A kingdom divided,
not built on firm foundation, will fall. Why so many labels, pronouns, and identities? And What is "Christian Nationalism?" If you watch certain news organizations, you'd think it was a huge part of reality. America, and the world, has never been so divided on what constitutes perception, reality, and truth. Honestly, I don't know what that term even is- "Christian Nationalism." If it exists, it's -incredibly small- and being way over-represented in media. Much like anything else that is a tiny percentage being radically over-represented or over enforced, it -skews- the entire perception of the weight of the part -in relation- to the implications of the whole. People who don't truly understand Christianity, or grasp the truth, can mischaracterize and misjudge anything based off of radicalism. It's probably easy to want to find a solution by over focusing on the wrong thing. I've never heard of anyone who's heard of anyone that knows what this is. And for whatever their beliefs may be, we should be able to accurately decipher what it is that is a threat to human prosperity. Many Are mislead on the truth. I've only recently heard of this term, only from Media sources that support specific political ideologies. Christianity is the most culturally and racially diverse, peaceful, prosperous and accepting movement to have ever existed among the human population. Slander never suited anyone well, and we've seen it many times throughout history. We can not say that Muslims are bad people because of a small radical group who are bad. Violence is never okay, and should be equally denounced in any situation. Violence in one uprising shouldn't be overlooked in preference of another uprising- peacefully discussing why it's occurring and what policies best remedy it is the answer- not- by canceling or shaming- which much worsens it. What we really need to decipher is what is true, and what truly threatens human prosperity. What is the threat, and how much of a threat is it, and why? We need to be careful when we start labeling and creating division off of identity or politics. It's the same for any type of slander or bias in any direction. It distorts the correct interpretation. Christianiy is not about religion, identity, or politics. People who know the living God and acknowledge it to be true and are faithful to that, are what you can call Christians. That is our worldview. Ideology is not identity, and ideologies have value structures. Our value is in and from who God is, not who we are or man-made identity. We are more than this physical realm, and are faithful to that. We know the living God, his word, and uphold his laws- God is higher than government. This country was not founded on nationalism or Christianity in labeling terms, I have no idea what "white nationalism" is and truly don't think it's more than a minuscule percentage of the population, certainly not what is truly threatening us. The danger lies in grouping people together based off race, religion, identity, or politics, and people who stand for truth have to acknowledge what is true. You can't judge anyone off of radicalism. The original problem with this began in 2015- when the media wasn't willing to respect or listen to all people and America dissented into cancel culture tactics to achieve ideological control, and that doesn't work. What we see in the media doesn't reflect reality or the vast majority. We saw the uprising of tactics used in cultural Marxism to insert control over speech and media. Freedom of speech can not be controlled. Just because someone doesn't like the truth, doesn't mean they can cancel the truth from being spoken. Truth never changes, only our understanding or interpretation of the truth does. If we don't debate truth, we can't wrestle over the best ideas. This is the tragedy in universities. If we don't have an equal right to speak the truth and pursue the truth, then we don't hear or know the truth, and we wander further from the truth. We unravel into destruction against the laws of nature. It's deceptive. That's when uprisings occur- people who are tired of "being polite" in their silence, are speaking up... and getting louder. Loving others and yourself, peace, prosperity, and being witness to and upholding the truth defines Christianity. Government policies are not the focus, but they do reflect our ability to practice our Faith. Religious freedom, freedom of speech, and separation of church and state are important for a functioning society predicated on mutual respect. In America, we all have a right to public education and resources. We finance the government, we pay taxes for public education, not for political indoctrination in schools. Political indoctrination in education has never been this severe. Christianity is not in public education or government. Over the past decade, the government, media, cdc, Facebook, Twitter, school boards, academia, and even healthcare has far too overstepped it's authority, and the response to the pandemic further proved this. Gender ideology in media, government, children shows, and mainly public education is a violation to religious liberty, and it's being ignored by government. Accepting a small minority shouldn't result in altering the fundamental course of the majority. Government mandates, shutdowns, vaccines, pronouns, questionnaires, etc.. that is not working with followers of Christ and is pushing them out of public education and government. They are also the majority, and are either being unrepresented, wrongly represented, or just silenced and ignored. That is a deception of truth. People need to start listening to each other. If people had respect, they wouldn't feel the need to address the "name-game, shame-game" tactics that seem to be leading people astray from a truthful and prosperous society. We cant fix problems without identifying the cause. It wasn’t the pandemic; it was largely the response to it. Source, response Cause, affect Truth, perception 🙃 A lot of tragedies, in their own definition are horrific, are trying to fix themselves with perceived remedies that ...don’t produce actual remedy. The universe can only function off of acknowledging what is true, thats the reoccurring pattern- theres always rising universal consequences in building off of what is untrue. Thats why we seek the truth. Sources exist and are