not for everyone but the point of the video is that cities are a center of culture and do matter. You don’t have to live in them but the cities eventually reflect the rest of the country.
The culture making institutions are not the old mainline churches, but public schools, universities, government and media, which are captured by people with unrivaled financial resources.
One last thing. I'm a freshman at a very small VERY liberal college and the transition from Catholic school to this has been hard even though I went to public middle and elementary school. Even though I'm protestant, I found going to Catholic school extremely enriching for my faith. Being around many people from classmates to teachers and nuns and priests who shared my faith and wanted to discuss it was great. Even those not religious, because they went to this school were very respectful and interested to listen. There are very few people I feel comfortable sharing this huge part of my life with now in college because most of my friends and atheist or only culturally Christian. And now there's a stigma around discussing religion because of the secular culture we live in and it makes me embarrassed to talk about it. The Christian orgs on campus help but I wish everyone was more open to discussing religion and thinking about these deep questions instead of being afraid of it.
If you can call America a Calvinist nation than you can also call it an Episcopalian nation. Sure, the puritans were reformed, but three quarters of all signatures on the Declaration of Independence were signed by Anglican hands-that’s why the episcopal church started in the first place because by denouncing king George the founding fathers were basically excommunicating themselves from their own religion so the episcopal church was established as its All-American replacement
Not to mention, Jamestown was founded as the first permanent English settlement in what became the 13 Colonies. Those dudes weren't Pilgrims... In fact, they had a Church of England chaplain with them on the expedition that founded Jamestown.
The Virginians were the elite and Anglican. They were trained from childhood to be leaders by going into the military, and if they weren't physically able to go into the military, they went into the sciences and academics. But, Washington's Army was made up of mostly of New England men. And, New England ideas were considered new school, and Southern ideas old school. New England people were for education for all and for manufacturing and banking, etc and had the schools like Harvard and Yale.
He is talking about which Theologic tradition influenced the american culture the most through history and it was certanly Calvinism and not Anglicanism. During the Revolution War 2/3 of the colonists were reformed. And the only minister who signed the Declararion of Independence was Presbyterian (reformed).
Also, there are many articles on this subject on the net. Wikipedia has a good article "The History Of The Episcopal Church (United States)," regarding their civic involvement. And a search, "Calvinism as a political force in the USA," will bring up the importance on Calvinism in America.
Love you Zoomer but the notion that cities are where culture happens while being from NYC is laughable. NYC hasn't had any influence in a century. Culture largely happens through media these days, and increasingly is becoming decentralized. Take 2 major RU-vidrs like NakeyJakey and Drew Gooden. Jakey lives in a tiny town in South Dakota. Drew lives in Orlando, which may be large but it isn't influential in the slightest. Their reach is global not because of their cities' network but because the internet isn't tethered by roads, docks, and airports. We SHOULD take back the cities, but because they contain more people not because they have influence, because except for LA, DC, and maybe Houston, American cities don't have influence anymore. They certainly don't have any non-legislative influence on smaller towns, which usually resent them and actively reject any attempts to influence. I think the act of taking back cities is trickier than you think, especially for families. It's great for people without kids or those who can afford to homeschool to do so in cities, but the cost of living in cities often prevents that. Sending your kids to public school in cities is downright reckless, and depending on the district could even be sinful. Small towns give parents several major advantages. For one, the cost of living is significantly lower, which could be the difference needed to home school or send kids to private Christian schools. Two, it gives them an overall higher standard of living in terms of housing, food, and financial stability. Third it means that parents will have to sift through their children's friends with less scrutiny as small towns are overall much more Christian and conservative. Fourth, while no public school is trustworthy, small towns are going to be less infected with woke ideology and if parents HAD to send kids to public school they would have better odds to fight back against it at home. Fifth, small towns usually have MUCH higher quality of life. The food is often locally sourced in grocery stores. The air, water, and soil are less polluted, churches are more faithful (often it taking work to find a progressive church), and nature is all around you, no need to go to a park just to see a tree. Furthermore, small towns are becoming more attractive to employers post-Covid as they can hire remote workers at wages that are lower than they would have to pay in cities but higher than ones in rural areas, and often doing jobs that brick and mortar employers didn't have in small towns. For instance my friend lives in a town of ~700 people but does work in the music industry from his home that in the past could've only been done in $1M+ recording studios. He can offer the same quality as someone in a city at a rate that is lower than them but make a wage that keeps him comfortable in an area where a very nice house costs $150k. Cities are important because they contain people, not institutions, and saying that people who move away form them are cowardly only displays the narrowness of your scope as a single, childless New Yorker.
