Edit: before you post a comment about presidents praying or the country being dedicated to the Trinity or something similar... please... just read the post. I promise you, I'm aware of all the things you're referencing. If you actually read the post you'll realize why those claims are entirely ineffective against my point. Just... take the time to read.

I shall start by saying that, though I am not one to put much stock in the celebration of countries, this a monumental achievement and historic moment in the history of this country. I have a lot of criticisms for the US, but it is truly an incredible country that I am glad to live in. I wish we could focus more on our positive achievements than on negative things, but for me, part of loving this country is desiring for it to be better.

But I digress, we must get onto the matter at hand. On this historic day, I have seen many individuals (alas, this includes some of my own friends and acquaintances) making the claim that America is a Christian nation. Something that is quite consistently lacking from this claim (and from those who try to refute it) is a robust definition of "Christian nation" and the criteria that must be used to judge whether or not a nation is or isn't Christian. I believe this is a serious oversight, as the ultimate answer to this question hinges upon how one defines what a "Christian nation" is.

There are plenty of definitions one could use, and plenty of definitions that are implicitly assumed by both sides. Such as: "a christian nation is one that is made up of primarily Christian individuals" or "a Christian nation is one that is founded on Christian values" or even "a Christian nation is one that claims to be Christian"

These are all definitions that are commonly assumed in this discussion, and they are all missing a very crucial aspect of what defines and demonstrates Christianity... action.

As with all discussions related to the Christian faith, I find it entirely necessary to turn to the Word of our Lord. Praise be to God that within that very Word, we are given a crucial criterion necessary for judging who is and is not a disciple of Jesus Christ.

“By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.””
‭‭John‬ ‭13‬:‭35‬

Love, or, to be more precise, charity (also called agapé) is the highest virtue of the Christian faith (see 1 Cor. 13) and I therefore submit that:

The criterion for a Christian nation is how it loves.

There are numerous ways in which one may demonstrate how the United States (and indeed, all nations) fails to love others. One must only point to mass graves of Indians, monuments of confederate generals, slave huts, or the remnants of Japanese internment camps, to show how America has failed both as on the governmental and personal level to love others.

However, I would also like to point to a question that John asks in 1 John. It is written,

“How does God’s love abide in anyone who has the world’s goods and sees a brother or sister in need and yet refuses help?”

Allow me to list a few statistics. Approx. 745k Americans are currently experiencing homelessness. 47 million Americans live in food-insecure households. 1.2 million babies were aborted last year. Republican refusal to extend ACA tax credits is estimated to kill an additional 51k people per year. The dismantling of USAID is estimated to lead to the deaths of 14 million people by 2030, an estimated 2.5-4.5 million of them will be children under the age of 5.

Now allow me to ask you, is a nation that neglects (and in some cases, causes or contributes to) these problems giving the world's goods to brothers and sisters in need?

You may object "but that's about Christians, not the government" to which I say, it is indeed. This is precisely why I say that America is not Christian. It does not act Christian.

America is a great nation, but let us always remember that it is still a nation, and the nations of this world are fundamentally flawed. They always have been, and they always will be. No true nation could ever be Christian. We do not convert nations, we convert people. The only truly Christian nation is the kingdom of God.

“Once Jesus was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God was coming, and he answered, “The kingdom of God is not coming with things that can be observed, nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There it is!’ For, in fact, the kingdom of God is among you.””

I shall start by saying that, though I am not one to put much stock in the celebration of countries, this a monumental achievement and historic moment in the history of this country. I have a lot of criticisms for the US, but it is truly an incredible country that I am glad to live in. I wish we could focus more on our positive achievements than on negative things, but for me, part of loving this country is desiring for it to be better.

But I digress, we must get onto the matter at hand. On this historic day, I have seen many individuals (alas, this includes some of my own friends and acquaintances) making the claim that America is a Christian nation. Something that is quite consistently lacking from this claim (and from those who try to refute it) is a robust definition of "Christian nation" and the criteria that must be used to judge whether or not a nation is or isn't Christian. I believe this is a serious oversight, as the ultimate answer to this question hinges upon how one defines what a "Christian nation" is.

There are plenty of definitions one could use, and plenty of definitions that are implicitly assumed by both sides. Such as: "a christian nation is one that is made up of primarily Christian individuals" or "a Christian nation is one that is founded on Christian values" or even "a Christian nation is one that claims to be Christian"

These are all definitions that are commonly assumed in this discussion, and they are all missing a very crucial aspect of what defines and demonstrates Christianity... action.

As with all discussions related to the Christian faith, I find it entirely necessary to turn to the Word of our Lord. Praise be to God that within that very Word, we are given a crucial criterion necessary for judging who is and is not a disciple of Jesus Christ.

“By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.””
‭‭John‬ ‭13‬:‭35‬

Love, or, to be more precise, charity (also called agapé) is the highest virtue of the Christian faith (see 1 Cor. 13) and I therefore submit that:

The criterion for a Christian nation is how it loves.