meant to be discovered. When certainity is reached, its known. Truth is knowable, truth is provable. Sources matter- otherwise our perception of truth isnt founded on truth. We are under the universal laws of the creator of this existence. Its not human opinion or bias, It is just... what is. Truth is probably offensive- but its unchangeable. Its truth. Cause and effect always reoccurs. We need to acknowledge the effect- whether thats offensive to us, sadly, doesn’t matter- because we dont create universal laws, and cant change them. We want to avoid the consequences of suffering, and it starts with the truth of any source in any circumstance. If it's not the truth, it won't work. Just as good parents warn their children about what is dangerous and wrong, truthfulness has implications as well. The truth is that radical Islam is a radically more significant threat to global peace and prosperity than "radical Christianity." To imply that to mean anything other than what it truly does has implications- totalitarianism, communism, recession and security are much larger threats to peace and prosperity than perceived Christian bias or conservatism, or perceived racism in America. If we silence people for acknowledging the cause to a warranted outcome because we don't agree, the solution never comes but gets far worse. The media isn't reflecting the truth, and there's global consequences to that. The media wants to create and inflate its own truth, and there's consequences to that as well. People can be respectful, fair, and disagree at the same time. What is just and noble always prevails over tyranny. If it's not fair, it eventually fails.. or we end up in a global communist surveillance state with no free will. We are reaping severe consequences and should decide if we are awake, or woke. Human perception may not align with existing truth, but truth still exists and continues on its course anyway- as always proven. Humans cant create or determine their own truth- the universe has a system, we need to pursue what that is to the best of our ability, and seek the truth until certainty, otherwise we create more chaos thats opposing the created order. This is exactly what America was founded on- the pursuit of truth and prosperity, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech. That is the American foundation that has crumbled. Those who defend the constitution defend those values, those values create the best chance for a peaceful and prosperous society. Until they're gone. Race and identity are irrelevant, so Americans would be wise to not misuse and mislabel terms such as "nationalism." Nothings perfect (other than God and his plan) no one is. We all have struggles and why we are handed different struggles is difficult to grapple with, but we are all equal in his eyes. We are equally imperfect (me first!). We need god. Thats why he created us and revealed himself to us- not just for our future forever home, but now- more specifically- because when times get worse- and they will- and they will continue to increase in frequency and intensity- its much easier to be prepared in knowledge of the truth and relationship with our living and coming savior, who delivers us from our sorrows during tribulation and tragedy. The labor pains are in the beginning stages, we are living in revelation, prophecies are fulfilling, and we are experiencing both global physical and spiritual battles. Just as he said. Whether we have a relationship with our creator Now in this existence, or after we cross this physical realm into a better age, we will all meet our creator. God is real, God heals, and God is for everyone. We are all invited into the glory of knowing our savior now. . Jesus is our living hope! Maranatha! National test results released on Thursday from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) revealed that the math and reading scores of elementary school students reached historic lows in 2022, with an unprecedented drop in math and the largest drop in 32 years in reading among nine-year-olds.
Experts say that the drops can be attributed to a variety of factors, including repercussions from school shutdowns, discipline issues, open borders, classroom time spent on controversial ideologies, and other factors. The dropping test scores reflect a tragic failure of the U.S. education system for vulnerable children and American taxpayers. “Test scores are important, but these reports can’t possibly measure every facet of educational performance, nor is it possible to quantify every factor that creates this national set of numbers,” she told The Washington Stand. “We should remember that a line on a graph represents millions of school children who need to learn. Americans value education, and we pay taxes into system that is not delivering.” Many experts agree that the 2020-2021 shutdown of most schools during the COVID-19 pandemic and the transition to “distance learning” detrimentally affected the education and economic opportunities of children, particularly minority students. What many see as particularly frustrating is that schools were shut down by government agencies despite the low risk of serious health issues that the coronavirus posed to children and despite evidence that shutdowns were ineffective in stopping the spread of the virus. Peggy Carr, the commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics, has pointed to problems that have arisen in schools as a result of the lockdowns, including “a rise in classroom disruption, school violence, absenteeism, cyberbullying, and teacher and staff vacancies, and schools also say more students are seeking mental health services.” “We all have a duty to address this problem, because children can’t fix a failing school system,” she observed. “Concerned citizens need to engage at the local school board level. We need to have conversations about why teachers are leaving the profession. Is it because school discipline is now a civil rights issue making learning impossible in chaotic classrooms? Is it because of vaccine requirements, or are some teachers afraid to return to in-person teaching? Is it because too many students come to school unready to learn? How is the crisis at the border impacting schools all over the country, when unaccompanied minors (who are trafficking victims) are placed in communities in the heartland, many