As I’ve stated for a long time, the main issue isn’t that religious people are being systematically persecuted, but that some of them are deeply uncomfortable with having to compete with the ever more pluralistic set of choices in our society. I think that as long as the people they disdain were marginalized or closeted they were alright with that. In fact, that marginalization served a purpose - it helped them reinforce solidarity in their group. As we become more prosperous as a species you’re going to have to become used to people rejecting these older religious ideologies that no longer fit into people’s lives. Anyway, I’m not post-liberal and I think our liberal society is one of the greatest achievements in human history.
Right? It seems like the Christian solution is apparently to use government power to ban everyone else from living their chosen non-Christian lifestyles. Like, good luck with that? Not only is there no constitutional basis for such laws, but 40% of the US doesn’t identify as Christian and that number is only growing.
I’m not a Christian but I know what Jesus was teaching and I see that these so called Christian’s nationalist are not following anything Jesus taught now. I doubt if these people would know Jesus if he came to them outside their perception of what their agenda stands for. If your a believer and you want a godly world, set the example and the lord will touch others hearts and make the change in his time not ours. God does not need you, you need god.
Christian Nationalism is just a boogeyman used by leftwing fascists. Fascists used Jews in the same way during the early 20th century. It is just the normal Fascist playbook.
Jesus said he didn't come to bring peace.. but a sword. He also didn't come to change the laws from the old testament about homosexual and transgender offending God. The majority of you have no idea what Jesus said and did.. you just know what you were told that he said and did. Told by the wolves who want the Christian to lay down soft and allow the wolves to devour them
Thank you for this sincere and seasoned conversation. Atheist here. I've been concerned for years now about the theocratic movements on the right such as Deconstructionists and whole Moonie thing. This conversation opened up an avenue of Christian reaction to liberalism which was not on my radar. Forgive me if I misunderstand anything i just heard. I assure you i am attempting to understand your ideas, and I fully appreciate the sincerity and good intent behind those ideas. There seems to be misunderstanding in some corners of the Christian world when it comes to just what liberalism means when the term is used in the context of liberal democracy for instance. Liberal basically means all inclusive. It is not anti-christianity. It includes Christians as well as Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, atheists, etc. in the United States, the separation of church and state is not anti-christianity. It merely means that no one religion can dominate the polity. Christians, perhaps understandably, tend to see this as officially siding with atheism. It's not, but the confusion is understandable. So is the feeling that all the ills of society - real or perceived - are due to a lack of Christian influence. But again, liberal democracy is not anti-christianity, it's just anti- Christian political dominance. Anyway, this is my understanding of liberalism. It may be limited because my understanding is limited. This video is my first time hearing about the conversation around Post liberalism, and I may be misconstruing things a bit. If so, please forgive me. I am bringing up all this because although the speaker here obviously has a nuanced approach to the subject, and expressly disavows an all out rejection of Enlightenment liberalism and rejects, too, any embrace of Trumpian strong man nonsense, he still seems to have, at least it seems to me, a basic misunderstanding of liberalism. If liberalism is all inclusive, and therefore includes Christian religion and Christian values, why should there need to be a Post Liberalism unless the aim is to impose Christian values on non Christians?
Atheist here, too. For a lot of Christians, allowing others the freedom to worship differently feels horrifyingly anti-Christian. That’s a problem for the Christians to work through, and not our problem to “fix.” So far, they’re not coping well at all, are they?
If “the church” would figure out that Jesus wasn’t a political messiah, and that His Teachings were given to THEM to follow as a sacrificial, devotional Way, as opposed to attempting to impose some vague cultural/political notion of “christianity” on others, they would deeply, genuinely change the world.
When we focus on reaching the hearts of people, demonstrating to them the efficacy of the love of Christ and love of others, then the atmosphere will change as people change. They will take their light bearing consciences to the polls. When we focus only on politics and changing laws, then we are failing to make use of the transformative methodology announced by Jesus and St. Paul and the prophets. The hunger for power is impatience and lack of faith.
Right now, anger and bitterness over the legalization of marriage equality in all 50 states fills the church. People have this idea that 'love thy neighbor' should take a back seat to punishing homosexuals. People think to back off from that issue is betraying their faith. Until that changes, our politics won't.
@@bchristian85 Sadly, so true! It's like hating the LGBTQIA+ is some sort of litmus test. That, and abortion. They forget about the great commission to go out and reach the lost. We're not called to judge them and play gatekeeper, we're called to show them their wretched sinful state in general - not pointing out their every fault - then give them the good news of salvation through Jesus' sacrifice.