While I agree with what you said about elitism, cultural change can come from those that are not the elite. For the most part, that's not the case. Like with early Christianity and Islam in West Africa. It started with the elite, then spread to the commonfolk. But there are cases of the reverse happening. Like in Israel. The Ashkenazi were the elites while the mizrahi hardly had any representation. The founding of a sephardi political party went to show that the mizrahi had strength in their numbers. And just like that, they changed the cultural landscape of Israel. What is seen as Israeli culture to this day is mostly just mizrahi culture.
Early Christianity came from the Masses, but it did spread to the elites, and at some time virtually all elites where christian, while the people, despite being mostly christian, pagan pockets remained in rural and mountaineer areas
@lucaslevinsky8802 I meant early Christianity in Rome. It was prominent among those who were 1. Literate, 2. Educated in philosophyetc. For example, if you look at a bunch of Christian saints from the 1st to 3rd centuries, they were rich and educated. Christian theologians were well read and educated, being able to speak Hebrew, Greek, Latin, etc. It was in the cities that Christianity thrived. I just read your comment again, and I see you agree with me. But I've written tok much to delete it, so enjoy😅
My definition of Christian nationalism is super simple For an American it is someone who puts America’s interests first before Israel, Ukraine, Taiwan, etc. And who wishes to reform, or restore their nation to Christian culture and ethics
I feel that a big part of the aversion to cities and taking back liberal institutions is worry about corrupting your own children exposed to these influence living in the christian countryside means less secular, liberal influence
Yeah also most mainline churches are in metro areas so why should you expose your kids to a church that basically worships the abyss? For a pretty building?
that can easily be overcome by resisting the rumors and reputation of colleges and obtain a meaningful degree, in things like medicine, law, engineering or any other STEM background, which often open a lot of good-paying opportunities in the city.
@@AlcuinOfYork-lp1pq student accommodation tends to be cheaper than renting usual apartments, and the issue of loans will become a non-issue if you choose to major in something relevant.
9:00 I've heard of Moscow Idaho but not because I'm in Doug Wilson's inner circle. I'm just one of the few people who's from Idaho, and I have friends who go to college in Moscow. But your point is still valid.
These "retaking" ideals are admirable, but as one of your previous guests said, it's a different situation when you have a family. I would not want to place my child in the Sunday school of the mainline Presbyterian or Episcopal church here (Northern Ireland) knowing how corrupt they are getting. The same goes for people with less intellectual autonomy, they could verily easily get influenced by these churches and communities without having much resistance to what is false teaching. Christians have to deal with a level of persecution and while I am not generally a pessimist, I don't see the mainline churches being the places to return to in order to win souls.
@@alexanderbadillo704 Many of the mainline Presbyterian churches are fine, but some are liberal. It is easy to identify which is which, and the majority of churches vote against liberal policies in General Assembly, indicating that over all the situation is not that bad here. We had to officially split from the Church of Scotland because they became too liberal and allowed gay "marriage", which we rightly condemn as anathema to God's designs.
What are your thoughts on immediate abolition of abortion vs incremental regulation of abortion until it's eventually abolished? Abortion is the number 1 political issue today. It's like what you talked about with Christians making the Roman empire a better place by stopping people from killing their newborns.
I would take inspiration from Wilberforce et al. As far as I know, they never denied their eventual goal; however, they focused their efforts on a major increment (abolishing the slave trade) before serious talk of emancipation.
