I thought this was a good conversation. I find that many, including myself, are quick to write off Stephen Wolfe's perspective as a necessarily racist ideology, but if you really listen, I don't actually think that is what he is saying. Glad to listen to Bird push on these issues, but then also get pushed on a seemingly thin conception on why liberal democracy is considered by many to be almost a foundation of Christian orthodoxy. The conception that liberal democracy in a culture which places individual autonomy and expression as the highest ideal will fail spectacularly. If I am hearing Wolfe correctly, he is stating that a nation will always/must center its ethos and political telos on what is deemed the ultimate good. Wolfe is arguing that placing Christian ideals as the ultimate good of a nation will create a healthier and more thriving nation than expressive individualism. Seems like a very reasonable argument to make. Did I get that right?
The bible writes off his perspective. "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" - 1 Corinthians 5: 12+13
@@hhhieronymusbotch this is a really sloppy use of proof texting and is not a serious point for anyone who has familiarity with the Bible and Christian teaching. I'd recommend slowing your roll on this one.
@@StumblingThroughItAll the bible says we have no business judging people outside of the faith. Disobeying it is a sloppy example of sin. Let's slow our roll on that.
@@hhhieronymusbotch Christians participating in the political system of a constitutional republic is a far cry from what judging means in this particular context. Right? Let's start there.
@@StumblingThroughItAll noone said you can't participate. Participate away. The second your participation involves judging anyone outside of the faith, it's disobeying God's word. "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" - 1 Corinthians 5: 12+13
This comment made me wince. The very idea that you could make Britain ‘work’ if you reduced the number of cultures!!! Selecting which ones you would remove might be extraordinarily revealing.
@@malcolmspark There's messiness on top of a functioning state, and then there is dysfunction. I can remember the 1990s versus now, they both had surface messiness but the underlying health of the society couldn't be more different.
Fascinating convo. All I really knew about Stephen was what I hear on Twitter/X about him - usually from opponents. It was good to actually hear from him. And Mike Bird is a great speaker, and brought a great balance to the convo. Props to Hallowell as well; great guest host.
Michael bringing up the UK, unironically as a good example of multiculturalism, is quite frankly hilarious. Especially with the smug smirk in his face.
There is a glaring reason for the contention around Wolfe's ideas of ethnicity. His description of "clusters of ethnic groups" formed by "self-sorting" around "cultural preferences" is utterly disingenuous against the backdrop of U.S. history. The notorious sorting of a minority group by a dominant group- not around "cultural preferences", but on the pretense of supremacy- is such an obvious snag in his theory, and that it was done under the banner of Christianity makes it all the more damning.
I also wonder if he is honest in his arguments or if he is "whitewashing" racism. As well as what he says directly I would be interested in what the fans of his arguments are like if their views are super extreme/far right whether he is prepared to distance himself from those supporters.
@@gareth2736 Good questions. I’m especially curious how many of his fans identify as Christians, and how many are just racists who are looking to twist the Bible into a fig leaf.
I agree this is especially problematic around the issues of race in America, and to some degree in the Anglosphere generally. Not having read Wolfe's book myself, it seems to me from this conversation that Wolfe is (as he pointed out a few different times) trying for the most part to establish a ground for Christian Nationalism. Rather than outlining his plan to re-christianize America, he's describing how Christianity and political power interact in the abstract. This has been a question for Constantine, Alfred, and Luther, as well as Jefferson and (Catholic?) Biden. Let me throw out a second controversy and see if it makes things clearer or muddier! The Bible nowhere explicitly bans polygamy or divorce. Jesus makes it clear that these things are bad, appealing to the creation design as God's plan for marriage, there are restrictions on an elder being the husband of one wife, the analogy between marriage and Christ and the church, all these things work against polygamy and divorce. If anyone in my church tried to marry a second wife on the basis that it was not forbidden in the Bible, I would rebuke it as sin. But when missionaries to the Congo demanded that converts choose their favourite wife and divorce all others it caused many poor widows to be left destitute. In this messy world of hard hearts, sometimes even a faithful Christian is forced to a lesser of two evils. I don't yet know if I agree with Wolfe that some of the things he describes are 'permissible', but for the sake of honest debate I feel I need to point out two things: 1. He hasn't (in this debate at least) said that ethnic sorting is good, or a desirable end goal, 2. He hasn't (in this debate at least) said that ethnic sorting should happen in present-day America. It's important to argue the points that Wolfe is actually making, not jump to how his argument might be used or abused. One more thing: Considered in the light of Catalan autonomy (from Spain), or even the Scottish Independence movement, ideas of partition remain very concerning, but they are not abhorrent as they are if you have American Black, White, Latin, and Asian populations in mind.
@@quinnmcleish5278 Points taken. I suspect most of the commenters here have read Wolfe’s book and/or have followed the controversy surrounding it for some time, and that there is less extrapolation going on than it would seem. Wolfe likes to remind people his book is political philosophy, but much of what he writes is more idiosyncratic than theoretical, and, though he denies it in conversation, a reasonable reader would intuit that he’s writing with the U.S. in mind. But, don’t take my word for it. Read the book, or save some time and money and read some reviews. The salient points are easy to track down, as are the concerns and Wolfe’s answers to them. If you have a notion of Christian Nationalism that you think is workable, maybe you will come away with a different take, but I pray that you do not see a path in what he is proposing.
Well done! This was a much better engagement with Stephen Wolfe and his book that most of the poor attempts to make him out to be the boogey man. I find that most who do that ignore half of what Stephen’s said, or haven’t read his book. Because this was direct engagement and a coherent conversation, I think Michael actually pointed out some legitimate concerns with some of Stephen’s ideas. I would love to see much more of this and much less of Christian parachurch organizations warning everyone about how much of a threat Christian nationalism is.
Multiculturalism has Already Failed Everywhere. Examples: Israel / Palestine, Ethiopia, Cyprus, Bahrain, Kosovo, Kurdish region in Turkey, Kashmir, Balochistan, Xinjiang, Iraq, Syria, Myanmar, Lebanon, Mindanao region in Philippines, West Papua region in Indonesia, Central African Republic, South Sudan, Nagorno Karabakh etc...
Since Stephen is a Presbyterian, I would be curious how he would respond to Calvin saying that he would “rather be governed by a competent Turk than an incompetent Christian.”
You mean Luther, I think, and he never said it. Look it up. Don’t they both believe in sphere sovereignty? Now you have to think about the limits of that.
The place of Quebec in Canada is a good example of an ethnic/cultural group seeking to define its place within the broader "national" context. They actually call themselves the "nation" of Quebec; and work hard to maintain their linguistic and cultural traditions within the predominantly Anglophone (& loosely protestant/liberal) culture of Canada. It was, of course, predominantly and virulently Catholic and one point; but is now the least Christianised province of Canada.
Here's the line the bible draws with playing politics... "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" - 1 Corinthians 5: 12+13
@@MeanBeanComedy We should obey the bible... "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" - 1 Corinthians 5: 12+13
So female circumcision is a no, but male circumcision still a fine thing? Frankly, anyone who reads the NT sees Paul objecting, and yet? WE are pretty sure it's a must-do. Who's beliefs manifest?
Very good dialogue between brothers. Definitely disarmed me about Wolfe’s suggestions on how to best organize a society with a majority of Disciples of Jesus. Very surprised at Wolfe’s decorum but again this isn’t X and I’m wrestling with dichotomy of his presentation here vs X. God bless
Some clarifications about the situation in the UK. The UK does not have an established church, England has, Scotland does not. The Church of England or its Scottish manifestation the Scottish Episcopal Church is not established in Scotland. Thel Church of Scotland is recognized as the national church of Scotland but it is completely independent from the State both in terms of the devolved Scottish government and the UK national government. Another detail, no one wrote the British constitution because the UK does not have a written constitution
And, of course, the CoE is as liberal politically as it is theologically. The idea of nationalism would give their bishops a fit of the vapours. Politically Christians vote for all of the parties, there is no religious divide, so Christian Nationalism is a non starter. Pity there wasn't a UK person of the programme to point these facts out.
We should listen to scripture... "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" - 1 Corinthians 5: 12+13
@@MeanBeanComedy the bible's perspective on the subject is the most relevant one. "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" - 1 Corinthians 5: 12+13
I can’t believe we missed the biggest problem with Wolfe’s definition in the opening, that the christian nationalists are “organized for THEIR good”. We are called to serve the good of he nations, to be servants to all. Wild.
Based on 1 Timothy 5:8 (which says that whoever fails to provide for their own kin and family is worse than an unbeliever), and based on the natural human limitations of time and space, it's clear that God requires a human prioritization of care, just as Jesus practiced in Matthew 15.22-28, Matthew 10.5-8, and John 19.26-27. Jesus did not serve everyone on earth equally during his ministry. God places each man in time and history with divine intentionality. Human bodies are finite. We cannot possibly love and serve all humans equally, so we must prioritize relationships and ministry as Jesus did during his temporal, earthly ministry. Only when he was lifted up did he draw all men himself, but on earth, he followed a godly hierarchy of duties. On the topic of Christian Nationalism more broadly, I recommend the Stone Choir podcast episode, "Christian Nationalism Is Submission to God," which takes a Scriptural approach to the definition of nationhood.
@@erc9468 Any sort of preferential treatment under the law, deportment or internment of those who don’t espouse belief in Jesus, and any number of violent or unchristlike ways of responding to “enemies” of the faith.