of which lack the infrastructure to accommodate them? How has the emphasis on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) and social emotional learning impacted student learning in core subjects? These are the kinds of questions we need to answer in our local communities so that each child enjoys a safe and rigorous education.” School districts across the country are indeed reporting historic levels of teacher shortages, with The Washington Post indicating that the shortage is partly due to “an escalating educational culture war” that is exhausting teachers, with highly controversial material like gender theory, critical race theory, and DEI being increasingly included in classroom curriculums. Still, Kilgannon sees hope in what Christians can do to help revitalize the education system. “When we see test scores like these NAEP results, people rightly feel discouraged, upset, and powerless,” she concluded. “As Christians, our response could be to bring our values to a system that desperately needs our love and our understanding that every child is created in the image and likeness of God. We can run for school board, apply for newly created teaching positions that don’t require an education degree, volunteer in our children’s classrooms, and especially pray for our schools and the children, teachers, and staff in them. Our children deserve it, and our nation needs it.” A proponent of school choice, DeSantis has particularly vied against strict classroom COVID-19 masking policies, teaching LGBTQ+ curriculum to elementary-aged students, and critical race theory. With Americans leaving the public school system by the millions in recent years, DeSantis’s views on education have made him popular with conservatives since his election in 2019. Girdusky’s PAC has helped conservative candidates win school board races across the country in a move to pushback against critical race theory and other left-leaning ideologies like transgenderism. From his perspective, parents will vote for what they believe benefits their children. “Education is the cornerstone of our society and is a huge motivating factor for voters,” he told TWS. “We are in the middle of the parents revolution and taking back our public education from those who wish to indoctrinate our children. This is the beginning of a much bigger movement that we hope to take nationwide.” Christians and parents are calling to run for school board to transform the education system and fight against left-leaning ideologies in the classroom. “That has absolutely happened,” she shared, “And so we need to support these folks with our prayers and with practical support. … People who care about the things that we care about realized how out of touch and out of step our educational establishment is with the wishes and needs of parents and children. And so they have stepped into the breach. They have run for office, and they are now ready to serve. They’ve been elected and now they’re ready to serve. So it’s our job now to support them in their work and to make sure that they have the research, the policy ideas, the facts that they need to transform our educational system and to work for children in America.” America is in the midst of a historic political realignment, much has been said about the movement of Hispanic voters and working class voters away from the Left, but we’re seeing another key demographic — parents — move away from the Left as well. The results of Florida’s school board races last night confirm this trend.” The most important government is the government closest to home, so when parents stream to the polls to toss recalcitrant ideologues off their local school board they are sending a clear message: teach our children to read and write, not gender ideology or dividing them by race.” “The philosophy of the schoolroom in one generation becomes the philosophy of government in the next.” Often attributed to Abraham Lincoln, the statement captures a timely truth. Undeniably, progressive ideologies are dominating public education classrooms with the aim of producing young people beholden to the worldview of their schooling. Alarmingly, in many cases, the ideology is at odds with the values of the students’ parents.
While the majority of parents devote substantial time to raising their children, time is also a powerful force working against their efforts. The outsourcing of 16,000 hours of learning time to education establishments over the course of a child’s K-12 years has stacked the deck against parental influence. Couple this with the teacher’s recognized authority in the learning realm and the stage is set for schools to dominate the formation of children. As a result, there is a battle waging for the American mind. According to Pete Hegseth and David Goodwin, the confrontation is far more than a clash of worldviews. It is a battle. A war—a war over correct ideas….The classroom is our battlefield, the hearts and minds of our kids the prize. The very survival of the American Republic, and the greatness of Western civilization, are at stake. PETE HEGSETH & DAVID GOODWIN, BATTLE FOR THE AMERICAN MINDG.K. Chesterton famously stated, “Education is not a subject and does not deal in subjects. It is instead a transfer of a way of life.” And the way of life taught in today’s schools is leading to the downfall of our country. We did not arrive here overnight. While the COVID-induced-closed schools gave parents access to the public school teachings, propaganda, and priorities, the attack on our nation’s Judeo-Christian founding began nearly a century ago. In its place is progressivism, rooted in Marxism and radicalism. Progressivism’s ascendancy in K-12 public education dates back to John Dewey in the early twentieth century. But it was Dewey’s associate, secular humanist Charles Potter, that provided the most explicit revelation about the goal to dominate the influence on the hearts and minds of children through the classroom. Recognizing that many Americans were church-goers at the time, Potter boasted in 1930, “What can theistic Sunday School, meeting for an hour once a week, do to stem the tide of a five day program of humanistic teaching?” But the battle over who controls American primary and secondary education goes back much further — President Ulysses S. Grant and Senator James Blaine worked strategically in the 1870s to