Problems can go beyond material conditions. While it's a big factor, there's millions of people living in what almost any of us would consider materially "good" or certainty decent with all their basic needs met and in some cases beyond that still report being unhappy, depressed etc. This idea that everyone just needs more money and things will work out I think is a serious misunderstanding.
The purpose of politics is to determine how we divide the pie. If you are relying on politics then you have set your affection on the things of this world and are no longer relying on the promises of God for your provision and protection.
Great series of comments here ! … even ones I disagree with … I came across this video by happenstance… yet found it interesting & thought provoking. ‘Kudos’ to the host for minimizing his image when his guest is speaking at length… nicely professional !
Also, a suggestion, don't see connecting with someone as a way to convert them. It just makes you look bad and if you see it that way, you might be part of the problem with society
I’m not sure how unconstitutional laws banning non-Christians from living their preferred lifestyle is supposed to endear Christianity to more people, or stop the flow of deconversion.
"We're a movement!" until we're in control. Then "we're a caste!" with sacred privileges. They believed in democracy until the numbers began to swing against them. Then it was one big attempt to bum-rush the system and rewrite the laws so they could rule as a minority over all other minorities. Once that's done, they don't care how many deconvert.
the United States Constitution Laws establish, civil or military, which United States Indian or non Republican Christians are Class: civil by United States Law not law;
@@weirdwilliam8500obviously, you must be a civil trained idiot (i be low dumb, i cannot think); civil is establish in Article.I.6.2, Article.II.4 of the United States Constitution and Constitution Amendment XIV.3, civil or military, (ratified 9 July 1868); civil (a to f and h to i letter only, too far, to left or just left, brain (tiny or small) no or not mind or have a mind, only rate small letter word or words, criminal, demo c rat no or not Republican, liberal no or not conservative, hell no or mental no or not military right or have any rights, slave vassals no or not military vessels or Vessels, domestic or foreign persons no or not citizens of the United States);
@@weirdwilliam8500I see yt is civil censoring my post again; you must be a civil train I-1 (Idiot 1) my sentence structure and grammar is that of the Constitution of the United States of America; I am United States military 9109 military II.5.6 Commission Laws Militia Office Officers of the United States of America; obviously, u never read it nor do I ad here to civil control BC, laws or rules; civil (a to f and h to i letter only, too far, to left or just left, brain (tiny or small) no or not mind or have a mind, only rate small letter word or words, criminal, demo c rat no or not Republican, liberal no or not conservative, hell no or mental no or not military right or have any rights, slave vassals no or not military vessels or Vessels, domestic or foreign persons no or not citizens of the United States);
Also, regarding the rise of Christianity: it was facilitated by the political stability of the pax romana because church leaders could travel safely from city to city and build a network of churches spanning across the major cities of the empire. Yes, there were rounds of roman persecution, but persecution by the roman state only occurred after Christianity had grown sufficiently to be worth their effort.
There comes a time when the beauty of the fat valley fails. When that happens the fat valley becomes full of vanity and envy. Then it eats itself alive.
Christianity was formulated specifically to match well with monarchy. It is the ancient myth of the sacrificial king, adopted by the Romans to prop up their failing regime. The essence of it is noblesse oblige, the monarchical contract.
The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life; and he that winneth souls is wise. The liberal soul shall be made fat: and he that watereth shall be watered also himself.
Actually if you take everything Jesus said in proper context.. along with his physical actions such as making a whip out of thorns and whipping the money changers from the temple... and arguing with the Pharisee... calling them names like the synogauge of Satan.. You will discover the real Jesus of Nazareth. Not this weak, passive creation, created by the enemy himself. You will find a basis for Christian nationalism. You will find the Christian who has stood up to evil.. pointed out the real villians... and emulated Jesus. The left has twisted up everything about Jesus to try and fit what they want things to be like. That's heresy.. that's blasphemy. Jesus clearly said he didn't come to change the law of the old testament regarding homosexual and trans agenda.
Seems to me that Christians should remain politically active, but need to pick the proper battles. IOW, French is mostly correct. My Christian school fought for years to keep away state mandates, and I think it was a good fight. Fighting for prayer in public schools (by which I mean organized prayer) was definitely not a good fight. It was a flex. It was virtue signaling, a cowardly dodge, a needless provocation, tribalism, and it was counter productive. Which brings us to Trump. I’m still looking for the reasoned argument on why Christian’s should support Trump. Until I hear one, I’ll continue to agree with French that there actually isn’t one. At the same time, I disagree with him on supporting Harris for the same reason. Why should Christians willingly become the servants of any party in the same way black Americans have sold themselves to the Democrats for scraps?
The most persuasive argument I would make is that it's about the courts. The executive branch nominates justices, not just to the Supreme Court, but all the other federal courts.