@@jakinboaz8558 The thing is, Wilberforce had to attack two different things, the slave trade, and slave ownership. With abortion, it is one thing, killing someone. And Wilberforce never called for anything less than the total and immediate abolition of the slave trade. His opposition tried to insert the word "gradual," which Wilberforce adamantly opposed. He saw the gradualists' efforts as keeping the slave trade from being abolished. William Wilberforce would have never supported a heartbeat or fetal pain bill. He would have done what he did with the slave trade. Every year, he introduced a bill to immediately abolish the slave trade, and every year, it would get shot down by the gradualists and pro-slavery people. Do you know what's happening now? Abolitionists are proposing immediate abolition bills, and the gradualist pro-lifers are vehemently opposing them.
Zoomer you don’t get to claim America as a “Calvinist nation.” America was founded by Latin Rite Catholics(Maryland), Anglicans(south and central colonies), Puritans(Massachusetts), Baptists(New Hampshire), Dutch Reformed(New York), Presbyterians(South), really the thirteen colonies were founded by people of all denominations. I don’t get to declare America as a Latin rite Catholic theocracy. I am a major fan of your work but this is simply not something I understand.
Historical demographics completely shows the opposite of the idea that culture comes from urban cities. How it worked is that the country was the generator of culture and community, whereas the cities were the centers of economy and innovation. This worked well when 90% of the population was rural and only 10% was urban. Now, only the US still has a minority urban population in the west (roughly 25% of the nation is urban, 50% is suburban, which is entirely different from actual inner city urban environments, and 25% is truly rural). In these times, the population devolves from culture into decadence and atheism, which has been proven to be unsustainable for more than a century. Cities will fall and the rural religious will take over this way. That's what happened at the fall of Classical Greece, the shift between the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire, the fall of Rome, the fall of the Song, Ming, and Qing dynasties, the fall of the Mauryan and Mughal empires, and many more.
@@danshakuimo I didnt say I believe that. I said that there are PEOPLE who believe that Christianity caused the fall of the Roman Empire which at best is semi true but in reality it wasnt a major factor as the Empire was already crumbling before making Christianity its state religion.
While I can see RZ's point of view, I feel like an important point has been missed. While I have seen all three definitions given here be used, most of the time I have heard people discuss Christian Nationalism they specifically define it as a movement of culturally-christian conservatives that wish to establish a theocracy specifically by subverting the structure of the current government. And I think that is the key to why it is unbiblical. Getting Christians into institutions, including government, is a very good thing. But the way that many of these people talk, they want to take power from the judicial and legislative branches and give it to the executive branch. And that's wrong. Plus, they trust in politicians who say the right things but don't bear fruit. (Though honestly, I could say that about a lot of politicians that call themselves Christians, wherever they are on the political spectrums.) I admit that I am very politically different from RZ (though I think we both agree on the vital importance of being theologically orthodox, and that takes precedence over politics), but I think that we would both at least agree that his way of changing the culture is a much better way than what the Christian Nationalists are offering.
I also just wanted to say that I'm probably the "liberal" Christian you want to take back the mainline denominations from lol but I still watch your videos and still find many things to agree with. Even though our social views seem pretty different I'm a big proponent of ecumenism and setting aside differences and coming together in Christ.
The best strategy is for orthodox, conservative Christians to unite and strategize how to retake their respective institutions. Mainline Baptists will not be reconquered in the same manner as the Pentacostals, but the Orthodox from both denominations need to pool their resources before the go out on a spiritual crusade.
Wait, I would give credit to christ for americas greatness, not calvinism. So when america fails in the future will the calvinists say God predestined for America to fail ? I wish more calvinists where all like voddie baucham and preached more bible not calvinist doctrine. Jesus taught a concept of his church body as a working singular unit. It's harmful to the body of christ as some focus less on jesus and teaching our own doctrines.
Deemer, do you think that heresy or apostasy should be criminal charges, or that they should diaqualify a citizen from voting? If so, do you think heretical or apostatic positions should be defined by the PCUSA, or by an interdenominational council of Calvinist clergy, or by an ecumen of all Nicene denominations, or by a body of elected officials?
