Donald Trump, a 77-year-old Bible salesman from Palm Beach, Florida, has emerged as the nation’s most prominent Christian leader. Trump is running for president as a divinely chosen champion of White Christians, promising to sanctify their grievances, destroy their perceived enemies, bolster their social status, and grant them the power to impose an anti-feminist, anti-LGBTQ, White-centric Christian nationalism from coast to coast. That Trump doesn’t attend church and has obviously never read the book that he hawks for $59.99, seems of interest exclusively to his political opponents.
What might catch the attention of some evangelical conservatives, however, is that Trump’s ostentatious embrace of White Christian militantism coincides with a precipitous decline in religious affiliation in the US. According to the Public Religion Research Institute, one-quarter of Americans in 2023 said they were religiously unaffiliated. “Unaffiliated” is the only religious category experiencing growth. In a single decade, from 2013 to 2023, the percentage of Americans saying that religion is the most important thing, or among the most important things, in their life plummeted to 53% from 72%.
The cornered rat has entered the chat…
The more the “Christians” try to prevent change, the more people they will drive away from the church.
Don’t do that, they are indeed Christians not “Christians”. I don’t accept the no true Scotsman fallacy, these people are indeed Christian, they are the dregs of what that religion teaches. Own it, fix it, don’t just claim everyone who sucks in your religion isn’t a “true Christian”
I disagree with this on the basis that Christ explicitly teaches His followers to Love unconditionally, care for the vulnerable and needy, and makes an example of those who use the sanctity of the Temple for personal gain. People who call themselves “Christian” while very deliberately doing the exact opposite of the things Christ taught are very literally not “True Christians”, because they do none of the things commanded of them by Christ. This differs from the “No True Scotsman” because there is a whole specific list of criteria differentiating a True Christian from a false one.
I also remember Jesus telling his followers to sell their properties and buy swords. Also remember them violently lopping off a Roman soldiers ear (why does god incarnate need armed followers?) and Jesus himself being violent in the temple. Jesus was an apocalyptic cult leader, trying to get himself martyred by pissing off the religious authorities and by calling himself king while in a Roman province. Disturbing the pax Romana during a pilgrimage month, when the Roman Legion was called in to the city to keep pace during Passover.
Not disagreeing with your point, but the soldier’s ear probably isn’t the best example. Luke 22:49-51:
I agree for the most part, and I left the Catholic Church I grew up in for that and many other reasons.
However, isn’t Christ’s message supposed to be “you shall love your neighbour as yourself”? When it becomes “hurt your neighbour as much as you can” does it make sense to still call it Christianity?
Since it’s been that way basically from the beginning though, maybe well meaning Christian people should just step away and start over.
I’ve always understood ‘neighbour’ in this context to mean ‘fellow Christian’. Everyone else is fair game.
That’s theologically insane. It’s been doctrine at times and is how catholic slaving was justified, but it flies in the face of one of the recurring themes of the gospels: that you need to love your enemies and people you don’t like. That’s the point of the Good Samaritan, it’s the at the time equivalent of “a priest and a well respected christian ignored an injured Christian, but then some random Muslim guy showed up and just helped this stranger just because he was hurt, be like the Muslim guy”
I get your point. Mine is that there’s the ideal and the reality. I’ll give the title to the ideal and let the self righteous know they are pretenders.