@@tyronehuckmarner7255 Sure, that was brilliant politics on Trump’s part promising FedSoc nominees, and he kept the promise. However, it seems to me he used that promise to get Christian voters to support him when there were plenty of other candidates willing to do the same without all the rest of the Trump package. When the most Christian favorite candidates had fallen out of the race, how did they not end up supporting someone other than Trump?
@@superjuddy You mean the reason to support Trump was to support someone who was getting large donations from wealthy people? Given Trump also had big donors, you’d have to then give the real reason why none of the other candidates were better than the orange man.
@@nunyabidness3075 I agree that there were plenty of other Republican candidates who could have also appointed conservative justices, but if we're talking about the main election when it's Trump vs. Biden or Trump vs. Harris, then the choices are stark. Compare Trump's choices of Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barret vs. Brown, as well as the lower court appointees.
The Dispatch should talk to Dave the Distributist for a Postliberal perspective coming more from the Online Right. There's a whole sphere of thinkers that take part in Right Wing discourse online and Dave would be a good choice to bring in that perspective. He does a great job explaining the problems Christians face under the current regime, how "Liberalism" actually operates in practice, and might give some insight into where things could go for people trying to live a more Christian life..
The Distributist is precisely the sort of person Meador is worried about. He's a Curtis Yarvin fan. He's not concerned with mercy, pity, or forgoing victory to save your own soul. He wants to win and crush "the Cathedral". No problem with the Dispatch interviewing him, but I just wouldn't want Dave to motte-and-bailey himself as he usually does when talking to "normies" outside his agreeably extremist audience.
@@coreyander286 Dave would obviously argue that's not what he's saying, but he IS the kind of person Meador is worried about like you said. I think he does a good job explaining the dissident perspective to normies and his views are less extreme than many in that sphere. The reality is that the Online Right's influence is growing and direct engagement if even from a critical perspective is necessary, otherwise perspectives like those at the Dispatch will become increasingly irrelevant outside of the Boomers who came of age watching Firing Line and reading National Review.
If I may be a bit snarkily tongue-in-cheek, it seems that everyone “wants a dictator” right now; they just want one that caters to their political prejudices. Edit: added the first phrase, because some people are taking me a little too literally. It’s a joke, guys; though with a serious point. Edit: Ok, some of you guys are just coping. Both current candidates have strong authoritarian tendencies; if you think either political party is interested in defending democracy or anyone’s rights (push come to shove), you are kidding yourself.
@@TitusCastiglione1503 I guess I can see where you are coming from, but I also think it is in the way we may be viewing others, and how differently we view ourselves. We tend to see the worst in others and hold ourselves in a different light. We tend to assign evil intent to others and be overly generous in the credit we give ourselves. I do not want a dictator for me, and I do not want one for you, regardless of your politics, or religion. I still prefer a liberal society where we are all given the space to live as we see fit, without the coercion of others. This of course would include laws against murder and other basic laws that are necessities. Anything other than this devolves into dictatorship. To have freedom though, you have to grant others the same.
This sounds more like way to give yourself a permission structure to want a dictator rather than a real analysis of what’s happening. But I can be wrong. What do you think a dictator is and why do you believe everyone wants one? Is a government that prevents discrimination against minorities a dictatorship for example?
it military, military I and military II for the Right and Rights; since, civil or military, is establish in Constitution Amendment XIV.3 (ratified 9 July 1868) which is fact and Fact;
Thank you so much for this discussion. It is so important. Some seem more interested in the obedience of people's flesh than the redemption of their souls. As Christians, we should be motivated by love for our fellow man, not just a desire for the comfort of an orderly society.
@@spartakos3178 First, we must accept Christ's gift of salvation, and then the Holy Spirit comes into our heart and gives us the desire to obey God. Over time, we become more and more like Christ. Works will never give someone a godly heart. It's inside out. Never outside in.
@@CarolannBrendelInteresting. All the Christians I see in the US seem to follow Christ’s teachings less than everyone else does. Maybe they can ease up and let everyone live and let live? You know, like the golden rule Jesus talked about?
World overpopulation is our greatest challenge which strains and breaks resource availability and brings out the worse in human behavior. Religions and governments offer few sane solutions.
Unfortunately, reality is the exact opposite of what you say. Birth rates in prosperous nations, including the USA, have fallen below the replacement rate. Fortunately, in this country, we welcome and integrate many immigrants.
How do common good constutionalists who believe political power is needed respond to the existence of the Amish? As far as I know they are mostly left alone. Is this not a tell that this was never a "I just want to be left alone and do just what is neccessary for that" and it was always a "I dont want you to be able to live in ways I dont like?" type of thing?
