A nation is group of people defined by common culture, history, language, religion, and ethnicity. A nation need not have all of these things, but there must be a legitimate shared identity.

America, it seems, lacks nearly all of these things. Our culture is enormously eclectic. Our history is shared to some degree, but common history also includes things such as holidays, collective memories, shared dreams, etc... there's a very reasonable argument to be made that, because so many Americans view all of those things and the history of the country itself in varied ways, we don't have a shared history. There is by no means a shared ethnicity either, nor is there a common religion. Language may be the only thing that Americans share. 90-something percent of people speak English without difficulty.

But is one thing held in common enough to make a nation?

We must consider also consider how the Bible implicitly views nations: a nation is largely ethnic by nature. There is a "nation" of Greeks, a "nation" of Samaritans, a "nation" of Amalekites. Yes, others can join these nations, but they assimilated into a new culture, took on that nations gods, customs, beliefs, etc... That doesn't happen in America.

The "melting pot" nature of America is truly beautiful, but it seems very difficult to call us a nation precisely because of this beauty.

One must wonder if the strife that exists in modern America is, at least in part, born from the legitimate lack of common identity between its citizens.

I've been wrestling with this question a bit as of late, as it has seemed rather impossible to hold that Protestantism is the restoration of the Church without also saying that the Church ceased to exist for some period of time. My conclusion has largely been that the Catholic Church was and still is a valid and historically grounded expression of the faith and thus the Church never went away.

But my question is, what are your thoughts about the Church before the reformation? Do you hold that it ceased to exist for a time? If so, why and how? Do you hold that it went deep underground? If so, point to examples of where you think it could be found. These are the only other options I can conceive of, but if anyone else has any other perspectives, I welcome them.

The DHS released this video three days ago. While I could comment on the abject cruelty of such a video, I shall try to limit my commentary in such a way that it pertains only to the topic at hand.

Upon viewing this video, I was immediately struck by a thought: this video reminds me of negative depictions of slavery. One may cry foul, but hear me out first.

Negative depictions of slavery do many things to highlight the inequality and injustice of the slave trade. They focus most especially on juxtaposing the slave and the slaver. It is here that I find many striking similarities between this video and art of slavery.

First and foremost, the clothing. In art, the slave is dressed in rags or cheap, simple clothes. White is often the color of choice for these sorts of depictions. Whereas the slaver wears colorful finery, indicative of their wealth and power. This art intentionally highlights the power differences between slaves and slavers (on an interesting note, art that depicts slavery positively tends to have well-dressed slaves). Take note of these very same similarities in this video. The men being deported wear white, simple clothes. Standing around them are men in varying colorful uniforms.

Next, there is the shackles. I do not use that term lightly, either. These are real shackles, with hefty chains. They wrap around the waist, connecting to the wrists. The ankles, too, are shackled, forcing the men to shuffle. Now, in terms of transporting prisoners, waist chains are nothing new. And yet, the technology used here seems almost primitive. They are not the modern handcuffs often used by police for transport, these seem more like something you would find in colonial reenactment.

Then there is the intentional shots highlighting the posture of the men. It is natural for a man to hunch in such a scenario, but the video goes out of its way to show multiple different man standing beside the guards, highlighting the defeated postures of the prisoners beside the confident postures of the guards. This too, is reminiscent of slave imagery. In order to highlight the oppression that occurred in the slave trade, the slave is often depicted looking defeated or ashamed. They are hunched over, their eyes are cast down, they cling to themselves and to their loved ones. A (as I understand it) younger tradition now is to depict slaves as defiant, but even in this, they are defiant in chains. They are defiant in positions of vulnerability and weakness. This is the fundamental depiction of injustice in this sort of art.

Finally, there is the range of emotion shown in the video. Three men are highlighted. The first attempts to maintain some dignity. He may perhaps be seen as the one who remains defiant, or perhaps he could be seen as the propagandized slave, the one who dresses nicely and walks alongside his master. Then there is the second man who weeps openly. I do not fault him, but I shall compare him to women and children nonetheless, for these are the figures often depicted weeping and in terror, then there is the final man, who looks simply dead (and it is he who breaks my soul the most). It is this look of borderline apathy that is not only found in art of slave auctions and ships, but also in art of slave work. It is the look of a man who has accepted his fate, who has gone beyond defiance or misery and instead does what he is told. This, I believe, is the more honest depiction of what the gentry of the time would consider to be a "good slave."

It would be naïve of me not to bring up race. One may object that I only draw these comparisons because the men in question are black. To which I say, yes, that probably does contribute to my thoughts on this matter. The fact is, American slavery was something primarily done to the black and brown community, and the thread that transforms such art from depictions of generic suffering to depictions of American slavery is, ultimately, the race that is being oppressed. You cannot separate American slavery from race, and you therefore cannot separate art about american slavery from race.

So what shall we conclude? Shall we say, then, that the DHS has intentionally compared this to slavery? Do I even mean to suggest that the comparison is that easy to make? By no means on both accounts.

Could it be possible that this is the DHS's intention? I sincerely hope that it is not.

What is undeniable, I think, is this: these men have the same look about them as slaves did. They are juxtaposed against their captures in a remarkably similar way, they wear the same faces that slaves wore, they walk the same way that slaves would walk, they wear the same chains that slaves wore.

Even if you disagree with my conclusions about the historical comparisons, I hope you can recognize the pain and cruelty these men are being subjected to. This grieves me greatly, and I sincerely hope it grieves you too.

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?