ban public money from going toward religious schools. While the Blaine Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was defeated in 1875 by the Senate, it laid the groundwork for Blaine Amendments in 36 state constitutions. The message was sent — our nation’s founding Judeo-Christian worldview, and the high value it placed on faith, would be pushed out of the most formative years of a child’s life. The First Amendment’s freedom of religion was now exchanged for the notion of freedom from religion. The drive of progressives to control the education of all children — not just public school children — was also witnessed in the 1920s with efforts to close private schools. Oregon led the way by attempting to outlaw all private Christian schools with the Compulsory Education Act of 1922. Other states had similar plans underway until the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously struck the law down in 1925 with the Pierce v. Society of Sisters decision. Beginning in the late 1960s, public education control has undeniably been held by the mega teacher unions in political alliance with liberal politicians. They have used their power to deeply root progressive philosophy dominance in K-12 public schools. This brings us back to today. Hegseth and Goodwin lament that countless parents nationwide send their children off to school “knowing that what they will encounter there—eight hours a day, five days a week, and nine months out of the year—reinforces none of those things” they teach them at home. In other words, “we ship them off to Democrat camp…every day.” Hegseth and Goodwin summarize the sad state of affairs: “We are willfully blind to the indoctrination of our kids, because it’s easier, cheaper, and more comfortable.” But they also highlight an alternative path. They challenge us to muster the courage to “stop doing it. Pull your kids out. Choose a radical reorientation for your life, and the life of your kids…you will not regret it.” The stakes are high, as radicals are grasping the hearts and minds of our children in irrevocable ways, robbing them of their innocence and undermining the flourishing of their minds that comes from knowledge and critical thinking skills rather than political indoctrination. It’s not too late. If enough Americans commit to winning the battle for their children, as a nation, we can win the war against the dominance of detrimental progressive ideologies. Collectively we can change the tide, reasserting parental authority, breaking the monopoly of powerful teacher unions and the K-12 education bureaucracy, and unbinding our children from destructive education malpractice. Many nations are making sweeping changes to long-held standards found in the Bible.
What has caused this culture clash? Is God on the wrong side of history? Just as God prophesied, people these days have different perspectives than God on a wide range of issues. Consider one of the most basic of all activities—human sexuality. God’s instructions were really quite simple. He created marriage to be a covenant between one man and one woman, and He sanctioned sexual relations only within marriage (Genesis 2:24). Like all His laws, He gave these for our good (Deuteronomy 10:13). His laws are beneficial—in fact, they are the only way that really works! For a more thorough explanation of our Creator’s teaching on sexuality, see the articles “What Is Marriage?” and “Questions About Sex Answered by the Bible.” Questioning God’s standards for human sexualityIt didn’t take long before the standards God gave were challenged. People have always done as they pleased. Supposed justification for determining one’s own values regarding sexuality can be found in a number of seemingly innocent questions. What’s wrong with having sexual activity prior to marriage if two people love each other? Isn’t premarital sex harmless, especially if people take precautions against sexual diseases and use contraception if they don’t want a child? What’s wrong with enjoying life? As for who can marry, America and many other Western nations have approved same-sex marriage. After all, many reason, shouldn’t people be free to marry the person they love? In the end, shouldn’t love win? People today assume that the answers to all these seemingly innocent questions are clear and there is nothing wrong with abandoning God’s laws. But is this true, or is it just shortsightedly overlooking the real consequences? Justifications for changes in valuesThose who believe premarital sex and same-sex marriage are acceptable offer a number of explanations to justify these changes in values that have led to a culture clash. Some mistakenly assume that the concept of God was created by man instead of recognizing that God created man. Those accepting this faulty perspective believe we’re free to determine our own standards of conduct apart from what they view as the superstitious, weak-minded and unnecessarily confined ways of living imposed by an imaginary God. In these people’s minds, changes from biblical standards are liberating and represent an advance for mankind. Even many who believe that God exists find other ways to justify modern changes to what is considered right and wrong. Some of these people believe God originally gave simplistic laws for simplistic people who were incapable of higher reasoning. According to this misguided view, God intended us to develop and shed outdated values as we progressed. Taking this thinking to its logical conclusion, some believe God is pleased with the changes in values and morality now championed by the majority of citizens in Western nations. But can this really be the case? See what the Bible says in our articles “Living Together Before Marriage” and “God’s Problem With Same-Sex Marriage.” Does God change? Has He switched His position on what is good and what is harmful in human sexuality? Does He now approve of what He originally told us not to do? If not, is God on the wrong side of history? How did the majority of citizens in America and other Western nations come to hold alternative values to those taught by God? Two ways of thinking: Most of us are familiar with the biblical account of Adam and Eve partaking of the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3). This incident, which is commonly referred to as original sin for mankind or the fall of man, was a seminal