@@S1leNtRIP Well - a couple of things. I'm not sure that it would be necessarily in the interest of Christians to expel non-Christians. In most of the ways I can think of, it would be against the interest of Christians. Fewer customers and workers generally aren't good. Also, it is obviously in everyone's interest to keep certain elements out of Christian countries. Just look at how the UK is now dealing with fascist anti-Semitism due to their immigration policies. Finally, *SOMEBODY'S* religion is going to get preferenced, since different religions have different truth claims and strictures. It isn't *WHETHER*, but *WHICH*. So which religion do you want to be preferenced by the govt instead of Christianity?
Ok, here's what Christ's scriptures say... "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" - 1 Corinthians 5: 12+13
@hhhieronymusbotch In the Great Commission Jesus states that ALL authority has been given to Him in heaven and earth. We are commanded THEREFORE to go and make disciples and teach them to OBEY. Faithful Christians have totally transformed what once was a pagan world. There is no reason to surrender it back to pagans again.
@@spartakos3178 jesus has the authority. Not you. Shut up and obey what the scripture says or go find another religion. "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" - 1 Corinthians 5: 12+13
@@landonmiller338Blessed is the one who does not...sit in the company of mockers, but whose delight is in the law of the Lord, and who meditates on his law day and night. (Psalm 1:1-2 NIV)
My problem with Stephen is that one cannot claim being Christian on a corporate basis. You don't inheirite Christianity. You must confess Christ individually.
Wolfe says at 8:00 “I don’t know how you can have a nation without some ancestral connection to the people and place.” When my ancestors and my husband’s ancestors came to America in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, they all came from countries that the Americans of their time looked down upon, China, Italy, Ireland, and Poland, part of a great wave of immigration to the US. Yet they and their fellow immigrants all worked and contributed to making a great nation. My bi-racial children are fully American. People from disparate nations and cultures can assimilate and make a great nation.
You assimilated like he said. That being said, the overwhelming majority of us have a common ancestry. If we were all just a grab-bag of different groups, the Nation would collapse. There's a reason why ethnic fractionalisation is correlated with everything bad in a Nation. Just look at Somalia
Stephen has said publicly that Christian Nationalism would require that women no longer hold positions of authority such as judges, politicians, or police. The society he envisions would imprison and or execute atheists or people accused of blasphemy. He says women are too sensitive and empathetic to carry out these directives. Sound like the loving humble service-led movement of Jesus? I don’t see it. Read David Prior’s book “Jesus and Power”, it’s nothing short of prophetic.
Remember, Wolfe's project is political theory. As such, he's describing things that are permissible, but not always prudent. In your comment, would you say it's *always sinful* for women to not be allowed to hold positions of authority such as judges, politicians, or law enforcement? Or would you agree that in some situations, it's permissible for women to not be allowed to hold these positions of authority? I'm just curious how extreme or dogmatic your view is compared to the flexible theory that Wolfe puts forward. I'm also not sure where Wolfe says that atheists and accused blasphemers *must* be imprisoned or executed, which is what you said by using the word "would." As a reminder, Wolfe is speaking in terms of permissibility, not prescription. Could you envision any situations where atheists as atheists could rightly be imprisoned or executed? Or where actual blasphemers (not simply *accused* blasphemers) could be imprisoned or executed? Is there any common good that *could* be served there, or is that sort of action everywhere and always sinful? Final questions: Have you read the Old Testament? If so, would you say that God sinned? I think you need to understand that political theory provides options that could be implemented or not, since theory is principle-based. The resulting question is how is one to apply the principles in his particular context. But the principles themselves must be understood first. That's what Wolfe is doing.
@@TheFlyingDutchman85 Great questions, I have read the Old Testament. I agree with Paul when he says we see “through a glass darkly”, I don’t think God has ever commanded divine violence. I believe God’s Word (Jesus) is infallible and inerrant. I don’t believe the diverse library of scripture written by people seeking to understand God is. I believe that if you picture Jesus as a warrior God who would delight in bashing infants heads against the rocks, or instructing soldiers to enslave and keep virgins from other tribes, then it is not the Christianity of Jesus you seek to emulate, but the Christianity of Constantine, and Rome. I believe that Jesus is God in the flesh, and there is no other vengeful God hiding behind Him. He said “If you’ve seen me, you’ve seen the Father”. In a nutshell yes I believe executing blasphemers and atheists in any society is morally wrong and sinful. I also believe that keeping women from serving in any job they wish to serve is wrong too. Is there anywhere in the gospels where Jesus calls on his followers to kill or commit violence in his name, or in his defense? Do you think he envisioned an empire of religion to spring up in his name? Did Peter do right by cutting off the Roman’s ear when they were arresting Jesus? Does he “permit” violence from those who would follow Him?
@@saulgoo2334 The question I'm still not sure you answered is whether or not you believe God sinned in the Old Testament. Do you believe He did? Perhaps the related question is, do you believe that Jesus introduced a fundamentally different religion in the New Testament, such that God as depicted in the Old Testament has drastically changed His character in the New?
@@TheFlyingDutchman85 I think ancient Jewish scholars and scribes had an early well meaning undeveloped idea of God. I believe Jesus was God setting the record straight. I believe God is exactly like Jesus. Any writings that would imply otherwise I believe are wrong. I don’t think Jesus introduced or sought to introduce a religion either. He came to illustrate to humanity how we are to love and serve one another in humility, and He came to inaugurate new creation, to defeat the forces of this world whose power relied on death.
I was impressed with the civility of this conversation, but I appreciate Michael Bird's unabashed and persistent challenges to Stephen Wolfe's theories.
So at 1:03:00, Dr. Wolfe argues that without a base Protestant tradition encoded into law, one simply descends into "moral anarchy." I'm not sure how that doesn't relegate non-Protestants -- as well as Protestants who don't share his vision -- to second class citizens. I'm not part of the Christian community at all, so I'm at a loss to understand his reasoning why I should be subject to the imposed Protestant traditions he proposes. Can't you just live your life the way you wish within your insular community and leave the rest of us to live our lives as we best see fit? Also, why so many swipes at Catholics, there, Stephen? That certainly seems like a personal prejudice seeping through that buttoned down veneer you present.
Because the Nation was founded by Christians, for Christians, with Christian values. Without some religious component, explicit or implicit, a Nation can't exist. And I'm a Catholic, but I'd gladly take Prot CN over whatever the Hell (literally) we're living with now.
@@RussianBot4Christscripture transcends all. We must obey. Here's what it says... "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" - 1 Corinthians 5: 12+13
No, they don't. We're still physical humans with families and people groups. How can you honour your fathers and mothers if you throw away the Nation they handed you for the sake of showing how "righteous" you are?
@@MeanBeanComedy Honouring our fathers and mothers? The bible tells us to do that. Its sure great to obey that book isn't it. Oh look here's what else it says to do... "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" - 1 Corinthians 5: 12+13
The more I listened to Dr Wolfe, the more my level of horror was raised. As a WASP myself I found myself in deep disagreement with his position. I have lived in the USA for almost fifteen years and, sadly, find his position both much more common than I would like it to be (I’d like it to be unique!) and deeply troubling. I should add that I am British and will not take on American citizenship because of the commonality of such views (and, before someone tells me to leave the country, I put far, far more money into the American economy than I take out - and all without representation). I do not need to comment on Mr Bird’s position - his facial reactions said it all.
We don't care about your money. America isn't an economic zone, it's a Nation of people. Christian Nationalism is inevitable. Feel free to leave and take your money with you.
Should add I found much of what Mike Bird pointed out about Wolfe's views truly chilling, it seems to me that the German Christians of 1930s Germany could have used his arguments to justify their support for the Nazi party
Yes. Shut it down with scripture. "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" - 1 Corinthians 5: 12+13
Please read a different book. Learn about a different decade. For once in your life, learn another period of history, and stop connecting every damned thing with one decade 90 years ago in one country on the other side of the planet.
@@MeanBeanComedy ok. Here's what a book from almost 2000 years ago says. (Its the bible...we're supposed to obey it) "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" - 1 Corinthians 5: 12+13
Christian nationalism has been tried. It was called Christendom. It survived until the late 14th early 15th centuries in the east. In the west christendom lasted in one form or another until the 19th century.
Any chance of getting UK Christians on? Mind you, the subject of Christian Nationalism is purely a a USA question (have you noticed how US nationals talk about America, as if they are the only country that is American?) However, what might be a good discussion would be a proponent of liberal democracy explaining how such a position could be maintained against the multi-ethnic pressures especially from Islam without the Christian background. Mind you, you'd probably have to get a Christian with backbone for that, not one of your CoE wimps.
America is a term that can mean one of the continents or the USA. It's quite normal for words to have two uses, one more general and one more specific. For example "Catholic" can mean the one Church founded by Jesus, or it can mean the Universal Church, including all those in schism.
Proponents of liberal democracy rarely have any defenses besides, "Like, come on, guys! Are you a fascist or something? King George! Liberalism means freedom! You like freedom, don't you? Are you a communist or something? So I guess you hate freedom, then!" And so on and so forth. It hasn't been argued for in so long, people forgot the lies they originally told themselves to defend it.
