Thanks to Ed for his work. His critics who are wholly taken with "worldview" critiques on an all-or-nothing basis have lost the key rational capacity in utilizing the category "partly right." The best apologists and critics in the church are able to name and affirm what's partly right in what they're opposing, following Paul (Acts 17:22-28).
On the subject of Christian nationalism, i'll address what part of that all Christians should support. We should support legislating Christian values, but not conversion; I haven't come across any Christian in favor of that. God has written His law in the heart of every human with the choice to acknowledge those standards or reject them. Legislating Christian values is a witness to the law of God in all of us. His laws bring liberty. Why wouldn't we want to bring people closer to Him through His own laws. I believe we should be a nation that upholds Christian values as an invitation to follow, but not coerced to follow. In Isaiah 26 it says, "When His judgments are in the earth the people will learn righteousness."
I like that you're bringing up racial and cultural awareness, we always have room to work on that and we're afforded that opportunity by living here in the states. I think a lot of us do this naturally or supernaturally because of our Christian precepts. I do have a question...if you went to live in Africa would you expect their culture to accommodate or integrate your cultural preferences? Or would you be more comfortable assimilating to their general preferences? Culture by nature is made up of shared values, that is how a culture is persevered.
In Dr. Erwin Lutzer's book, "We Will Not Be Silenced" he mentions that with capitalism you're free, but not equal and with communism you're equal, but not free. I see that capitalism at least offers opportunity and reward, hence why people want into this country.
I wish there had been more actual talk about the book rather than the disappointing conversation about someone else’s critique about the book. This part of the conversation(which seemed like the majority) reminded me of the Yuan/Butterfield discussion where they discussed Preston’s beliefs without him actually being there. Maybe the gentleman from CT should have been invited to join this discussion. I was disappointed that this went in that direction when Preston doesn’t seem to like when others do this to him.
For me, assimilation entails integration at the expense of [insert identity, culture, language etc]. Where as integration can be possible without assimilation.