event in the relationship between God and mankind. While each person reaps the rewards or consequences for his or her actions (Ezekiel 18:20), Adam and Eve’s sin set a precedent that humanity has followed ever since. As the Bible states, “All have sinned” (Romans 3:23). Choosing the forbidden fruit: Focus for a moment on the thinking that led Eve astray. As part of his deceptive pitch, the serpent, who was Satan the deceiver (Revelation 12:9), appealed to her ability to reason and make decisions for herself apart from God (Genesis 3:4-5). “So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate” (verse 6). As a result, Adam and Eve were driven out of the Garden and lost access to the tree of life (verse 24). As marvelous as the human mind is—after all, being created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27) includes being given a mind far superior to any animal—God intended for us to use this ability in harmony with His instructions. The Bible teaches that the human mind, often referred to as the heart in the Bible, “is deceitful above all things” (Jeremiah 17:9) and that “there is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death” (Proverbs 14:12; 16:25). Sadly, instead of obeying God, Eve succumbed to the serpent’s deceptive message to trust her own shortsighted thinking and feelings instead of trusting God’s eternal perspective. Mankind in general has continually repeated Eve’s tragic mistake.Sadly, instead of obeying God, Eve succumbed to the serpent’s deceptive message to trust her own shortsighted thinking and feelings instead of trusting God’s eternal perspective. Mankind in general has continually repeated Eve’s tragic mistake. Describing those who followed this terribly mistaken way of thinking, Paul wrote: “Although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools. … who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator” (Romans 1:21-22, 25). Worshipping the mind: the path to atheismThe mental process of disconnecting from God and turning to total reliance on one’s own reasoning has been described as a heady, enlightening, liberating journey by individuals who have traveled this sadly mistaken path. The late Annie Besant (1847-1933), a prominent British author and women’s rights activist, documented her journey from the Church of England to her break with Christianity in a collection of essays titled My Path to Atheism. Beginning with what she believed were discrepancies and contradictions within the Bible, she described in her preface how she then began critically studying the teachings of Christianity. As she became more dubious of Christianity and considered other religions, she came to believe that “inspiration belonged to all people alike, and there could be no necessity of atonement. … Thus, step by step, I renounced the dogmas of Christianity. … “From Christianity into simple Theism I had found my way; step by step the Theism melted into Atheism; prayer was gradually discontinued, as utterly at variance with any dignified idea of God, and as in contradiction to all the results of scientific investigation. I had taken a keen interest in the later scientific discoveries, and Darwin had done much towards freeing me from my old bonds” (p. vii). Darwin’s deception; Though many mistaken theories and philosophies have been suggested to counter the truths of God, the one offered by Charles Darwin to explain the existence of man without a Creator has been one of the most ardently championed in spite of its flagrant flaws. To believe in Darwinian evolution, one must accept:
See our study guide Does God Exist? and the many articles in the “Is There a God?” section of the Life, Hope & Truth website for additional explanation. Paths to the wrong and right side of historyBesant’s self-described path from God mirrors the one taken by Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Satan told Eve that her eyes would be opened so that she, just like God, would be able to distinguish good and evil for herself (Genesis 3:5). Accepting this faulty premise, Eve used what would later be considered principles of scientific investigation to reach the deadly hypothesis that the forbidden fruit was good to eat (verse 6). But time would show that she was wrong—God was right. She died. Once people begin trusting their own thinking apart from God, they soon begin looking for others who share their mistaken view. People like Charles Darwin, who theorized about the evolution of man without a divine Creator; Karl Marx, who championed atheism and the failed economics of communism; and Sigmund Freud, who postulated that sexuality is the driving force behind much of human activity, were hailed as great thinkers whose ideas must be accepted. Though these well-known men are deceased, their misguided, antiscriptural theories continue to negatively shape our world, leading to the changes in values and the culture clash we see today. Who is on the right side of history?As for who is on the right side of history, the judgment has already been given. The Bible explains that God doesn’t change (Malachi 3:6; Hebrews 13:8) and that everyone will stand “before the judgment seat of Christ” (Romans 14:10; 2 Corinthians 5:10). Amazingly, those who have been blinded and deceived by Satan—those who have never had a full and fair opportunity to understand God’s way of life—will be given this opportunity in the future. To learn more about God’s merciful plan of salvation for mankind, see the articles in the “Plan of Salvation” section of the Life, Hope & Truth website. Through the prophet Isaiah, God says, “I am God … and there is no one who can deliver out of My hand; I work, and who will reverse it?” (Isaiah 43:12-13). For the moment it may appear that God is on the wrong side of history. But when Christ returns and the Kingdom of God is established here on earth, the benefits of God’s way will make it obvious who is on the right side. Which side will we be on? The Church should spearhead caring for the needy as biblically directed instead of the government7/7/2021 In Christian circles, the topic of welfare is often controversial. As the Church navigates the repercussions of this public policy, political and biblical lines get blurred. While Christians understand the need for a social safety net, the Church should encourage self-responsibility and provide help to the needy.