Yes, but I've heard "dissident rightists" (namely Dave the Distributist) describe this wacky idea of his that the liberal powers-that-be only tolerate the existence of Amish enclaves because they're subconsciously aware that liberalism itself evolved from groups like the Amish and the Puritans. So they'd say that the Amish don't count and "true" dissidents would not be allowed to do the Benedict option like the Amish are.
@@coreyander286 David Koresh and the Weaver family weren't allowed to do their own thing. What makes you think just anyone could dissent from the Regime and get away with it?
It sure seems that way. Unless you’re forcing 12-year olds to consummate marriages, then I don’t see why any religious community needs political power to preserve itself.l from anyone interfering. Like, what is the actual threat? Is it the threat that other people exist who disagree with you? Good luck using political power to “fix” that.
Right, so long as people completely disconnect from society you'll leave them alone? The Amish are also quite small, if they actually grow larger and spread I suspect the amount of latitude they've been largely given will slowly decrease.
@@chickenfishhybrid44 What do you mean by “leave them alone”? That is the whole issue. If you mean don’t ban their beliefs and practices, then no one is doing that because it’s unconstitutional, so it’s not a valid concern. If you mean don’t let anyone outside their religion be visibly living differently than that religion’s adherents, then that’s impractical, unfair to everyone else, and not a valid concern.
The ministry of reconciliation doesn't answer to the needs of the modern world. The evangelical movement is faltering. A new ministry is rising up. The ministry of restoration. A kingdom movement. With the government of God and the authority of God. It is the divine answer to Christian nationalism.
I don’t get it. Why do you need to secure government power in order for people to voluntarily live in a religious community? Who is stopping you? The Amish are fine.
It's not about the religious community per se. It's about the beliefs that some communities cultivate that their freedom requires the suppression of the evils of others. And those evils can be anything you can imagine, because religions are about the supernatural, and in magic anything can cause anything without the need for a causal mechanism. As a former Southern Baptist, I can only say to look into the history of my Southern forefathers claiming that slavery was absolutely necessary to preserve their "unique" culture, which in turn was assumed sacred. If your religion dominates a social order, then you can claim your religious rights require the crushing of all threats to that social order, whether economic, legal or military.
@@warheadsnationRight. So their whole “principled argument” is a smokescreen to establish dominance over others rather than self-determine their own way of life.
@@weirdwilliam8500 Well, it was a way of life self-determined on the exploitation of others. In the 1670s, African and European indentured servants worked side-by-side in horrible conditions, but they had the ability to own their own crops and sometimes even vote in local elections. But they were becoming rebellious and the tobacco colonies were in trouble. A rebellion in 1676 Virginia triggered a move by the landowners (capitalists) to free the European servants and make the African servants slaves - in fact White and Negro got legal meaning for the first time then. The freed, including my ancestors, embraced the idea that White meant being the Master race and their religion followed suit. Later waves of radical evangelicalism in the South sold out and embraced slavery as their White members rose in the class system, which is why we have Southern Methodists and Southern Baptists. Once you're part of the system, you defend it with God.
“in every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. he is always in alliance with the Despot abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. it is easier to acquire wealth and power by this combination than by deserving them: and to effect this they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man, into mystery & jargon unintelligible to all mankind & therefore the safer engine for their purposes.” -Thomas Jefferson
Most Conservative Christians (read : Church of Seven mountains aka Domionists) think Jesus was _too liberal_ (to quote the late Virgin Mary: “Come again ?” )
As I’ve stated for a long time, the main issue isn’t that religious people are being systematically persecuted, but that some of them are deeply uncomfortable with having to compete with the ever more pluralistic set of choices in our society. I think that as long as the people they disdain were marginalized or closeted they were alright with that. In fact, that marginalization served a purpose - it helped them reinforce solidarity in their group. As we become more prosperous as a species you’re going to have to become used to people rejecting these older religious ideologies that no longer fit into people’s lives.
Anyway, I’m not post-liberal and I think our liberal society is one of the greatest achievements in human history.
Right? It seems like the Christian solution is apparently to use government power to ban everyone else from living their chosen non-Christian lifestyles. Like, good luck with that? Not only is there no constitutional basis for such laws, but 40% of the US doesn’t identify as Christian and that number is only growing.
I’m not a Christian but I know what Jesus was teaching and I see that these so called Christian’s nationalist are not following anything Jesus taught now. I doubt if these people would know Jesus if he came to them outside their perception of what their agenda stands for. If your a believer and you want a godly world, set the example and the lord will touch others hearts and make the change in his time not ours. God does not need you, you need god.
I AM a Christian and I strongly agree with you.
Me too!!
They identify with jesus's daddio, read the old testament, they are mimicking his ideals and actions.