@@MeanBeanComedy Yes, I was poking fun at the USA. As for Catholic, the word means universal. To combine it with a city is ridiculous & historically stems from Rome's extreme arrogance, to imagine that it was the 'Church founded by Christ'. History & Scripture display to us that the Church was made up of individual congregations of Christians, each self governing by a group of elders. Quite early on, some churches replaced that group with a single, monarchical 'bishop' & this spread eventually to Rome. Rome, being the capital city, the bishop of that congregation felt they had some authority over other churches, leading to Victor, Rome's pope, threatening to excommunicate those who disagreed with him over the date of Easter. He was reprimanded even by those on his side & ignored by those who disagreed. Thus the claim of Rome to be the Church founded by Christ has been rejected by most Christians since the beginning.
Great discussion and better than most reductionistic sound bites. As a Baptist, I'm a little annoyed with how both these men define the separation of church and state. Even Mike seemed to wink at England's church establishment as no big deal. These men are in denominations that were historically privileged by state entanglements. A third voice from the free church tradition would be helpful. Though i admit many Baptist leaders have forgotten their roots in this matter. Cheers!
Have you forgotten "My Kingdom is not of this world"? I am a Christian and I think the formal linkage between State and Church is the worst development to so far befall the Body of Christ. It corrupts us, becomes a distraction and engenders division leading to a drifting away from Christ. I have never before used the word "heresy, but I think its deserved when applied to "Christian" nationalism.
Have you never heard "On Earth as it is in Heaven?" Anyone can pull a clause out of context. Jesus was saying that to stand in contrast to the Zealots, who were trying to wrest control over Israel from Rome, and eventually caused the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD and the destruction of Jerusalem again in 140 AD (iirc). You have to know the context to passages.
@MeanBeanComedy I disagree with your interpretation which is nothing more than supposition. Further, you do not know the will of God - His will may be just as Christ directly stated, thus: John 18:36, Christ said to Pilate at his trial "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders." It were well you honored him rather than the politics of the moment which is a creation of man
I think there is a difference between seeking your nation to be governed in a godly manner & sacralism, that is church & state uniting so that each is an arm of the other. The first is good, the second leads to the corruption of the church, as is seen in the national churches of Europe.
@martinploughboy988 You've a point there - the thing about which I am most concerned is the risk that some in the Church might seek to secure by force (law, control) those changes they might like to see in our society that they cannot secure by persuasion and through *leading by righteous and compassionate example in their own lives*. We would all agree that some things are outright criminal (eg physical spousal abuse, child porography, etc) but some things aren't inherently criminal (although some Christians might think so, such as homosexuality). I am a Christian, have been for longer than most other Christians have been alive, and I am deeply concerned by the attitudes and behaviors of some of my brothers and sisters who pretty obviously are not walking close to Christ (they don't resemble His conduct and don't seem to take His teachings seriously - where are the fruits?), yet carry themselves as if possessed of grace, Insight and authority denied to others. It shames me to say so, but some of them have behaved towards others worse than you might expect of those "in the world." And some of them are fully into "Christian Nationalism," devoted to politics to the point they seem to subvert Christ to it. I am deeply concerned, and frankly, how would we keep such people out of power except by publicly holding them to account, running better candidates from among ourselves, and refusing to vote for them? Some of those people have been the most hateful, or prideful, or even disinterested in education I have met. I've tried love, compassion, sweet reason, and other non-confrontational approaches, but none have been effective. Something is heart-breakingly wrong in the Church - so no, I don't trust "Christian Nationalism" because I don't trust the outsize influence that broken Christians in that mix exert among those who aren't. Christian Nationalism as is at high risk to morph into theocracy led by really scary Christians, and that is the last thing I think we need right now.
This is absolutely appalling. There is nothing “Christian” about this “Christian Nationalism.” Theologically, biblically, politically, this is absolutely nonsensical. Mike, thanks for taking the time to engage with these ideas to expose just how harmful this movement is. I can only imagine how frustrating it would have to be to not pull your hair out every time Stephen responded!
Agreed. "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" - 1 Corinthians 5: 12+13
You're ignorant, Stephen is consistent with Puritan and Reformed political theory, which is to live out the rule of Christ in all of life, including our laws, institutions, and morality. If you're a Christian, you don't oppose Christ. That you would and claim to be a Christian is what's truly appalling.
One last comment if I may. At the end, Dr. Wolfe asserts that individualism is generally harmful and bad, yet he doesn't back that up in secular terms that I might understand. It seems as though his assertion is rooted in his (I would say 'egotistical') belief that he and his ilk know what's better for everyone, as if everyone else is but a child and his Protestant cohorts are the adults leading the way. I find that very threatening, and would like to point out that I don't think living in a pluralistic, multi-cultural society is harmful at all. Everyone being afforded the dignity of choosing their own paths for themselves seems like the better way to organize a society so that everyone, of any creed, can thrive.
If rabid individualism was good for people, the western world would not be dying of opiates and suicide. The statistics are in, left wing ideology is terrible for the physical health, and mental health of humanity.
@@spartakos3178 obeying the scripture is good for 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" - 1 Corinthians 5: 12+13
Yes but what happens when everyone chooses their own path, And human sacrifice , and tr4nzing kids is on that path. Extreme example, but realistic. Not all worldviews are equal. If God really did create us all, and he gave us his word, we should follow it
@@coyotebuttons here is God's word. Follow it..."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" - 1 Corinthians 5: 12+13
Agreed. This is what the scriptures say, and we should submit to God by obeying them... "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" - 1 Corinthians 5: 12+13
"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" - 1 Corinthians 5: 12+13
You need to understand the difference between the spheres of the Church, family, and State. God has instituted all 3 of these institutions and Christ has been given authority over all these institutions. The only legitimate church is one that obeys Christ just as the only legitimate state is one that obeys Christ.
@@David-kd1rw Uhuh? Well that's a nice theory. Anyway here's what the bible ACTUALLY says again. Go away and obey it. "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" - 1 Corinthians 5: 12+13
@@hhhieronymusbotch Taking scripture meant to guide the church and misapplying to the state only proves your lack of wisdom. Have you not read Psalm 2? “Therefore, you kings, be wise; be warned, you rulers of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear and celebrate his rule with trembling. Kiss his son, or he will be angry and your way will lead to your destruction, for his wrath can flare up in a moment. Blessed are all who take refuge in him.”
@@David-kd1rw it does apply to the church. We have no business judging anyone outside of it. Have you not read 1 Corinthians 5? "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" - 1 Corinthians 5: 12+13 Blatantly refusing to obey the scripture of God is lack of wisdom
@@hhhieronymusbotchCopying and pasting the same out-of-context verse just makes you look bad. Even the people who agree with you are mocking you for behaving like a fool.
A further comment. When Michael Bird raises the issue of compulsory voting he makes a throwaway comment about the left (marijuana soaked tofu) which is incorrect stereotyping. There is a confusion persisting between liberal and left wing. I come from a NE England family of socialist coal miners who would be horrified at that comment. Otherwise Mr Bird is very impressive in this discussion which all participants carry out very respectfully - an excellent model for any discussion. If compulsory voting was introduced to the USA it would inevitably lead to increased participation by racial minorities which could completely change the political culture. At least one party would have to change its policies radically in order to remain electable.
Racial minorities already vote at an above-average rate. It would instead force more non-college whites to vote, which would benefit the GOP at the mo.
“What I relate is the history of the next two centuries. I describe what is coming, what can no longer come differently: the advent of nihilism! Nihilism stands at the door: whence comes this uncanniest of all guests? 1. Point of departure: it is an error to consider 'social distress' or 'physiological degeneration' or, worse, corruption, as the cause of nihilism. Ours is the most decent and compassionate age. Distress, whether of the soul, body, or intellect, cannot of itself give birth to nihilism (i.e., the radical repudiation of value, meaning, and desirability). Such distress always permits a variety of interpretations. Rather: it is in one particular interpretation, the Christian-moral one, that nihilism is rooted. 2. The end of Christianity-at the hands of its own morality (which cannot be replaced), which turns against the Christian God (the sense of truthfulness, developed highly by Christianity, is nauseated by the falseness and mendaciousness of all Christian interpretations of the world and of history; rebound from 'God is truth' to the fanatical faith 'All is false'; a Buddhism of inaction). 3. Skepticism regarding morality is what is decisive. The end of the moral interpretation of the world, which no longer has any sanction after it has tried to escape into some beyond, leads to nihilism. 'Everything lacks meaning' (the untenability of one interpretation of the world, upon which a tremendous amount of energy has been lavished, awakens the suspicion that all interpretations of the world are false). Buddhistic tendency, a kind of yearning for Nothing. (Indian Buddhism is not the culmination of a thoroughly moralistic development; its nihilism is therefore full of morality that is not overcome: existence as punishment, existence construed as error, error thus as a punishment- is a moral valuation.) 4. Philosophical attempts to overcome the 'moral God' (Hegel, pantheism). Overcoming popular ideals: the sage; the saint; the poet. The antagonism of 'true' and 'beautiful' and 'good'." ~ Friedrich Nietzsche (1888)
"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" - 1 Corinthians 5: 12+13
@@hhhieronymusbotch The decline of Christianity is the decline of the west in all its legal, social, and moral aspects. The vid is about politics and "Christian nationalism," not "judging people outside our faith" ( duh...).