The term “welfare” often gets tossed around negatively to mean any number of social programs. To solve this vague issue, definitions must be identified. Current welfare programs include the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Medicaid and housing assistance. These programs are designed to provide economic support and other needs to low-income families and individuals. TANF provides direct cash income to poor families, although the program has been decaying in recent years and less people in poverty receive benefits. SNAP, commonly known as food stamps, provided food vouchers to 39 million destitute people in 2020, an average of around $125 a month per person. Medicaid provides healthcare for more than 70 million low-income people in 2020. Housing assistance provides rent support and opportunities for inexpensive housing. These programs compile what can be considered welfare in the United States government. Social safety nets are intended to lift people out of poverty — a desire Christians should seek under the command to help the poor. Many of those listed programs provide people with needs rather than cash alone. However, welfare should be a helping hand, not a handout. Although welfare can assist in meeting the needs of those who need it, the line between poor and lazy must be made clear and bold. On the one hand, low-income people need economic assistance, but to whom much is given, much is expected. Those on welfare, specifically Christians, have the biblical responsibility to be diligent in their efforts and work toward self-reliance. Having a safety net can be beneficial until dependency becomes a temptation. Christians must be careful to both help the poor and accept help if needed, but not to rely solely on others, because the Bible teaches a diligent spirit. 2 Thessalonians 3:11-12 echoes this principle, “For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work, but busybodies. Now such persons we command and encourage in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly and to earn their own living.” The issue with welfare that seems to have gone unnoticed is the failure of the church to address the needs of the poor. The Bible directs Christians, not the government (Romans 13:3-4), to care for the poor. Because Christians have failed at this task, the government has had to step in and do the job that the Church should be doing. The Israelites were commanded in Deuteronomy 15:7 to “not harden your heart or shut your hand against your poor brother”. Paul encouraged the church in Acts 20:35, “In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’” The Church has seemingly forgotten these commandments yet often proudly preaches against welfare programs. The government is doing the job of Christians, and we must first look at ourselves before we critique a system that would not be necessary in an ideal situation. The Church, in many cases, has dropped the ball in its commandment to help the needy. For example, a 2017 study by the Lake Institute on Faith and Giving explored the budgets of 1200 churches. They found that churches spend $5 on wages for staff for every $1 that goes to the needy. The church’s focus has shifted away from community outreach in favor of corporate behavior. If we as Christians continue to ignore our calling to help the disadvantaged, then our argument against welfare will continue to lose its validity. The problem lies within ourselves. Welfare should be no more than a lifeline to pull people out of poverty. The Church should spearhead caring for the needy as biblically directed instead of the government, which in the meantime has filled the role as needed. Long term, we must work to keep welfare for those that truly need it but also out of the government’s hands as our biblical responsibility. The existence of Christianophobia should not be surprising. Jesus Himself predicted the world’s hatred for Christians: “If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you” (John 15:18–19). Christians are called not to conform to the world but to be transformed into the image of Christ (Romans 8:29; 12:1–2). The unbelieving world hates what it does not understand and, therefore, will hate those who follow Christ. Few would admit an actual emotional hatred for Christians. And, admittedly, the hatred that Christians endure in 'most' of the world is 'relatively' mild. But the Christianophobia in the world today is simply a foretaste of what is to come. As the world increasingly turns away from God, the hatred of God’s people will increase exponentially. Examples of Christianophobia in the world today: (1) In much of the Muslim world, Christians are subject to extreme persecution. In many instances, the choice is to convert to Islam, flee, or die. (2) In much of the Western world, Christians are looked down upon, mocked or ridiculed, and marginalized. (3) It is becoming clear that Christians who desire to live by their convictions will be ineligible for certain careers, and government officials are being fined and even jailed for attempting to live by biblical convictions. (4) Christian beliefs are being presented in an extremely biased manner. Christianophobia is real, it is increasing, and, according to the Bible, it will get much worse. America has always been a place where Christians were free to worship and live according to their consciences. In fact, our country was built upon the principles of religious tolerance, individual liberty and the right to dissent. In our founding documents, the source of these rights and freedoms is clearly acknowledged as God, not the government. Yet the drastic changes we have experienced in the past half-century have so turned our culture on its head that to exercise those rights and freedoms means a Christian often risks marginalization, repression and even outright persecution. As I’ve written in Is This the End? there are five distinct stages of religious oppression now occurring in our nation that when fully formed, ultimately result in Christian persecution. All of them emerge from a growing Christophobia exhibited by certain members of government in our country. Stage 1: Stereotyping Today, Christians are often stereotyped as ignorant, uneducated, backward, inhibited, hateful and intolerant. Even the president joined in when, in 2008, he said of workers who vote according to their