Should stick with the founding fathers on what kinda Christian nation they wanted...everything you've stated is Christian sectarianism...even nicene faith..which reflects the Christian consciousness of the a non Christian empire ...totally different..at least from what I can understand
Hey brother just want to know your thoughts on when Jesus said in Matthew 10:23 : "But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come" I figure of course it has to have a context, because as you rightly pointed out, the apostles got involved in the culture and went to prison for faithfulness to the gospel etc. and knowing this was before AD 70 as well.
I suggest you watch "The REAL Problem with Christian Nationalism" on Holy Post. He defines Christian nationalism slightly differently and why it is wrong.
“As the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian Religion" ~ Treaty of Tripoli; initiated under President George Washington, 1796, signed into law by President John Adams, 1797, ratified unanimously by the Senate, 1797, published in full in all 13 states, with no record of complaint or dissent.
Normally i think youre pretty insightful and im a fan of yours, you have helped alot during my journey to Christ but I got a be honest when you start calling yourself an elitist it sounds really BAD lol like seriously you think because you come from a wealthy family in the big apple it makes you bwtter or greater than others? Maybe if you had earned your wealth yourself youd have a point but you did not. I always wondered why you bought into calvinism but now it makes more sense
The reality is politics and political change and any possible cultural change is all caused by elites. If you think otherwise you are historically illiterate.
Hierarchies are real and stablished by God himself. It doesn't mean anyone is better, it just means different people have different functions and aren't interchangeble cogs in a machine.
@@dr_jjCalvinists believe that they and their fellow Calvinists are specially elected by God and were chosen to be saved and that no one who is not chosen by God directly will be saved.
As an Orthodox Christian, I agree. Great explanation-perhaps there were moments where you didn't seem entirely confident, but overall, I love your video. God bless you.
I am curious about your stance about this after you talked much about it on your twitter. I want to hear about what you will say about this, especially since you are very articulate. I already listened to IP's stance and it was a mess.
If elites are the ones who change culture, then how do you explain the Grateful Dead or the Beatles? Checkm8 New Yorker better move to California and learn about bluegrass acid jazz.
Those "Flyover Hillbilly States" have the highest average IQs in the nation. My home state of Montana is just a better place with better people than New York. The extreme northwest of my state has some of the most vocally pro-christian roadsigns anywhere. We're building giant crosses on the sides of mountains up here with "Jesus Loves You" painted on them. My home city of Butte has a giant statue of mary on the mountain visible from the whole city (called "our lady of the rockies"). Montana does have cultural impact that runs back against the big cities. Ultimately, because there is less infrastructure out here, people are more connected to God's creation than those who grow up in a place where the most significant feature of the skyline is a concrete hellscape. Looking at a statue of Mary on a mountain is a much more pleasant sight than any urban skyline could ever be.
May I suggest that you contact Lance Walnau about the topic of Christian Nationalism? Then you will get a more complete picture of what's going on. If you can talk to Douglas Wilson, then you can talk to Lance.
Thomas Jefferson being a "deist" is modern revisionism. He was NEVER a deist. Even Benjamin Franklin was not a deist. In his autobiography, he laments his deism during his young days.
Absolutely. The term has changed in meaning over time like RZ said in the video. Some Christins want to claim the term even though it’s usually a pejorative, others use it as a slur. Check out “the statement on Christian nationalism” for an attempt to define it by those who claim the term.
It's considered pejorative, because people get offended being called that. They do so because it's (in my opinion) a very dangerous ideology. Basing the law on theology is harming as it will disallow things that a group of people can fully reasonable argue to be fair, moral, safe etc. It discriminates people of religious beliefs contrary to ones being enforced. In general allowing religious institutions to have influence over the state is against the idea of equality and should be strayed away from.
One question have to ask is, if this whole plan is successful, what would happen to Orthodox and Catholic Christians? Is this a purely Protestant thing or would we push to unite with Catholics and Orthodox?
I really hope you bro out hard with monsenior z. Conservatives need to promote good urbanism I cannot tell you how many conservatives would love to live in cities that have public transportation Plus walkable and bikable streets. We like to complain about our kids being so dependent on their parents, that is a huge part of the reason! Suburbs are terrible for society
We need to bring back extended families and purposeful communities. All this talk about suburbs being bad and cities being good baffles me. Cites are dirty, there is no parking, and very little nature. The only drawback suburbs have is that you must have a vehicle to function since public transit is non-existent or terrible. We used to have aunts, uncles, and grandparents all taking care of the children, instilling wisdom and discipline. Now we kick our children out of the house at 18 to fend for themselves with no support.