God's law says, ""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" - 1 Corinthians 5: 12+13
@@landonmiller338 it's the scripture. Shut up and obey it or go find another religion. "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" - 1 Corinthians 5: 12+13
@@landonmiller338 here's the context. The Corinthians were judging people outside of the faith. Paul said we have no business doing that. End of discussion. Refusing to obey God's word is your weakness. Fix it
Dr. Wolfe keeps saying "I'm saying it's 'permissible' to...." That's quite the weasel wording for something he's very much advocating. Rescinding non-Christian community political influence based upon what the Christian community deems harmful or detrimental seems tacitly unfair, anti-democratic, and anti-libertarian freedom. I'm not sure how this makes life better for ALL communities within the United States. It just seems like Dr. Wolfe is exercising his ego by saying "we know better than you what's good for you," and that seems like an attitude which will lead to a lot of strife and harm for everyone. Why isn't live-and-let-live a better option here?
@@earlychristianhistorywithm8684I had the thought that we should just obey scripture... "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" - 1 Corinthians 5: 12+13
No, Jesus isn't. This statement is absurd. He is in the same line of Christian political theory as the Reformers and the Puritans, you're simply ignorant of it.
Tell me what it's about! If you're a Christian, you would say the true Christian word. For example, are you saying that man has better moral laws than God does? Is that what you're saying - that moral standards are better with man-made laws or with God's laws?
Which churches are Christian National churches. Could you list 10 Christian National Churches, and where they are located, or literature published by Christian Nationalist Churches. I have lived in quite a few states, but I have never encountered one, the community I live in now is packed with various Christian churches, all trying to poach members from one another, or recruit new members (😂)… I would have heard about a Christian National church. Rumors fly between Christian churches…I have heard nothing about a Christian National church. They use different bibles, and squabble about interpretations of meanings of verses…. But the discussions are about Bible verses, not politics. So if there is a Christian National church… it is a very small group, not coast to coast or in all small Christian communities. If you can’t list them… then you cannot prove it’s a vast right wing Christian Fascist, racist, isolationist church ecosystem. I would love to meet one out of curiosity, they sound frightening, please document and distribute…names and churches. ❤️✝️ (not a symbol of Christian Nationalist Church)
It's easier to just look for churches not obeying this... "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" - 1 Corinthians 5: 12+13
At about 1:06:00, Mr. Bird mischaracterizes Canada as "about to make it OK to euthanize autistic people." That's not legislation that's being passed. The legislation to allow people a dignified death on their own terms was passed in 2016. There is a case in court there where the father of an adult autistic woman is challenging her right to assisted suicide. The case will determine whether that can happen or not. I won't state my own feelings on the matter, but I wanted to point out the misleading statement there.
@@nathanphillipsgo "good Christian leaders"? No, leave your superstitious nonsense in your tax free churches away from the secular Constitutional government.
There are two major flaws in Dr. Michael F. Bird’s thinking in this discussion of politics. The 1st being that he is under the impression that there is neutrality between the believer and the nonbeliever. Neutrality is a myth that has made the Evangelical Christian comatose while the secularist are jousting for power to assert their will based on their religious paradigm. If there isn’t such a thing of neutrality in the Spiritual realm, why do people think neutrality exists in the physical? Does not the spiritual influence the physical which includes politics and culture? The Apostle Paul warns the Christian in Ephesians 6:12, “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.” So if this is the case, why does the Christian fail to recognize the nonbelievers worldview will always make an attempt to encroach on a Christianized culture. Dr. Michael Bird has demonstrated this by hoping in democracy prevailing in the “neutral” public square, and not realizing that politics is in fact battles and wars being waged. He stated that 80% of Fiji is Christian due to democracy and democracy should be good enough without necessitating any further measures to enshrine Christianity in their government. Nevertheless, surely he would not want to live in a country consisting of Satanist which may have 80% legislative power and/or voting power. Which brings me to addressing the second flaw that Dr. Michael Bird has in this discussion and that being his belief that the nonbeliever is innately good. The harsh reality is that no one is good not even one; and the nonbeliever does not fear the Christian God. Thus, they will formulate decisions based on the lack of their fear in God. So why even trust in democracy that is not rooted in Christian tenets? I would suggest that not only should Christians rule governments but they should make every attempt to enshrine Christian theology in their governing documents. For example, I think the Apostles Creed should be in the United States Preamble of the Constitution. This is would create Christian safeguards within Christian culture ruled by Christian governance. Dr. Michael Bird’s safeguarding suggestion of grassroots evangelism is also necessary. Both must be applied because my belief is that when Christians rule, both the believer and nonbeliever will thrive. If you entrust your political hopes on false pretenses such as the political “neutral” grounds, you will be battling things like abortion for multiple generations which has resulted in the murder of hundreds of millions of innocent life. Christians must wield power to the glory of God.
Yup. Ask any American to define "Democracy." Almost nobody can do it. Our "2 party" is not in our Constitution. Nope. America's Christians MUST read Aristotle's Politics along with our Bibles. Early Christian writers (we read what they wrote) had all studied the Dialogs of Plato and Treatise of Aristotle. The Septuagint OT and NT Scripture are written in Aristotle's (Alexander's) Koine Greek. Americans must stop "having feelings" and start mastering the working vocabulary of Culture of Civilization.@@landonmiller338
"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" - 1 Corinthians 5: 12+13
What kind of political equality is it if a "higher" power can restrict and remove a group's power! This is a foolish argument. And frankly, Stephen has this ideal vision of family ties. If you had an ancestor in a national war, there is this family feeling? A lot of young people today aren't big on the warring for anything, let alone warring to create a familial relationship.
The lord decides the acceptable view to hold. Here's what his scripture says. It ends the discussion on this whole subject... "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" - 1 Corinthians 5: 12+13
@@mediocreatleague scripture has settled this argument. God is the ruler. Obey his view. "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" - 1 Corinthians 5: 12+13
@@mediocreatleague think about obeying God... "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" - 1 Corinthians 5: 12+13
When our obedience to scripture goes, so does everything else... "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" - 1 Corinthians 5: 12+13
@@MeanBeanComedy the bible pioneered this idea... "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" - 1 Corinthians 5: 12+13
I would also concur with the previous comments regarding Canada. We are not passing laws to do away with people with Autism. He should be more accurate with his comments.
I thought this was a good conversation.
I find that many, including myself, are quick to write off Stephen Wolfe's perspective as a necessarily racist ideology, but if you really listen, I don't actually think that is what he is saying. Glad to listen to Bird push on these issues, but then also get pushed on a seemingly thin conception on why liberal democracy is considered by many to be almost a foundation of Christian orthodoxy.
The conception that liberal democracy in a culture which places individual autonomy and expression as the highest ideal will fail spectacularly. If I am hearing Wolfe correctly, he is stating that a nation will always/must center its ethos and political telos on what is deemed the ultimate good. Wolfe is arguing that placing Christian ideals as the ultimate good of a nation will create a healthier and more thriving nation than expressive individualism. Seems like a very reasonable argument to make.
Did I get that right?
The bible writes off his perspective.
"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" - 1 Corinthians 5: 12+13
@@hhhieronymusbotch this is a really sloppy use of proof texting and is not a serious point for anyone who has familiarity with the Bible and Christian teaching. I'd recommend slowing your roll on this one.
@@StumblingThroughItAll the bible says we have no business judging people outside of the faith. Disobeying it is a sloppy example of sin. Let's slow our roll on that.
@@hhhieronymusbotch Christians participating in the political system of a constitutional republic is a far cry from what judging means in this particular context. Right?
Let's start there.
@@StumblingThroughItAll noone said you can't participate. Participate away. The second your participation involves judging anyone outside of the faith, it's disobeying God's word.
"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" - 1 Corinthians 5: 12+13
Michael; the UK is not working due to multi culturalism
It's a feature of a true democracy that it looks like a mess. If you're looking for something that looks tidy, put in a strong dictator.
This comment made me wince. The very idea that you could make Britain ‘work’ if you reduced the number of cultures!!! Selecting which ones you would remove might be extraordinarily revealing.
@@malcolmspark There's messiness on top of a functioning state, and then there is dysfunction. I can remember the 1990s versus now, they both had surface messiness but the underlying health of the society couldn't be more different.
The problem is Islam, not multiculturalism.
@@johnkitchen4699 You might start with removing all the non-British ones?
Great discussion. Glad Mr. Bird read the book. That made the discussion interesting rather than a bunch of sloganeering
But not relevant to the UK.
I believe you need to read someone in order to refute them.
Fascinating convo. All I really knew about Stephen was what I hear on Twitter/X about him - usually from opponents. It was good to actually hear from him. And Mike Bird is a great speaker, and brought a great balance to the convo. Props to Hallowell as well; great guest host.
It is definite that we need to hear these conversations. Thank you.
Michael bringing up the UK, unironically as a good example of multiculturalism, is quite frankly hilarious. Especially with the smug smirk in his face.
Exactly! Everything about that is a failure mode which Stephen's book is helping us figure out how to avoid.
There is a glaring reason for the contention around Wolfe's ideas of ethnicity. His description of "clusters of ethnic groups" formed by "self-sorting" around "cultural preferences" is utterly disingenuous against the backdrop of U.S. history. The notorious sorting of a minority group by a dominant group- not around "cultural preferences", but on the pretense of supremacy- is such an obvious snag in his theory, and that it was done under the banner of Christianity makes it all the more damning.
Yup, I concur.
I also wonder if he is honest in his arguments or if he is "whitewashing" racism. As well as what he says directly I would be interested in what the fans of his arguments are like if their views are super extreme/far right whether he is prepared to distance himself from those supporters.