values, “They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion … .” Sometimes the media even features Christians as evil antagonists, holier-than-thou bigots who sit on their high horse and judge others harshly, like the prison warden in the movie The Shawshank Redemption who recites the Bible but abuses inmates. While it’s true that some Christians represent the faith poorly, these stereotypes grow out of a rising prejudice in our culture. Not to mention, they are a denial of the indispensable role Christianity has played in the development of American culture and the American ideal, from higher education to the free market to health care to equal rights to the rule of law. Stage 2: Marginalizing What many secularists want is for Christianity to be displaced from the center of American life. If the church must be allowed to exist, they want it confined to the realm of personal privacy and denied any effect on public life. You'll notice this sentiment when politicians and pundits carefully choose the phrase "freedom to worship" over "freedom of religion." The first is meant to confine us, and the second is meant to free us. They'd rather us marginalized as MSNBC personality Chris Matthews once tweeted, "If you're a politician and believe in God first, that's all good. Just don't run for government office, run for church office." Matthews' rule would have disqualified almost everyone who founded this country. Stage 3: Threatening Marginalizing religious expression from academic, institutional, corporate or public arenas is not enough for those who are Christophobic. They are determined to make Christians pay a price even when privately performing their activities. For example, an intern at one California university was terminated and threatened with expulsion from a graduate program for simply discussing her faith with co-workers, even though she did it only in her off hours. There are countless other examples, including many examples of high school students who have been denied the opportunity to start Bible clubs and practice their religion openly in government-funded schools. Then, in 2014, the chief executive of a top internet company was forced to resign when it was discovered he had contributed $1,000 to support a California bill which was deemed "bigoted" by secularists. The bill, by the way, passed overwhelming (making most californians bigots?). Then, it was overturned by the Supreme Court. That bill defined "marriage" as a religious term used to define a union with a man and a woman, which was also a position Barack Obama held to during the 2008 presidential election as it was the position of every Democratic president before him. Were they once bigots too? Stage 4: Intimidating If the first three stages do not silence us, then elected officials begin to exercise overreach and outright intimidation, and sometimes they use their positions to sanction such intimidation. Such was on egregious display just last month when the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Chairman, Martin R. Castro, stated in a letter to the president that "religious liberty" and "religious freedom" are "code words for discrimination, intolerance, racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia [and] Christian supremacy ... ." He didn't write that letter just to the president. His memo was meant for us, Bible-believing Christians whom he aimed to intimidate. He is clearly Christophobic, and we're not intimidated by it. Stage 5: Litigation A growing number of Christians and Christian organizations are being taken to court for refusing to compromise their deeply held religious convictions. In 2013 a Catholic hospital was sued because it did not offer abortion services to a client. The case was an attempt to force all Catholic hospitals to perform abortions. As the editors of National Review noted, "The issue is not whether those who wish to avail themselves of certain services will be able to, but that those who object to them must be forced to participate." Unfortunately, there are far too many other examples to mention them all here, and plenty of recent ones. But unless there is a major turnaround, we can expect lawsuits and court judgments against Christians who practice their faith to escalate. This is especially true since the outgoing administration is responsible for replacing more than 300 judges across the country. While I do think America is a long way from the kind of persecution we typically think of when we use that word, I never dreamed that Christians would be stereotyped, marginalized, threatened, intimidated and litigated against as they are today. It's far more serious than we realize. GEORGE YANCEY
According to a recent survey, about half of all Americans believe that evangelicals face discrimination. Some have even talked about them facing persecution. Others argue that Christians are merely mistaking their loss of privilege for persecution. We are clearly living in a post-Christian society where Christian faith is no longer automatically respected. But does a post-Christian world mean that Christians are subject to discrimination? Having studied Christianophobia—or the unreasonable hatred and fear of Christians—I can answer that question. First, I’ll look to see if Christianophobia exists to any meaningful degree. Then, I’ll examine the nature of Christianophobia to assess if it does represent unreasonable hatred of Christians. Finally, I’ll explore evidence of anti-Christian discrimination in one place in our society: academia. Anti-Christian AttitudesAre anti-Christian attitudes widespread, or are we talking about a couple of nutcases? In my book So Many Christians, So Few Lions, I document that about 32 percent of all Americans like conservative Christians significantly less than other social groups. In comparison, about 31 percent of all Americans like Muslims significantly less than other social groups. So it’s fair to say that if we’re concerned about anti-Muslim prejudice, then we should also be concerned about anti-Christian prejudice—at least prejudice against conservative Christians. It’s also worth noting who tends to have this type of animosity. My research indicates that those with anti-Christian attitudes are more likely to be white, male, wealthy, highly educated, politically progressive, and irreligious. Those first four markers indicate individuals who have quite a bit of