3:24 Based on what? What sources are you using to make the claim that pedophilia in the Roman Empire was "very common before Christianity showed up" and that Christianity was responsible for changing that?
It’s was a well established tradition of the elite to take young boys as sex slaves while they taught them how to rule power. This happened in Greece as well and still happens in places like Afghanistan. Read Tacitus’s Annals it talks about some of these practices. Also there was no legal age of consent in Rome so people could marry whenever they wanted as long as they had parental permission and paid a dowry,
@@deacon6221 My guy, child marriages still happen in parts of the US today, most of which are between an underage female and adult male. By what authority do you claim that Christianity itself caused a decline in pedophilia and child marriage? Give me specific sources.
Christian Nationalism is often a cloak for some nefarious ideas in my opinion. Christian "culture" is not uniform and I trust no particular Christian culture group dictating what all Christian culture should look like. As an African-American Christian woman, I am sure my values and what I feel is most important in society will differ from most of you in this chat.
@@deacon6221 Shhhh🤫 I don’t think that the audience here is ready to accept that yet. But yeah, Codreanu is *THE* example of Christo Fascism, or as he put it, Christian Nationalist Socialism.
The best version of Christian nationalism I have found is what has been put forward by Bradford Littlejohn as what he calls the "Christian Commonwealth" position. He's put out a couple great articles in the Ad Fontes journal of the Davenant Institute and which is undergirded by the doctrine of the 2 kingdoms as put forward in Littlejohns helpful intro to the doctrine of the 2 kingdoms (as opposed to the R2K doctrine out of Westminster Escondido). You should check it out Zoomer, I think you'd dig it.
Cordeanu’s Iron Guard is another great example. not only did they defend churches and help build up rural communities in Romania, but they also took back academia and changed their country for the better.
@@wild_burnThe iron guard brought Romania into the Axis and lost which lead to a Communist dictatorship. Corneau was extremely anti Semitic and by no means a good guy.
I’d love to support liberty and democracy and those values. But we have seen in west particularly how liberalism even in its mildest form ultimately leads to a Marxist, degenerate society. Look at the women’s rights movement. It started out with demanding women have the same legal rights as men now it demands that on demand abortion up to birth is a women’s right. Second point is that I believe most Christian nationalists are usually Catholic or orthodox because our theology supports a more authoritarian system than Protestantism which is infused with the values of liberal democracy at least in its modern form.
I'm in the minority view here on many topics. I believe in Postmillenial eschatology but not in the popular theonomy camp. I believe in a revivalist form that many will come to faith in Christ and from the ground up, society and nations will turn to Christ. I don't believe a top-down approach is practical or is the correct path forward. However, at some point, by overwhelming popular support, the law and politics will reflect the faith of the people.
Lastly, I think that the liberalization of the mainline happens from the inside as congregants are influenced by the outside world not as liberal Christians come into mainline denominations. I'm definitely a pretty liberal Christian but I do in part see this liberalization as a bad thing, there's real value in having faith based on the Bible not influenced by the outside world, and when churches become too liberal the congregants stop taking their faith seriously and lose it which is always sad to see.
I get why you think going to cities is a crucial strategy for affecting the culture, and I agree to a certain extent. But holy cow I could absolutely never live in a densely populated city. I've done it before and it was a nightmare in every way for me. Give me 12 acres in the country with a 5k pop. town a few miles away, and that feels like a home to me. Also, I think with the advent of the internet, it has become less necessary to actually live in a place you're trying to change, as you can have an effect from almost anywhere. I understand that you still can't affect it as fully as you could if you lived there, but I think you can get close enough to justify not moving into a NYC flat lol.
Wait, shouldn't all people be equal in Church. So it doesn't matter what nation you are, Christianity is paramount. So Christian nationalism should be about building a nation based on Christ, not your ethnicity or language. But I guess I just pervert the words. Then I am sorry