@@gareth2736 Good questions. I’m especially curious how many of his fans identify as Christians, and how many are just racists who are looking to twist the Bible into a fig leaf.
I agree this is especially problematic around the issues of race in America, and to some degree in the Anglosphere generally. Not having read Wolfe's book myself, it seems to me from this conversation that Wolfe is (as he pointed out a few different times) trying for the most part to establish a ground for Christian Nationalism. Rather than outlining his plan to re-christianize America, he's describing how Christianity and political power interact in the abstract. This has been a question for Constantine, Alfred, and Luther, as well as Jefferson and (Catholic?) Biden.
Let me throw out a second controversy and see if it makes things clearer or muddier! The Bible nowhere explicitly bans polygamy or divorce. Jesus makes it clear that these things are bad, appealing to the creation design as God's plan for marriage, there are restrictions on an elder being the husband of one wife, the analogy between marriage and Christ and the church, all these things work against polygamy and divorce. If anyone in my church tried to marry a second wife on the basis that it was not forbidden in the Bible, I would rebuke it as sin. But when missionaries to the Congo demanded that converts choose their favourite wife and divorce all others it caused many poor widows to be left destitute.
In this messy world of hard hearts, sometimes even a faithful Christian is forced to a lesser of two evils. I don't yet know if I agree with Wolfe that some of the things he describes are 'permissible', but for the sake of honest debate I feel I need to point out two things:
1. He hasn't (in this debate at least) said that ethnic sorting is good, or a desirable end goal,
2. He hasn't (in this debate at least) said that ethnic sorting should happen in present-day America.
It's important to argue the points that Wolfe is actually making, not jump to how his argument might be used or abused.
One more thing: Considered in the light of Catalan autonomy (from Spain), or even the Scottish Independence movement, ideas of partition remain very concerning, but they are not abhorrent as they are if you have American Black, White, Latin, and Asian populations in mind.
@@quinnmcleish5278 Points taken. I suspect most of the commenters here have read Wolfe’s book and/or have followed the controversy surrounding it for some time, and that there is less extrapolation going on than it would seem. Wolfe likes to remind people his book is political philosophy, but much of what he writes is more idiosyncratic than theoretical, and, though he denies it in conversation, a reasonable reader would intuit that he’s writing with the U.S. in mind. But, don’t take my word for it. Read the book, or save some time and money and read some reviews. The salient points are easy to track down, as are the concerns and Wolfe’s answers to them. If you have a notion of Christian Nationalism that you think is workable, maybe you will come away with a different take, but I pray that you do not see a path in what he is proposing.
Well done! This was a much better engagement with Stephen Wolfe and his book that most of the poor attempts to make him out to be the boogey man. I find that most who do that ignore half of what Stephen’s said, or haven’t read his book. Because this was direct engagement and a coherent conversation, I think Michael actually pointed out some legitimate concerns with some of Stephen’s ideas. I would love to see much more of this and much less of Christian parachurch organizations warning everyone about how much of a threat Christian nationalism is.
Multiculturalism has Already Failed Everywhere.
Examples: Israel / Palestine, Ethiopia, Cyprus, Bahrain, Kosovo, Kurdish region in Turkey, Kashmir, Balochistan, Xinjiang, Iraq, Syria, Myanmar, Lebanon, Mindanao region in Philippines, West Papua region in Indonesia, Central African Republic, South Sudan, Nagorno Karabakh etc...
Much more constructive than I had anticipated. Thanks.
Since Stephen is a Presbyterian, I would be curious how he would respond to Calvin saying that he would “rather be governed by a competent Turk than an incompetent Christian.”
You mean Luther, I think, and he never said it. Look it up. Don’t they both believe in sphere sovereignty? Now you have to think about the limits of that.
Thanks for the correction! @@WisdomFoundry814
He's already said he tentatively agrees with that.
The place of Quebec in Canada is a good example of an ethnic/cultural group seeking to define its place within the broader "national" context. They actually call themselves the "nation" of Quebec; and work hard to maintain their linguistic and cultural traditions within the predominantly Anglophone (& loosely protestant/liberal) culture of Canada. It was, of course, predominantly and virulently Catholic and one point; but is now the least Christianised province of Canada.
I signed up for the conversation but the conversation isn’t there
Wilberforce 'played politics' and ended the slave trade
Here's the line the bible draws with playing politics...
"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" - 1 Corinthians 5: 12+13
@@hhhieronymusbotchSo should we have not ended the Slave Trade?
@@MeanBeanComedy We should obey the bible...
"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" - 1 Corinthians 5: 12+13
So female circumcision is a no, but male circumcision still a fine thing? Frankly, anyone who reads the NT sees Paul objecting, and yet? WE are pretty sure it's a must-do. Who's beliefs manifest?
It's gotta stop, man!
Very good dialogue between brothers. Definitely disarmed me about Wolfe’s suggestions on how to best organize a society with a majority of Disciples of Jesus. Very surprised at Wolfe’s decorum but again this isn’t X and I’m wrestling with dichotomy of his presentation here vs X. God bless
Physiognomy check says Stephen wins. 🤷🏼♂️🤷🏼♂️😎👍🏻
💯
"Christian -nationalism ..
Just not needed😕.
🤕🇪🇺
Some clarifications about the situation in the UK.
The UK does not have an established church, England has, Scotland does not. The Church of England or its Scottish manifestation the Scottish Episcopal Church is not established in Scotland.
Thel Church of Scotland is recognized as the national church of Scotland but it is completely independent from the State both in terms of the devolved Scottish government and the UK national government.
Another detail, no one wrote the British constitution because the UK does not have a written constitution
And, of course, the CoE is as liberal politically as it is theologically. The idea of nationalism would give their bishops a fit of the vapours.
Politically Christians vote for all of the parties, there is no religious divide, so Christian Nationalism is a non starter.
Pity there wasn't a UK person of the programme to point these facts out.
Scotland has a national church. It's Presbyterian.
@@martinploughboy988Christians are still more likely to trend in certain directions, like against baby murder or genital mutilation.
Michael Bird made jokes about Jesus I can't even repeat here, I mean blasphemous, and he's "disturbed" about minorities being deported.
Yeah, "Blasphemy is okay, but *DON'T BE RACIST!!!* 😡😡😡🤬🤬🤬"
Bird takes Wolfes book and imagines the worst case scenario and then imagines the best case from the non Christian world.
Sure seems that way.
These guys are both great at listening to one another. I tend to favor Bird’s perspective.
We should listen to scripture...
"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" - 1 Corinthians 5: 12+13
Me too!
@@hhhieronymusbotchAnd that's relevant to this...how?
@@MeanBeanComedy the bible's perspective on the subject is the most relevant one.
"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" - 1 Corinthians 5: 12+13
I can’t believe we missed the biggest problem with Wolfe’s definition in the opening, that the christian nationalists are “organized for THEIR good”. We are called to serve the good of he nations, to be servants to all. Wild.
Based on 1 Timothy 5:8 (which says that whoever fails to provide for their own kin and family is worse than an unbeliever), and based on the natural human limitations of time and space, it's clear that God requires a human prioritization of care, just as Jesus practiced in Matthew 15.22-28, Matthew 10.5-8, and John 19.26-27. Jesus did not serve everyone on earth equally during his ministry.
God places each man in time and history with divine intentionality. Human bodies are finite. We cannot possibly love and serve all humans equally, so we must prioritize relationships and ministry as Jesus did during his temporal, earthly ministry. Only when he was lifted up did he draw all men himself, but on earth, he followed a godly hierarchy of duties.
On the topic of Christian Nationalism more broadly, I recommend the Stone Choir podcast episode, "Christian Nationalism Is Submission to God," which takes a Scriptural approach to the definition of nationhood.
So can you tell me what circumstance would there be a policy for the good of Christians, but against the good of non-Christians?
@@erc9468 Any sort of preferential treatment under the law, deportment or internment of those who don’t espouse belief in Jesus, and any number of violent or unchristlike ways of responding to “enemies” of the faith.
@@S1leNtRIP
Well - a couple of things.
I'm not sure that it would be necessarily in the interest of Christians to expel non-Christians. In most of the ways I can think of, it would be against the interest of Christians. Fewer customers and workers generally aren't good.
Also, it is obviously in everyone's interest to keep certain elements out of Christian countries. Just look at how the UK is now dealing with fascist anti-Semitism due to their immigration policies.
Finally, *SOMEBODY'S* religion is going to get preferenced, since different religions have different truth claims and strictures. It isn't *WHETHER*, but *WHICH*.
So which religion do you want to be preferenced by the govt instead of Christianity?
Christ or Chaos, that is the lesson of the last decade.
Ok, here's what Christ's scriptures say...
"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" - 1 Corinthians 5: 12+13
@hhhieronymusbotch In the Great Commission Jesus states that ALL authority has been given to Him in heaven and earth. We are commanded THEREFORE to go and make disciples and teach them to OBEY.
Faithful Christians have totally transformed what once was a pagan world. There is no reason to surrender it back to pagans again.
@@spartakos3178 jesus has the authority. Not you. Shut up and obey what the scripture says or go find another religion.
"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" - 1 Corinthians 5: 12+13
@@spartakos3178careful, he might have to leave his mom's basement if you correct his Scripture twisting.
@@landonmiller338Blessed is the one who does not...sit in the company of mockers, but whose delight is in the law of the Lord, and who meditates on his law day and night. (Psalm 1:1-2 NIV)
My problem with Stephen is that one cannot claim being Christian on a corporate basis. You don't inheirite Christianity. You must confess Christ individually.