Christian Nationalism is just a boogeyman used by leftwing fascists. Fascists used Jews in the same way during the early 20th century. It is just the normal Fascist playbook.
Jesus said he didn't come to bring peace.. but a sword.
He also didn't come to change the laws from the old testament about homosexual and transgender offending God.
The majority of you have no idea what Jesus said and did.. you just know what you were told that he said and did.
Told by the wolves who want the Christian to lay down soft and allow the wolves to devour them
Thank you for this sincere and seasoned conversation. Atheist here. I've been concerned for years now about the theocratic movements on the right such as Deconstructionists and whole Moonie thing. This conversation opened up an avenue of Christian reaction to liberalism which was not on my radar. Forgive me if I misunderstand anything i just heard. I assure you i am attempting to understand your ideas, and I fully appreciate the sincerity and good intent behind those ideas.
There seems to be misunderstanding in some corners of the Christian world when it comes to just what liberalism means when the term is used in the context of liberal democracy for instance. Liberal basically means all inclusive. It is not anti-christianity. It includes Christians as well as Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, atheists, etc. in the United States, the separation of church and state is not anti-christianity. It merely means that no one religion can dominate the polity. Christians, perhaps understandably, tend to see this as officially siding with atheism. It's not, but the confusion is understandable. So is the feeling that all the ills of society - real or perceived - are due to a lack of Christian influence. But again, liberal democracy is not anti-christianity, it's just anti- Christian political dominance.
Anyway, this is my understanding of liberalism. It may be limited because my understanding is limited. This video is my first time hearing about the conversation around Post liberalism, and I may be misconstruing things a bit. If so, please forgive me.
I am bringing up all this because although the speaker here obviously has a nuanced approach to the subject, and expressly disavows an all out rejection of Enlightenment liberalism and rejects, too, any embrace of Trumpian strong man nonsense, he still seems to have, at least it seems to me, a basic misunderstanding of liberalism. If liberalism is all inclusive, and therefore includes Christian religion and Christian values, why should there need to be a Post Liberalism unless the aim is to impose Christian values on non Christians?
Atheist here, too. For a lot of Christians, allowing others the freedom to worship differently feels horrifyingly anti-Christian. That’s a problem for the Christians to work through, and not our problem to “fix.” So far, they’re not coping well at all, are they?
If “the church” would figure out that Jesus wasn’t a political messiah, and that His Teachings were given to THEM to follow as a sacrificial, devotional Way, as opposed to attempting to impose some vague cultural/political notion of “christianity” on others, they would deeply, genuinely change the world.
When we focus on reaching the hearts of people, demonstrating to them the efficacy of the love of Christ and love of others, then the atmosphere will change as people change. They will take their light bearing consciences to the polls.
When we focus only on politics and changing laws, then we are failing to make use of the transformative methodology announced by Jesus and St. Paul and the prophets. The hunger for power is impatience and lack of faith.
Agree completely.
They’re burning our churches down. And vandalizing pregnancy crisis centers. Trust me, it’s the Christian doctrine they have a problem with
Right now, anger and bitterness over the legalization of marriage equality in all 50 states fills the church. People have this idea that 'love thy neighbor' should take a back seat to punishing homosexuals. People think to back off from that issue is betraying their faith. Until that changes, our politics won't.
I refuse to be converted. Don't try . Please and thank you.
@@bchristian85 Sadly, so true! It's like hating the LGBTQIA+ is some sort of litmus test. That, and abortion. They forget about the great commission to go out and reach the lost. We're not called to judge them and play gatekeeper, we're called to show them their wretched sinful state in general - not pointing out their every fault - then give them the good news of salvation through Jesus' sacrifice.
The problem is a lack of economic opportunity. Virtue isn't going to help that.
Its a theme in history. Bad economies create bad governments
Spoken like a true Marxist.
Problems can go beyond material conditions. While it's a big factor, there's millions of people living in what almost any of us would consider materially "good" or certainty decent with all their basic needs met and in some cases beyond that still report being unhappy, depressed etc. This idea that everyone just needs more money and things will work out I think is a serious misunderstanding.
Thanks for sharing this. I really appreciate this long form conversation.
The purpose of politics is to determine how we divide the pie. If you are relying on politics then you have set your affection on the things of this world and are no longer relying on the promises of God for your provision and protection.
Great series of comments here ! … even ones I disagree with …
I came across this video by happenstance… yet found it interesting & thought provoking.
‘Kudos’ to the host for minimizing his image when his guest is speaking at length… nicely professional !
Excellent discussion.
Also, a suggestion, don't see connecting with someone as a way to convert them. It just makes you look bad and if you see it that way, you might be part of the problem with society
I’m not sure how unconstitutional laws banning non-Christians from living their preferred lifestyle is supposed to endear Christianity to more people, or stop the flow of deconversion.