There are numerous ways in which one may demonstrate how the United States (and indeed, all nations) fails to love others. One must only point to mass graves of Indians, monuments of confederate generals, slave huts, or the remnants of Japanese internment camps, to show how America has failed both as on the governmental and personal level to love others.

However, I would also like to point to a question that John asks in 1 John. It is written,

“How does God’s love abide in anyone who has the world’s goods and sees a brother or sister in need and yet refuses help?”

Allow me to list a few statistics. Approx. 745k Americans are currently experiencing homelessness. 47 million Americans live in food-insecure households. 1.2 million babies were aborted last year. Republican refusal to extend ACA tax credits is estimated to kill an additional 51k people per year. The dismantling of USAID is estimated to lead to the deaths of 14 million people by 2030, an estimated 2.5-4.5 million of them will be children under the age of 5.

Now allow me to ask you, is a nation that neglects (and in some cases, causes or contributes to) these problems giving the world's goods to brothers and sisters in need?

You may object "but that's about Christians, not the government" to which I say, it is indeed. This is precisely why I say that America is not Christian. It does not act Christian.

America is a great nation, but let us always remember that it is still a nation, and the nations of this world are fundamentally flawed. They always have been, and they always will be. No true nation could ever be Christian. We do not convert nations, we convert people. The only truly Christian nation is the kingdom of God.

“Once Jesus was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God was coming, and he answered, “The kingdom of God is not coming with things that can be observed, nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There it is!’ For, in fact, the kingdom of God is among you.””

I am a student of history who has taken a personal and academic interest in both mythology and occult practices. Through my discussions with people at my (Christian) university, my churches both at home and at college, and on here, I have learned that this decision is controversial.

I am seriously considering pursuing it further as ultimately my career field as well. I am quite confident in the safety of my soul despite my fields of choice. It is something I have thought about and prayed over extensively, and I feel very safe and comfortable choosing this as a path of study.

But what are your thoughts? Do you believe this to be a safe path for a Christian to go down?

There's many ways to present a sermon. A pastor can do topical sermons or expositional, they can focus on academic examination or go into linguistics, or they can talk primarily about application. They can use allegories, sermon illustrations, props, stories. A sermon can be structured a thousand different ways.

But in terms of philosophy behind the purpose of a sermon, I think there's only two major categories: orthodoxy and orthopraxy.

Sermons on orthodoxy are about doctrine and theology. Their primary purpose is to convey knowledge. They may involve some call to action, but the primary goal is to teach, not to encourage something new.

Sermons on orthopraxy are a call to action, they focus primarily upon urging the congregation to do something. They certainly can teach (it's impossible to write a sermon that doesn't seek to teach) but the primary goal of such a sermon is to push the congregation to change how they live.

Which do you prefer? Which resonates with you more? Which do you think pastor's should focus on the most?

Les Miserables is one of my favorite musicals, and listening to one of the songs sparked this conversation with some friends the other day.

The gist of the song is that Valjean has just been released from jail, and is being housed by a bishop. He steals some silver from the bishop and is caught by the police. The bishop then intercepts the police and lies to them, saying he gave the silver to Valjean, and then gives Valjean some even more valuable silver.

It is meant to be (and I perceive it as) a profound act of love and charity. The bishop chooses to love a poor soul in need rather than submit him to the punishment of the law that Valjean had already suffered under.

...and yet, the bishop lies, and not for anything we could feasibly say is worth lying over. The bishop does not lie to protect the innocent as the Hebrew midwives did (see Genesis 1) but rather lies to protect someone who stole from him.

This paradoxical act of love and sin has me puzzled. How is it that someone can redeem a persons life and set them on a righteous pass through an act of sin? How is it that something we know to be wrong can seem so profoundly charitable?

What are we to do with acts that somehow seem both loving and sinful? Perhaps the answer is that God can use us, even in our brokenness.

The common standard of this subreddit, and for many Christians, that defines who is and is not a Christian, is the Nicene-Constantinopalian creed. This creed is considered to be a scripturally accurate document affirming the basic truths of the Christian faith such as the Trinity, the universal Church, the incarnation, etc...

One such statement of the creed is this:

I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins

Now, some groups, such as certain Baptist groups, interpret this claim as meaning something other than the idea that baptism forgives sins, but this would not be sufficient, for it would be a reinterpretation of the creed. The fact is, those who wrote out the creed did believe that baptism forgives sins, and so when they said the creed, and when they expected others to also say the creed, they actually meant that baptism forgives sins. (I shall refrain from picking on the baptists from here on out) It seems quite dangerous to reinterpret the document which is supposed to the utmost basics of the faith, after all.

When someone reinterprets the Nicene creed to mean something different than what it actually says, is this not a deviation from what the councils of Nicaea and Constantinople meant when they created this creed as a universal confession and a summary of basic doctrine?

I have seen Mormons reinterpret the Nicene creed to fit it to their own beliefs about the nature of God, how is it any different when another part of the creed is reinterpreted?

And this is without even going into the Filioque clause, which adds an entire new layer to this conversation, which version of the creed accurately reflects the beliefs of the early church?

The crux of the matter is this: can a creed really be unifying if the people claiming to confess it are interpreting it in different ways?