Wolfe says at 8:00 “I don’t know how you can have a nation without some ancestral connection to the people and place.” When my ancestors and my husband’s ancestors came to America in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, they all came from countries that the Americans of their time looked down upon, China, Italy, Ireland, and Poland, part of a great wave of immigration to the US. Yet they and their fellow immigrants all worked and contributed to making a great nation. My bi-racial children are fully American. People from disparate nations and cultures can assimilate and make a great nation.
You said a word there "assimilation". So you do realize that multiculturalism is impossible
You assimilated like he said. That being said, the overwhelming majority of us have a common ancestry. If we were all just a grab-bag of different groups, the Nation would collapse. There's a reason why ethnic fractionalisation is correlated with everything bad in a Nation. Just look at Somalia
Stephen has said publicly that Christian Nationalism would require that women no longer hold positions of authority such as judges, politicians, or police. The society he envisions would imprison and or execute atheists or people accused of blasphemy. He says women are too sensitive and empathetic to carry out these directives. Sound like the loving humble service-led movement of Jesus? I don’t see it. Read David Prior’s book “Jesus and Power”, it’s nothing short of prophetic.
Remember, Wolfe's project is political theory. As such, he's describing things that are permissible, but not always prudent. In your comment, would you say it's *always sinful* for women to not be allowed to hold positions of authority such as judges, politicians, or law enforcement? Or would you agree that in some situations, it's permissible for women to not be allowed to hold these positions of authority? I'm just curious how extreme or dogmatic your view is compared to the flexible theory that Wolfe puts forward.
I'm also not sure where Wolfe says that atheists and accused blasphemers *must* be imprisoned or executed, which is what you said by using the word "would." As a reminder, Wolfe is speaking in terms of permissibility, not prescription. Could you envision any situations where atheists as atheists could rightly be imprisoned or executed? Or where actual blasphemers (not simply *accused* blasphemers) could be imprisoned or executed? Is there any common good that *could* be served there, or is that sort of action everywhere and always sinful?
Final questions: Have you read the Old Testament? If so, would you say that God sinned?
I think you need to understand that political theory provides options that could be implemented or not, since theory is principle-based. The resulting question is how is one to apply the principles in his particular context. But the principles themselves must be understood first. That's what Wolfe is doing.
@@TheFlyingDutchman85 Great questions, I have read the Old Testament. I agree with Paul when he says we see “through a glass darkly”, I don’t think God has ever commanded divine violence. I believe God’s Word (Jesus) is infallible and inerrant. I don’t believe the diverse library of scripture written by people seeking to understand God is. I believe that if you picture Jesus as a warrior God who would delight in bashing infants heads against the rocks, or instructing soldiers to enslave and keep virgins from other tribes, then it is not the Christianity of Jesus you seek to emulate, but the Christianity of Constantine, and Rome. I believe that Jesus is God in the flesh, and there is no other vengeful God hiding behind Him. He said “If you’ve seen me, you’ve seen the Father”. In a nutshell yes I believe executing blasphemers and atheists in any society is morally wrong and sinful. I also believe that keeping women from serving in any job they wish to serve is wrong too. Is there anywhere in the gospels where Jesus calls on his followers to kill or commit violence in his name, or in his defense? Do you think he envisioned an empire of religion to spring up in his name? Did Peter do right by cutting off the Roman’s ear when they were arresting Jesus? Does he “permit” violence from those who would follow Him?
@@saulgoo2334 The question I'm still not sure you answered is whether or not you believe God sinned in the Old Testament. Do you believe He did?
Perhaps the related question is, do you believe that Jesus introduced a fundamentally different religion in the New Testament, such that God as depicted in the Old Testament has drastically changed His character in the New?
@@TheFlyingDutchman85 I think ancient Jewish scholars and scribes had an early well meaning undeveloped idea of God. I believe Jesus was God setting the record straight. I believe God is exactly like Jesus. Any writings that would imply otherwise I believe are wrong. I don’t think Jesus introduced or sought to introduce a religion either. He came to illustrate to humanity how we are to love and serve one another in humility, and He came to inaugurate new creation, to defeat the forces of this world whose power relied on death.
@@TheFlyingDutchman85 Does that answer your question? Do you believe something different?
I was impressed with the civility of this conversation, but I appreciate Michael Bird's unabashed and persistent challenges to Stephen Wolfe's theories.
Thanks!
They were definitely persistent. Not great, but persistent!
So at 1:03:00, Dr. Wolfe argues that without a base Protestant tradition encoded into law, one simply descends into "moral anarchy." I'm not sure how that doesn't relegate non-Protestants -- as well as Protestants who don't share his vision -- to second class citizens. I'm not part of the Christian community at all, so I'm at a loss to understand his reasoning why I should be subject to the imposed Protestant traditions he proposes. Can't you just live your life the way you wish within your insular community and leave the rest of us to live our lives as we best see fit?
Also, why so many swipes at Catholics, there, Stephen? That certainly seems like a personal prejudice seeping through that buttoned down veneer you present.
Because the Nation was founded by Christians, for Christians, with Christian values. Without some religious component, explicit or implicit, a Nation can't exist.
And I'm a Catholic, but I'd gladly take Prot CN over whatever the Hell (literally) we're living with now.
Don't "higher things" usually call us to transcend the temporal ethnic, and national distinctions?
No, we do not transcend what is human to become anti human, nor transcend what is ethnic to become anti ethnic.
@@RussianBot4Christscripture transcends all. We must obey. Here's what it says...
"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" - 1 Corinthians 5: 12+13
So we shouldn't have nations...huh?
No, they don't. We're still physical humans with families and people groups.
How can you honour your fathers and mothers if you throw away the Nation they handed you for the sake of showing how "righteous" you are?
@@MeanBeanComedy Honouring our fathers and mothers? The bible tells us to do that. Its sure great to obey that book isn't it.
Oh look here's what else it says to do...
"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" - 1 Corinthians 5: 12+13
Great discussion but too many ads.
Someone tell Bird facial expressions don’t equal arguments.
I wonder what Stephen Wolfe's position on the status of the minority Serb population of Kosovo.
Just based on the intros alone, you can tell who is serious and who is a clown. Hillsong? Seriously? 🐦 is a joke.
The more I listened to Dr Wolfe, the more my level of horror was raised. As a WASP myself I found myself in deep disagreement with his position. I have lived in the USA for almost fifteen years and, sadly, find his position both much more common than I would like it to be (I’d like it to be unique!) and deeply troubling. I should add that I am British and will not take on American citizenship because of the commonality of such views (and, before someone tells me to leave the country, I put far, far more money into the American economy than I take out - and all without representation). I do not need to comment on Mr Bird’s position - his facial reactions said it all.
We don't care about your money. America isn't an economic zone, it's a Nation of people.
Christian Nationalism is inevitable. Feel free to leave and take your money with you.
Yes😊
it is when Grace Driscoll is involved
Should add I found much of what Mike Bird pointed out about Wolfe's views truly chilling, it seems to me that the German Christians of 1930s Germany could have used his arguments to justify their support for the Nazi party
Yes. Shut it down with scripture.
"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" - 1 Corinthians 5: 12+13
Please read a different book. Learn about a different decade. For once in your life, learn another period of history, and stop connecting every damned thing with one decade 90 years ago in one country on the other side of the planet.
@@MeanBeanComedy ok. Here's what a book from almost 2000 years ago says.
(Its the bible...we're supposed to obey it)
"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" - 1 Corinthians 5: 12+13
No the founders drew the majority of thought on liberal democracy from the French.
Christian nationalism has been tried. It was called Christendom. It survived until the late 14th early 15th centuries in the east. In the west christendom lasted in one form or another until the 19th century.
My goodness at the ads on here!
59:18 🎯 agree. I actually dont think everybody should vote specially if u dont have skin on the game.
Any chance of getting UK Christians on? Mind you, the subject of Christian Nationalism is purely a a USA question (have you noticed how US nationals talk about America, as if they are the only country that is American?)
However, what might be a good discussion would be a proponent of liberal democracy explaining how such a position could be maintained against the multi-ethnic pressures especially from Islam without the Christian background. Mind you, you'd probably have to get a Christian with backbone for that, not one of your CoE wimps.
America is a term that can mean one of the continents or the USA. It's quite normal for words to have two uses, one more general and one more specific. For example "Catholic" can mean the one Church founded by Jesus, or it can mean the Universal Church, including all those in schism.
Proponents of liberal democracy rarely have any defenses besides, "Like, come on, guys! Are you a fascist or something? King George! Liberalism means freedom! You like freedom, don't you? Are you a communist or something? So I guess you hate freedom, then!" And so on and so forth. It hasn't been argued for in so long, people forgot the lies they originally told themselves to defend it.
@@MeanBeanComedy Yes, I was poking fun at the USA.
As for Catholic, the word means universal. To combine it with a city is ridiculous & historically stems from Rome's extreme arrogance, to imagine that it was the 'Church founded by Christ'. History & Scripture display to us that the Church was made up of individual congregations of Christians, each self governing by a group of elders. Quite early on, some churches replaced that group with a single, monarchical 'bishop' & this spread eventually to Rome. Rome, being the capital city, the bishop of that congregation felt they had some authority over other churches, leading to Victor, Rome's pope, threatening to excommunicate those who disagreed with him over the date of Easter. He was reprimanded even by those on his side & ignored by those who disagreed. Thus the claim of Rome to be the Church founded by Christ has been rejected by most Christians since the beginning.