per-capita social power. Mild Disgust or Irrational Hatred?On to the second question, about the nature of those who don’t like Christians. Do they merely feel mild disgust, or is it irrational hatred that can lead to discrimination? I sent a questionnaire with open-ended questions to a group of progressive activists who tended to be white, male, wealthy, educated, and irreligious. They were the type of people one would expect to exhibit Christianophobia. And they did. Here are just a few of the answers I received on my survey: Kill them all, let their god sort them out. A torturous death would be too good for them. I’d be a bit giddy, certainly grateful, if everyone who saw himself or herself in that category were snatched permanently from our societal peripheries, whether by holocaust or rapture or plague. I am only too well aware of their horrific attitudes and beliefs—and those are enough to make me see them as subhuman. Clearly we are seeing the type of hatred that is unreasonable and can lead to discrimination. It is the type of dehumanization one expects to precede unfair treatment. But does it? Is it possible that values of tolerance and fairness among secular progressives inhibit their willingness to mistreat Christians? Discrimination in America TodayTo examine that question I looked at academia, an area where one expects to find the type of highly educated progressive secularists likely to have anti-Christian animosity. I asked academics if they would be less willing to hire someone who is either a fundamentalist or an evangelical. I found that more than half would be less willing to hire a fundamentalist, and almost two in five would be less willing to hire an evangelical. The academics answering my survey explicitly stated they would discriminate against a job candidate who is a conservative Protestant. (You can read about this research in my book Compromising Scholarship.) There is other research indicating that conservative Christians face discrimination in academia. Stanley Rothman and Robert Lichter find that academics with socially conservative perspectives wind up with lower-status academic positions even when controlling for their productivity. Albert Gunn and George Zenner show evidence of religious discrimination against Christian medical students. Some will argue that Christians still have advantages in America, such as political power. I don’t dispute that there are benefits to being a Christian in the United States. However, such advantages don’t negate the fact that among powerful individuals who tend to be politically progressive and irreligious, unfair treatment of Christians is possible, and perhaps even likely. For example, my recent book looks at the media. My co-author and I find evidence that media are less sympathetic to stories where Christians face hate speech or violence than identical stores where other groups are victimized. Social institutions such as academia, media, entertainment, and the arts are likely to be places where anti-Christian prejudice and discrimination take place. Those institutions greatly shape our cultural values, and thus those with anti-Christian attitudes are in a position to create and sustain anti-Christian perspectives. There is evidence that anti-Christian hate can lead to discrimination. Is it persecution? This is a complex question I recently struggled with. By a clinical definition of persecution, yes, Christians are persecuted in the United States. But I still discourage Christians in the United States from saying they are persecuted, since what we face today isn’t what most people envision when they think of persecution. However, as Christians we should be aware that anti-Christian discrimination is real. Further, those likely to engage in such discrimination have an ability to shape larger societal values. Thus, anti-Christian discrimination isn’t going away any time soon. How should we deal with this reality? How to Live in a Post-Christian WorldWe must work together to protect each other from discrimination. We no longer live in a society generally supportive of Christians. We’re going to have to support each other. An important way to do that is to develop our Christian communities. For example, support of Christian-owned businesses may be vital to help minimize the economic costs of anti-Christian discrimination. Working together to socialize our children is vital for allowing us to pass down our faith in a post-Christian culture. We can’t count on support from the larger society. But we can’t neglect working to influence the larger society. While those with anti-Christian perspectives have more power in cultural creation, we can still make our presence known. Our Christian colleges, media, and arts are going to be important, but we must also encourage talented Christians to work in mainstream academia, secular media, and the larger art community. We won’t immediately alter the anti-Christian attitudes in these institutions, but we can lessen some of the negative effects these institutions can have. Research on intergroup contact shows that it’s harder to hold onto negative stereotypes when we know members of the out-group. Of course, Christians must also engage in politics. But we should consider how to use politics to defend ourselves rather than to assert power. When Christians look like they want power for its own sake, we only feed into the negative images some have of us. Don’t get me wrong: some who hate us won’t change their mind no matter what we do. But many individuals neither love nor hate us. They can be persuaded to reject measures that engage in religious discrimination if we’re seen as fighting for our freedoms and not to “take over” the country. A smart brand of politics, rather than a scorched-earth culture-war attack, is needed in a post-Christian world. George Yancey is a sociologist and professor of sociology at Baylor University. He’s the author of Beyond Racial Gridlock: Embracing Mutual Responsibility (IVP, 2006), Hostile Environment: Understanding and Responding to Anti-Christian Bias (IVP, 2015), and Beyond Racial Division: A Unifying Alternative to Colorblindness and Antiracism (IVP, 2022), and coauthor of One Faith No Longer: The Transformation of Christianity in Red and Blue America (NYU Press, 2021). https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/anti-christian-discrimination-america/ |
|