Be Careful About the Multiplying Attacks on Christian Nationalism

"I am compelled to sound a word of warning here. Be very wary when CNN seeks to define what is and what is not true Christianity. And when anyone claims that a form of Christianity is a threat to democracy, it is usually a pretext for marginalization and persecution." - Kevin Schaal

1269 reads

There are 34 Comments

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

I agree with much of what Kevin has written here, and I appreciate many of the distinctions he makes. There's a kind of "between the lines" problem, though. The piece sort of implies that anti-Christian Nationalism is a bigger concern than Christian Nationalism.

It may be true that Americans in general need to be more concerned about anti-Christian Nationalism, but as Christians, it's definitely not true. The bigger concern for us needs to be keeping our own doctrine and practice faithful. So our focus should be the threat to biblical Christianity--and doctrinal faithfulness--that Christian Nationalism presents.

Kevin quotes the CNN piece

One of the most popular beliefs among White Christian nationalists is that the US was founded as a Christian nation; the Founding Fathers were all orthodox, evangelical Christians; and God has chosen the US for a special role in history.

Then he implies that almost nobody teaches this.

Technically I would almost echo that. But only technically. I've been hearing teaching very, very close to this all my life--though it's been more often assumed and defended than taught, per se. The spirit of it is ubiquitous.

And now that certain politicians on the right are trying to make it part of the core of the GOP, it's more important than ever to aim our rhetorical guns in the right direction. 

Christian nationalism is a huge problem because of how it's used to feed unbiblical emphases, unbliblical entanglements, unbiblical distractions (for churches especially), and in more recent years, unbiblical ethics.

So does "CNN" get a few things wrong? Sure. But as Christians, our focus needs to be on getting our own house in order.

I need to add this also...

CNN seeks to define what is and what is not true Christianity

This is not "CNN defining" something. This is a human being, possibly a Christian, expressing an opinion on the topic of what true Christianity is. It's not false because "it's CNN." We need to stop thinking that way, for so many reasons--not least of which because it implies there is some other source of opinion that would be correct because it's against CNN. But truth doesn't work that way.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

JD Miller's picture

Aaron, is it fair to keep saying that this is not what anyone is saying but this is what they mean even when they keep telling you that is NOT what they mean?

dgszweda's picture

I would argue that they are saying this.  I am 51 and have grown up in fundamentalism all of my life.  I attended a number of churches that were the bedrock of fundamentalism at its height.  I would say that it heard it very often at church, Bible Conferences, fundamentalist camps, colleges and Revivals (when they were a thing).

  • America was founded on Christian principles
  • The liberal agenda is seeking to erode those principles through their ideology which is anti-God
  • If we are not careful and the nation turns from God as a result of adopting these elements than God will take away His blessing/His hand of protection and we may see the wrath of God on the US
  • And then they will pull out of the verses of cities/nations that turned their back on God and were punished by Him
  • Therefore, it is the duty of Christians to stave off this wrath by keeping the US on the right path (i.e. prayer in schools, Ten Commandments in city hall, prohibition on gay marriage....)

I would say that it was never assumed or defended, but outright taught.

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

JD Miller wrote:

Aaron, is it fair to keep saying that this is not what anyone is saying but this is what they mean even when they keep telling you that is NOT what they mean?

It's better to take people at their word. I think what happens on this, as with so many other topics, is that what we say is one thing but what people hear is another thing. It's not all the hearers' fault. Communicating in words carries some built in problems. Jesus said everything perfectly, but was still often misunderstood because 1) hearers have limits to their understanding and 2) "emphasis" is an art and depends so much on context. What gets your point across to 70% of your audience still fails to get it across to 30%, etc. And what you say as a corrective in response to A can become a problem when the problem at hand is B.

It's hard to carve out balance, and so much depends on how you understand your context and what you believe needs emphasizing. My read of our cultural context and our Christian context right now is that there is way too much emphasis on what "the other side" is doing wrong and way too little emphasis on how our own side needs to be better. The whole will not improve until both sides get less interested in firing shots at the other and get more interested in addressing their own needs for improvement.

For conservatives and Christians, we need to stop letting what non-conservatives and non-Christians are doing and saying define us. With that, we need to stop being afraid to agree with them when they happen to be right.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

Bert Perry's picture

I agree largely with the categories David Szweda points out above, and one thing to add is that there are times when it's not the pastor, but rather people listening in to things like "David Barton Ministries" or whatever it's called.  So you get some of this via things like Christian radio and the grapevine and such.

Agreed on the need for balance, because while I am emphatically not of the "Barton tribe", I do think there were some very beautiful things done, politically speaking, with the founding of our nation, some of which I can defend quite well from the Scriptures.  So I would differ with many variants of "Bartonism", but would call myself a patriot or (gasp) even a Christian nationalist at others.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

JD Miller's picture

I would argue that they are

dgszweda - Mon, 08/01/2022 - 10:53pm

I would argue that they are saying this.  I am 51 and have grown up in fundamentalism all of my life.  I attended a number of churches that were the bedrock of fundamentalism at its height.  I would say that it heard it very often at church, Bible Conferences, fundamentalist camps, colleges and Revivals (when they were a thing).