Great discussion and better than most reductionistic sound bites. As a Baptist, I'm a little annoyed with how both these men define the separation of church and state. Even Mike seemed to wink at England's church establishment as no big deal. These men are in denominations that were historically privileged by state entanglements. A third voice from the free church tradition would be helpful. Though i admit many Baptist leaders have forgotten their roots in this matter. Cheers!
Baptists are the most historically-illiterate denomination in all of Christendom. Probably wouldn't help the discussion at all.
Clearly Wolfe knows what he is talking about and bird is worried about how he is precieved
I wonder what year Stephen's lineage arrived in the United States 🤔
Probably not long enough ago for him to be this uppity and ready kick people out
Have you forgotten "My Kingdom is not of this world"?
I am a Christian and I think the formal linkage between State and Church is the worst development to so far befall the Body of Christ. It corrupts us, becomes a distraction and engenders division leading to a drifting away from Christ.
I have never before used the word "heresy, but I think its deserved when applied to "Christian" nationalism.
Yet our liberal democracies are based on a superficially Christian world view.
Have you never heard "On Earth as it is in Heaven?"
Anyone can pull a clause out of context. Jesus was saying that to stand in contrast to the Zealots, who were trying to wrest control over Israel from Rome, and eventually caused the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD and the destruction of Jerusalem again in 140 AD (iirc).
You have to know the context to passages.
@MeanBeanComedy
I disagree with your interpretation which is nothing more than supposition.
Further, you do not know the will of God - His will may be just as Christ directly stated, thus:
John 18:36, Christ said to Pilate at his trial "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jewish leaders."
It were well you honored him rather than the politics of the moment which is a creation of man
I think there is a difference between seeking your nation to be governed in a godly manner & sacralism, that is church & state uniting so that each is an arm of the other. The first is good, the second leads to the corruption of the church, as is seen in the national churches of Europe.
@martinploughboy988
You've a point there - the thing about which I am most concerned is the risk that some in the Church might seek to secure by force (law, control) those changes they might like to see in our society that they cannot secure by persuasion and through *leading by righteous and compassionate example in their own lives*.
We would all agree that some things are outright criminal (eg physical spousal abuse, child porography, etc) but some things aren't inherently criminal (although some Christians might think so, such as homosexuality).
I am a Christian, have been for longer than most other Christians have been alive, and I am deeply concerned by the attitudes and behaviors of some of my brothers and sisters who pretty obviously are not walking close to Christ (they don't resemble His conduct and don't seem to take His teachings seriously - where are the fruits?), yet carry themselves as if possessed of grace, Insight and authority denied to others.
It shames me to say so, but some of them have behaved towards others worse than you might expect of those "in the world." And some of them are fully into "Christian Nationalism," devoted to politics to the point they seem to subvert Christ to it. I am deeply concerned, and frankly, how would we keep such people out of power except by publicly holding them to account, running better candidates from among ourselves, and refusing to vote for them? Some of those people have been the most hateful, or prideful, or even disinterested in education I have met. I've tried love, compassion, sweet reason, and other non-confrontational approaches, but none have been effective.
Something is heart-breakingly wrong in the Church - so no, I don't trust "Christian Nationalism" because I don't trust the outsize influence that broken Christians in that mix exert among those who aren't. Christian Nationalism as is at high risk to morph into theocracy led by really scary Christians, and that is the last thing I think we need right now.
This is absolutely appalling. There is nothing “Christian” about this “Christian Nationalism.” Theologically, biblically, politically, this is absolutely nonsensical. Mike, thanks for taking the time to engage with these ideas to expose just how harmful this movement is. I can only imagine how frustrating it would have to be to not pull your hair out every time Stephen responded!
Agreed.
"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" - 1 Corinthians 5: 12+13
You're ignorant, Stephen is consistent with Puritan and Reformed political theory, which is to live out the rule of Christ in all of life, including our laws, institutions, and morality. If you're a Christian, you don't oppose Christ. That you would and claim to be a Christian is what's truly appalling.
Michael Bird has “orange man bad” undertones.
Definitely. Much of the liberal Evangelical class does.
Wolfe failed the question about segregation
One last comment if I may. At the end, Dr. Wolfe asserts that individualism is generally harmful and bad, yet he doesn't back that up in secular terms that I might understand. It seems as though his assertion is rooted in his (I would say 'egotistical') belief that he and his ilk know what's better for everyone, as if everyone else is but a child and his Protestant cohorts are the adults leading the way. I find that very threatening, and would like to point out that I don't think living in a pluralistic, multi-cultural society is harmful at all. Everyone being afforded the dignity of choosing their own paths for themselves seems like the better way to organize a society so that everyone, of any creed, can thrive.
If rabid individualism was good for people, the western world would not be dying of opiates and suicide.
The statistics are in, left wing ideology is terrible for the physical health, and mental health of humanity.
@@spartakos3178 obeying the scripture is good for 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" - 1 Corinthians 5: 12+13
Yes but what happens when everyone chooses their own path, And human sacrifice , and tr4nzing kids is on that path. Extreme example, but realistic. Not all worldviews are equal.
If God really did create us all, and he gave us his word, we should follow it
Christ, or Chaos. That is the lesson of the last 50 years of "pluralism."
@@coyotebuttons here is God's word. Follow it..."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" - 1 Corinthians 5: 12+13
No where in Wolfe's definition of Christian Nationalism included submitting to the authority of Jesus
Agreed. This is what the scriptures say, and we should submit to God by obeying them...
"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" - 1 Corinthians 5: 12+13
"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" - 1 Corinthians 5: 12+13
You need to understand the difference between the spheres of the Church, family, and State. God has instituted all 3 of these institutions and Christ has been given authority over all these institutions.
The only legitimate church is one that obeys Christ just as the only legitimate state is one that obeys Christ.
@@David-kd1rw Uhuh? Well that's a nice theory. Anyway here's what the bible ACTUALLY says again. Go away and obey it.
"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" - 1 Corinthians 5: 12+13
@@hhhieronymusbotch Taking scripture meant to guide the church and misapplying to the state only proves your lack of wisdom.
Have you not read Psalm 2?
“Therefore, you kings, be wise;
be warned, you rulers of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear
and celebrate his rule with trembling. Kiss his son, or he will be angry and your way will lead to your destruction,
for his wrath can flare up in a moment. Blessed are all who take refuge in him.”
@@David-kd1rw it does apply to the church. We have no business judging anyone outside of it. Have you not read 1 Corinthians 5?
"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" - 1 Corinthians 5: 12+13
Blatantly refusing to obey the scripture of God is lack of wisdom
@@hhhieronymusbotchCopying and pasting the same out-of-context verse just makes you look bad. Even the people who agree with you are mocking you for behaving like a fool.
A further comment. When Michael Bird raises the issue of compulsory voting he makes a throwaway comment about the left (marijuana soaked tofu) which is incorrect stereotyping. There is a confusion persisting between liberal and left wing. I come from a NE England family of socialist coal miners who would be horrified at that comment. Otherwise Mr Bird is very impressive in this discussion which all participants carry out very respectfully - an excellent model for any discussion.
If compulsory voting was introduced to the USA it would inevitably lead to increased participation by racial minorities which could completely change the political culture. At least one party would have to change its policies radically in order to remain electable.
Racial minorities already vote at an above-average rate. It would instead force more non-college whites to vote, which would benefit the GOP at the mo.
“What I relate is the history of the next two centuries. I describe what is coming, what can no longer come differently: the advent of nihilism!
Nihilism stands at the door: whence comes this uncanniest of all guests?
1. Point of departure: it is an error to consider 'social distress' or 'physiological degeneration' or, worse, corruption, as the cause of nihilism. Ours is the most decent and compassionate age. Distress, whether of the soul, body, or intellect, cannot of itself give birth to nihilism (i.e., the radical repudiation of value, meaning, and desirability). Such distress always permits a variety of interpretations. Rather: it is in one particular interpretation, the Christian-moral one, that nihilism is rooted.
2. The end of Christianity-at the hands of its own morality (which cannot be replaced), which turns against the Christian God (the sense of truthfulness, developed highly by Christianity, is nauseated by the falseness and mendaciousness of all Christian interpretations of the world and of history; rebound from 'God is truth' to the fanatical faith 'All is false'; a Buddhism of inaction).
3. Skepticism regarding morality is what is decisive. The end of the moral interpretation of the world, which no longer has any sanction after it has tried to escape into some beyond, leads to nihilism. 'Everything lacks meaning' (the untenability of one interpretation of the world, upon which a tremendous amount of energy has been lavished, awakens the suspicion that all interpretations of the world are false). Buddhistic tendency, a kind of yearning for Nothing. (Indian Buddhism is not the culmination of a thoroughly moralistic development; its nihilism is therefore full of morality that is not overcome: existence as punishment, existence construed as error, error thus as a punishment- is a moral valuation.)
4. Philosophical attempts to overcome the 'moral God' (Hegel, pantheism).
Overcoming popular ideals: the sage; the saint; the poet.
The antagonism of 'true' and 'beautiful' and 'good'."
~ Friedrich Nietzsche (1888)
"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" - 1 Corinthians 5: 12+13
@@hhhieronymusbotch What dies this have to do with Nietzsche's remark about the advent of nihilism?