"We're a movement!" until we're in control.
Then "we're a caste!" with sacred privileges.
They believed in democracy until the numbers began to swing against them. Then it was one big attempt to bum-rush the system and rewrite the laws so they could rule as a minority over all other minorities. Once that's done, they don't care how many deconvert.
the United States Constitution Laws establish, civil or military, which United States Indian or non Republican Christians are Class: civil by United States Law not law;
@@paulrodgers252 Your sentence is grammatically incoherent.
@@weirdwilliam8500obviously, you must be a civil trained idiot (i be low dumb, i cannot think); civil is establish in Article.I.6.2, Article.II.4 of the United States Constitution and Constitution Amendment XIV.3, civil or military, (ratified 9 July 1868);
civil (a to f and h to i letter only, too far, to left or just left, brain (tiny or small) no or not mind or have a mind, only rate small letter word or words, criminal, demo c rat no or not Republican, liberal no or not conservative, hell no or mental no or not military right or have any rights, slave vassals no or not military vessels or Vessels, domestic or foreign persons no or not citizens of the United States);
@@weirdwilliam8500I see yt is civil censoring my post again;
you must be a civil train I-1 (Idiot 1) my sentence structure and grammar is that of the Constitution of the United States of America; I am United States military 9109 military II.5.6 Commission Laws Militia Office Officers of the United States of America; obviously, u never read it nor do I ad here to civil control BC, laws or rules;
civil (a to f and h to i letter only, too far, to left or just left, brain (tiny or small) no or not mind or have a mind, only rate small letter word or words, criminal, demo c rat no or not Republican, liberal no or not conservative, hell no or mental no or not military right or have any rights, slave vassals no or not military vessels or Vessels, domestic or foreign persons no or not citizens of the United States);
Thank you so much this is just GREAT GREAT GREAT!!!!!!!!!
Also, regarding the rise of Christianity: it was facilitated by the political stability of the pax romana because church leaders could travel safely from city to city and build a network of churches spanning across the major cities of the empire. Yes, there were rounds of roman persecution, but persecution by the roman state only occurred after Christianity had grown sufficiently to be worth their effort.
Such an intelligent, informative discussion. The threat of postliberalism is real and should be terrifying.
There comes a time when the beauty of the fat valley fails. When that happens the fat valley becomes full of vanity and envy. Then it eats itself alive.
Christianity was formulated specifically to match well with monarchy. It is the ancient myth of the sacrificial king, adopted by the Romans to prop up their failing regime. The essence of it is noblesse oblige, the monarchical contract.
Maybe you should read the Acts of the Apostles and Paul's letters. There's not a lot of love for monarchy in the New Testament.
"Politics broken so we have to retreat from politics" never made any sense. Remember, things can always get worse!
The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life; and he that winneth souls is wise. The liberal soul shall be made fat: and he that watereth shall be watered also himself.
Actually if you take everything Jesus said in proper context.. along with his physical actions such as making a whip out of thorns and whipping the money changers from the temple... and arguing with the Pharisee... calling them names like the synogauge of Satan..
You will discover the real Jesus of Nazareth.
Not this weak, passive creation, created by the enemy himself. You will find a basis for Christian nationalism.
You will find the Christian who has stood up to evil.. pointed out the real villians... and emulated Jesus.
The left has twisted up everything about Jesus to try and fit what they want things to be like. That's heresy.. that's blasphemy. Jesus clearly said he didn't come to change the law of the old testament regarding homosexual and trans agenda.
Seems to me that Christians should remain politically active, but need to pick the proper battles. IOW, French is mostly correct. My Christian school fought for years to keep away state mandates, and I think it was a good fight. Fighting for prayer in public schools (by which I mean organized prayer) was definitely not a good fight. It was a flex. It was virtue signaling, a cowardly dodge, a needless provocation, tribalism, and it was counter productive.
Which brings us to Trump. I’m still looking for the reasoned argument on why Christian’s should support Trump. Until I hear one, I’ll continue to agree with French that there actually isn’t one. At the same time, I disagree with him on supporting Harris for the same reason.
Why should Christians willingly become the servants of any party in the same way black Americans have sold themselves to the Democrats for scraps?
The most persuasive argument I would make is that it's about the courts. The executive branch nominates justices, not just to the Supreme Court, but all the other federal courts.
@@tyronehuckmarner7255 Sure, that was brilliant politics on Trump’s part promising FedSoc nominees, and he kept the promise. However, it seems to me he used that promise to get Christian voters to support him when there were plenty of other candidates willing to do the same without all the rest of the Trump package. When the most Christian favorite candidates had fallen out of the race, how did they not end up supporting someone other than Trump?
@@nunyabidness3075 Because of the necessity for personal funding to fight big donor politicians such as Cruz, Rubio, and specifically Jeb Bush.
@@superjuddy You mean the reason to support Trump was to support someone who was getting large donations from wealthy people? Given Trump also had big donors, you’d have to then give the real reason why none of the other candidates were better than the orange man.
@@nunyabidness3075 I agree that there were plenty of other Republican candidates who could have also appointed conservative justices, but if we're talking about the main election when it's Trump vs. Biden or Trump vs. Harris, then the choices are stark. Compare Trump's choices of Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barret vs. Brown, as well as the lower court appointees.
The Dispatch should talk to Dave the Distributist for a Postliberal perspective coming more from the Online Right. There's a whole sphere of thinkers that take part in Right Wing discourse online and Dave would be a good choice to bring in that perspective. He does a great job explaining the problems Christians face under the current regime, how "Liberalism" actually operates in practice, and might give some insight into where things could go for people trying to live a more Christian life..
The Distributist is precisely the sort of person Meador is worried about. He's a Curtis Yarvin fan. He's not concerned with mercy, pity, or forgoing victory to save your own soul. He wants to win and crush "the Cathedral". No problem with the Dispatch interviewing him, but I just wouldn't want Dave to motte-and-bailey himself as he usually does when talking to "normies" outside his agreeably extremist audience.
@@coreyander286 Dave would obviously argue that's not what he's saying, but he IS the kind of person Meador is worried about like you said. I think he does a good job explaining the dissident perspective to normies and his views are less extreme than many in that sphere. The reality is that the Online Right's influence is growing and direct engagement if even from a critical perspective is necessary, otherwise perspectives like those at the Dispatch will become increasingly irrelevant outside of the Boomers who came of age watching Firing Line and reading National Review.
@@coreyander286 right, you give your permission for them to talk but have to make sure and poison the well lol
Nostalgia for post-Constantine Roman times?
Will "Dispatch Faith" be a regular podcast? I love it. Thank you!
If I may be a bit snarkily tongue-in-cheek, it seems that everyone “wants a dictator” right now; they just want one that caters to their political prejudices.
Edit: added the first phrase, because some people are taking me a little too literally. It’s a joke, guys; though with a serious point.
Edit: Ok, some of you guys are just coping. Both current candidates have strong authoritarian tendencies; if you think either political party is interested in defending democracy or anyone’s rights (push come to shove), you are kidding yourself.
Not sure I agree here
@@tayrowell seems to fit the general political trends of the last decade well enough. .
@@TitusCastiglione1503 I guess I can see where you are coming from, but I also think it is in the way we may be viewing others, and how differently we view ourselves. We tend to see the worst in others and hold ourselves in a different light. We tend to assign evil intent to others and be overly generous in the credit we give ourselves.
I do not want a dictator for me, and I do not want one for you, regardless of your politics, or religion. I still prefer a liberal society where we are all given the space to live as we see fit, without the coercion of others. This of course would include laws against murder and other basic laws that are necessities. Anything other than this devolves into dictatorship. To have freedom though, you have to grant others the same.
Absolutely not true. Dems want a dictator too? How?
This sounds more like way to give yourself a permission structure to want a dictator rather than a real analysis of what’s happening. But I can be wrong. What do you think a dictator is and why do you believe everyone wants one? Is a government that prevents discrimination against minorities a dictatorship for example?
it military, military I and military II for the Right and Rights; since, civil or military, is establish in Constitution Amendment XIV.3 (ratified 9 July 1868) which is fact and Fact;
Thank you so much for this discussion. It is so important. Some seem more interested in the obedience of people's flesh than the redemption of their souls. As Christians, we should be motivated by love for our fellow man, not just a desire for the comfort of an orderly society.
I’m curious about your “orderly society.” What are the qualities or characteristics of such a society?
You can not be obedient "in your soul" without being obedient in the temple that is your body.
@@spartakos3178 First, we must accept Christ's gift of salvation, and then the Holy Spirit comes into our heart and gives us the desire to obey God. Over time, we become more and more like Christ. Works will never give someone a godly heart. It's inside out. Never outside in.
@@CarolannBrendelInteresting. All the Christians I see in the US seem to follow Christ’s teachings less than everyone else does. Maybe they can ease up and let everyone live and let live? You know, like the golden rule Jesus talked about?
@@weirdwilliam8500 Jesus shares your anger at hypocrites (Matthew 23:27-28).
World overpopulation is our greatest challenge which strains and breaks resource availability and brings out the worse in human behavior. Religions and governments offer few sane solutions.