@@James-ll3jbwhat has Nietzsche got to do with obeying God's scripture to not judge people outside of our faith?
@@hhhieronymusbotch The decline of Christianity is the decline of the west in all its legal, social, and moral aspects. The vid is about politics and "Christian nationalism," not "judging people outside our faith" ( duh...).
@@James-ll3jb Christian Nationalism is literally the political act of judging people outside our faith.
My main issue with Wolfe is that he's Classical instead of Van Tillian. I would like to hear more questions answered with, "God's Law says..."
God's law says, ""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" - 1 Corinthians 5: 12+13
@@hhhieronymusbotch nope. That's not the Law.
@@landonmiller338 it's the scripture. Shut up and obey it or go find another religion.
"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" - 1 Corinthians 5: 12+13
@@hhhieronymusbotch context doesn't seem to be your strength.
@@landonmiller338 here's the context. The Corinthians were judging people outside of the faith. Paul said we have no business doing that. End of discussion. Refusing to obey God's word is your weakness. Fix it
Dr. Wolfe keeps saying "I'm saying it's 'permissible' to...." That's quite the weasel wording for something he's very much advocating. Rescinding non-Christian community political influence based upon what the Christian community deems harmful or detrimental seems tacitly unfair, anti-democratic, and anti-libertarian freedom. I'm not sure how this makes life better for ALL communities within the United States. It just seems like Dr. Wolfe is exercising his ego by saying "we know better than you what's good for you," and that seems like an attitude which will lead to a lot of strife and harm for everyone. Why isn't live-and-let-live a better option here?
I had the same thought!
@@earlychristianhistorywithm8684I had the thought that we should just obey scripture... "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" - 1 Corinthians 5: 12+13
That’s how political theory works
Jesus is absent from Wolfe's political ideology
No, Jesus isn't. This statement is absurd. He is in the same line of Christian political theory as the Reformers and the Puritans, you're simply ignorant of it.
He is assuming the reformed Christian faith and applying it to biblically based political theory.
Tell me what it's about! If you're a Christian, you would say the true Christian word. For example, are you saying that man has better moral laws than God does? Is that what you're saying - that moral standards are better with man-made laws or with God's laws?
" Not to forget the american bund of 1924,30's ,40's, onwards etc! ..
🤕🇪🇺
Christian Nationalism is better for all religions.
Which churches are Christian National churches. Could you list 10 Christian National Churches, and where they are located, or literature published by Christian Nationalist Churches. I have lived in quite a few states, but I have never encountered one, the community I live in now is packed with various Christian churches, all trying to poach members from one another, or recruit new members (😂)… I would have heard about a Christian National church. Rumors fly between Christian churches…I have heard nothing about a Christian National church. They use different bibles, and squabble about interpretations of meanings of verses…. But the discussions are about Bible verses, not politics. So if there is a Christian National church… it is a very small group, not coast to coast or in all small Christian communities. If you can’t list them… then you cannot prove it’s a vast right wing Christian Fascist, racist, isolationist
church ecosystem. I would love to meet one out of curiosity, they sound frightening, please document and distribute…names and churches. ❤️✝️ (not a symbol of Christian Nationalist Church)
you can find them on the FBI data base. They are on a watch list.
It's easier to just look for churches not obeying this...
"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" - 1 Corinthians 5: 12+13
At about 1:06:00, Mr. Bird mischaracterizes Canada as "about to make it OK to euthanize autistic people." That's not legislation that's being passed. The legislation to allow people a dignified death on their own terms was passed in 2016. There is a case in court there where the father of an adult autistic woman is challenging her right to assisted suicide. The case will determine whether that can happen or not. I won't state my own feelings on the matter, but I wanted to point out the misleading statement there.
Dude, you're opening it up to minors. You don't get the moral high ground here. You have to know it won't be voluntary for much longer.
Michael explaining the UK and not realizing that the UK is an absolute mess and getting worse. lol
Christian churches should be taxed if they want to be involved in politics
The church is a separate sphere of authority.
We need good pastors leading churches and good Christian leaders in gov positions and not mixing.
@@nathanphillipsgo "good Christian leaders"? No, leave your superstitious nonsense in your tax free churches away from the secular Constitutional government.
Can Michael Bird control his face? It’s embarrassing that he doesn’t have the self-control to listen respectfully.
There are two major flaws in Dr. Michael F. Bird’s thinking in this discussion of politics. The 1st being that he is under the impression that there is neutrality between the believer and the nonbeliever. Neutrality is a myth that has made the Evangelical Christian comatose while the secularist are jousting for power to assert their will based on their religious paradigm. If there isn’t such a thing of neutrality in the Spiritual realm, why do people think neutrality exists in the physical? Does not the spiritual influence the physical which includes politics and culture? The Apostle Paul warns the Christian in Ephesians 6:12, “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.” So if this is the case, why does the Christian fail to recognize the nonbelievers worldview will always make an attempt to encroach on a Christianized culture. Dr. Michael Bird has demonstrated this by hoping in democracy prevailing in the “neutral” public square, and not realizing that politics is in fact battles and wars being waged. He stated that 80% of Fiji is Christian due to democracy and democracy should be good enough without necessitating any further measures to enshrine Christianity in their government. Nevertheless, surely he would not want to live in a country consisting of Satanist which may have 80% legislative power and/or voting power. Which brings me to addressing the second flaw that Dr. Michael Bird has in this discussion and that being his belief that the nonbeliever is innately good. The harsh reality is that no one is good not even one; and the nonbeliever does not fear the Christian God. Thus, they will formulate decisions based on the lack of their fear in God. So why even trust in democracy that is not rooted in Christian tenets? I would suggest that not only should Christians rule governments but they should make every attempt to enshrine Christian theology in their governing documents. For example, I think the Apostles Creed should be in the United States Preamble of the Constitution. This is would create Christian safeguards within Christian culture ruled by Christian governance. Dr. Michael Bird’s safeguarding suggestion of grassroots evangelism is also necessary. Both must be applied because my belief is that when Christians rule, both the believer and nonbeliever will thrive. If you entrust your political hopes on false pretenses such as the political “neutral” grounds, you will be battling things like abortion for multiple generations which has resulted in the murder of hundreds of millions of innocent life. Christians must wield power to the glory of God.
What Wolfe is calling for is the END of democracy. I have serious questions about someone like this being platformed like this on this show.
Maybe but these ideas do need to be discussed so we know how to engage with them. I think democracy is suffering in part because we don't do this.
Democracy is not my god.
Democracy is Greek, not Christian. It can come and go, but our allegiance is to Christ, the Ruler that all governments must submit to.
Yup. Ask any American to define "Democracy." Almost nobody can do it. Our "2 party" is not in our Constitution. Nope. America's Christians MUST read Aristotle's Politics along with our Bibles. Early Christian writers (we read what they wrote) had all studied the Dialogs of Plato and Treatise of Aristotle. The Septuagint OT and NT Scripture are written in Aristotle's (Alexander's) Koine Greek. Americans must stop "having feelings" and start mastering the working vocabulary of Culture of Civilization.@@landonmiller338
"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" - 1 Corinthians 5: 12+13
What kind of political equality is it if a "higher" power can restrict and remove a group's power! This is a foolish argument. And frankly, Stephen has this ideal vision of family ties. If you had an ancestor in a national war, there is this family feeling? A lot of young people today aren't big on the warring for anything, let alone warring to create a familial relationship.
The reason young people don't care is individualism and liberalism.
"And just to add here Project -2025☣💀 ..er.." NO!
don't want it.
🤕🇪🇺
I’m not gunna lie. I thought this guy was Joe Biden with a hair filter on when I saw him.
You shouldn’t make everything about your political hobby horse.
I'm Joe Biden!
'Who decides what is and isn't an acceptable view to hold' the ruler of course. Same as always.
The lord decides the acceptable view to hold. Here's what his scripture says. It ends the discussion on this whole subject...
"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" - 1 Corinthians 5: 12+13
Do you have anything to say other than quoting Corinthians?@@hhhieronymusbotch
@@mediocreatleague scripture has settled this argument. God is the ruler. Obey his view.
"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" - 1 Corinthians 5: 12+13
Yes as I thought.@@hhhieronymusbotch
@@mediocreatleague think about obeying God... "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" - 1 Corinthians 5: 12+13
Yes I agree that once Protestantism goes, so does human rights. It really isn't evident that women are equal to men.
When our obedience to scripture goes, so does everything else...
"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" - 1 Corinthians 5: 12+13
The Catholic Church pioneered these ideas.
@@MeanBeanComedy the bible pioneered this idea...
"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" - 1 Corinthians 5: 12+13
A *Wolfe* in sheeps clothing.
Wow, clever.
Wolfe is not a wolf and NT Wright is not right.
A Wolfe in Lamb of God's clothing
*YES*
I would also concur with the previous comments regarding Canada. We are not passing laws to do away with people with Autism. He should be more accurate with his comments.
Australia sucks now that i Know that.
I don't understand why Wolfe doesn't just say that through their shared history white Americans and black Americans are a single ethnicity.
Because they're not. They're quite different culturally and ancestrally.
I think he does say they are a common "ethnos" - people. Which I believe they are.
He has referred to men such as Clarence Thomas as some of his favorite Anglo-Protestants.
Zionism Faith or Agenda ? Nationalism racist ideology ? Abrahamic theogony based on mythology ?
I did Nazi that coming
Too many God Botherers in America for its own good