Unfortunately, reality is the exact opposite of what you say. Birth rates in prosperous nations, including the USA, have fallen below the replacement rate. Fortunately, in this country, we welcome and integrate many immigrants.
How do common good constutionalists who believe political power is needed respond to the existence of the Amish? As far as I know they are mostly left alone.
Is this not a tell that this was never a "I just want to be left alone and do just what is neccessary for that" and it was always a "I dont want you to be able to live in ways I dont like?" type of thing?
Yes, but I've heard "dissident rightists" (namely Dave the Distributist) describe this wacky idea of his that the liberal powers-that-be only tolerate the existence of Amish enclaves because they're subconsciously aware that liberalism itself evolved from groups like the Amish and the Puritans. So they'd say that the Amish don't count and "true" dissidents would not be allowed to do the Benedict option like the Amish are.
@@coreyander286 David Koresh and the Weaver family weren't allowed to do their own thing. What makes you think just anyone could dissent from the Regime and get away with it?
It sure seems that way. Unless you’re forcing 12-year olds to consummate marriages, then I don’t see why any religious community needs political power to preserve itself.l from anyone interfering. Like, what is the actual threat? Is it the threat that other people exist who disagree with you? Good luck using political power to “fix” that.
Right, so long as people completely disconnect from society you'll leave them alone? The Amish are also quite small, if they actually grow larger and spread I suspect the amount of latitude they've been largely given will slowly decrease.
@@chickenfishhybrid44 What do you mean by “leave them alone”? That is the whole issue. If you mean don’t ban their beliefs and practices, then no one is doing that because it’s unconstitutional, so it’s not a valid concern. If you mean don’t let anyone outside their religion be visibly living differently than that religion’s adherents, then that’s impractical, unfair to everyone else, and not a valid concern.
The ministry of reconciliation doesn't answer to the needs of the modern world. The evangelical movement is faltering. A new ministry is rising up. The ministry of restoration. A kingdom movement. With the government of God and the authority of God. It is the divine answer to Christian nationalism.
I don’t get it. Why do you need to secure government power in order for people to voluntarily live in a religious community? Who is stopping you? The Amish are fine.
It's not about the religious community per se. It's about the beliefs that some communities cultivate that their freedom requires the suppression of the evils of others. And those evils can be anything you can imagine, because religions are about the supernatural, and in magic anything can cause anything without the need for a causal mechanism.
As a former Southern Baptist, I can only say to look into the history of my Southern forefathers claiming that slavery was absolutely necessary to preserve their "unique" culture, which in turn was assumed sacred. If your religion dominates a social order, then you can claim your religious rights require the crushing of all threats to that social order, whether economic, legal or military.
@@warheadsnationRight. So their whole “principled argument” is a smokescreen to establish dominance over others rather than self-determine their own way of life.
@@weirdwilliam8500 Well, it was a way of life self-determined on the exploitation of others. In the 1670s, African and European indentured servants worked side-by-side in horrible conditions, but they had the ability to own their own crops and sometimes even vote in local elections. But they were becoming rebellious and the tobacco colonies were in trouble. A rebellion in 1676 Virginia triggered a move by the landowners (capitalists) to free the European servants and make the African servants slaves - in fact White and Negro got legal meaning for the first time then. The freed, including my ancestors, embraced the idea that White meant being the Master race and their religion followed suit. Later waves of radical evangelicalism in the South sold out and embraced slavery as their White members rose in the class system, which is why we have Southern Methodists and Southern Baptists. Once you're part of the system, you defend it with God.
“in every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. he is always in alliance with the Despot abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. it is easier to acquire wealth and power by this combination than by deserving them: and to effect this they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man, into mystery & jargon unintelligible to all mankind & therefore the safer engine for their purposes.” -Thomas Jefferson
The Amish are fine for now. They're a tiny part of the population and essentially completely disconnected from the broader society.
You have no clue about anything. Rypical of the cloistered few.
To paraphrase Milton, better to reign in Hell than share power in a republic.
Charles Haywood is certified nuts.
Or he just says things outside the paradigm that no one wants to hear. He seems quite cogent to me
Jesus never talked about “winning”.
I think he was referring to Jesus dissuading his followers from Zealotry. "He who lives by the sword dies by the sword", that kind of thing.
Most Conservative Christians (read : Church of Seven mountains aka Domionists) think Jesus was _too liberal_ (to quote the late Virgin Mary: “Come again ?” )
As a very conservative, very traditional Christian....this is the ONLY time I've heard this kind of crap
A despicable person like Trump is the leader of the Conservative Christian Evangelical Republicans 😂
The is one of the most thoughtful conversation on the platform. Kudos to you fine gentlemen.