- America was founded on Christian principles

- The liberal agenda is seeking to erode those principles through their ideology which is anti-God

- If we are not careful and the nation turns from God as a result of adopting these elements than God will take away His blessing/His hand of protection and we may see the wrath of God on the US

- And then they will pull out of the verses of cities/nations that turned their back on God and were punished by Him

- Therefore, it is the duty of Christians to stave off this wrath by keeping the US on the right path (i.e. prayer in schools, Ten Commandments in city hall, prohibition on gay marriage....)

I would say that it was never assumed or defended, but outright taught.

So would we be better off having politicians who support drag queen story hour or politicians who support the ideas above?

dgszweda's picture

One of the areas of Christian Nationalism that I struggle to wrap my head around is bringing the Bible back into school.  Back in the 70's Christians began pulling their kids out of the public school system and into the Christian School movement.  That lasted into the mid-90's.  School teachers who were christians found options to teach a Biblical world view in a Christian school while at the same time that opportunity was evaporating from the public school.  As time went out the number of Christian teachers who were present in the public school system dwindled.  Then in the mid-90's (for a number of reasons), the homeschool movement began to rise, and kids were further being pulled out of the public school system (for Christian and secular reasons), as well as out of the Christian school movement, resulting in many Christian schools being closed in the late 90's and 2000's.  So we now have a public school system that is for the most part devoid of students from Christian homes and school teachers who are Christians.  As a side note, we wonder how its slide into secular elements went so quickly.  Now we want a bunch of unsaved teachers praying to a God and teaching from a Bible that they do not believe in, to a student body who is antithetical to Christ.  If that is not a recipe for doctrinal disaster, I don't know what is.  Why do we want a school teacher to go through the motions of praying to a God they have no desire to believe in, through a prayer that is written on a sheet of paper and mandated to them.

Bert Perry's picture

Regarding David's comment about the Bible in school, I attended public schools and universities K-grad school, and I've seen what they do with "prayer" in school.  I vividly remember my college graduation and praying "Lord, forgive me for needing to stand politely during this blasphemy."  It was bad.  Even in the best cases, you're going to get sectarian fights, watering things down to "least common demoninator", and unbelieving teachers/professors using the time to mock Christ.  Been there, done that, no, thank you.

Regarding the dichotomy of David's listing of "Bartonism" vs. drag queen story hour, isn't there a middle ground there somewhere?  Someplace where we don't post the Decalogue or host drag queen story hour?

Really, after the number of DQSH performers caught on Megan's List, I don't know that this should be too difficult, to put it mildly.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

Larry's picture

Moderator
  • America was founded on Christian principles
  • The liberal agenda is seeking to erode those principles through their ideology which is anti-God
  • If we are not careful and the nation turns from God as a result of adopting these elements than God will take away His blessing/His hand of protection and we may see the wrath of God on the US
  • And then they will pull out of the verses of cities/nations that turned their back on God and were punished by Him
  • Therefore, it is the duty of Christians to stave off this wrath by keeping the US on the right path (i.e. prayer in schools, Ten Commandments in city hall, prohibition on gay marriage....)

Which of these would you say is incorrect?

Bert Perry's picture

A large portion of the Founders were deists and children of the Enlightenment, so there are a number of things which are not "Christian principles", and as I noted above, having secular people lead prayers/post Decalogue in schools is not helpful to kids.  It can serve to inoculate them to the Gospel, IMO.

Gay marriage?  My take on that is that our key thing to do is to remind the country why the government gets into family law in the first place; so they can help pick up the pieces and defend "weaker vessels" (generally women & children) when relationships break down.  So if we do that, we've made gay marriage irrelevant without actually banning it, as there are no weaker vessels.  Either that, or we expose exactly how volatile their relationships are.  I've heard that domestic violence is far higher there.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

G. N. Barkman's picture

Bert, are you saying Christian principles can only come from born-again Christians?  It seems to me that Christian principles were largely assumed by nearly everybody at the time of our nation's founding.  Many deists supported Christian principles.

G. N. Barkman

Bert Perry's picture

I'm saying some of the provisions in the Constitution and the like are more clearly attributable to the Enlightenment, starting with the very structure as a republic instead  of a monarchy, than to Scripture.  

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

Ken S's picture

Like dgszweda, I've grown up in fundamentalism and have heard all those points taught and preached over the last 40 plus years. In the circles I grew up in there was a fusion of politics and Christianity, with the idea that advancing the kingdom of Christ and preserving our Christian way of life was to be done by means of political power. It's literally the opposite of how Jesus established his kingdom when he was on earth. I find this article to be long but quite enlightening: Christianity Will Have Power

Richard Brunt's picture

I live about 30 mi. north of Philadelphia.  Three of my grandchildren are taught that whites are Privileged, homosexuality is something to be proud of and you can choose what sex you would like to be. My one daughter teaches in a public school about 2 hours north of us in Pa. There are a lot of Christian teachers in that school and there is a lot of respect for both God and Country.

Richard E Brunt

KD Merrill's picture

Christian nationalism is a huge problem because of how it's used to feed unbiblical emphases, unbliblical entanglements, unbiblical distractions (for churches especially), and in more recent years, unbiblical ethics.

Would you consider Christian Nationalism a blessing of liberty?

JD Miller's picture

For over 30 years I have had the view that schools should not sponsor prayer, but that they should also not stop those who chose to pray.  I agree with the concerns about unsaved people teaching the Bible or leading prayers.  At the same time, it really bothered be when my little brother was scolded by his teacher for having a Bible in his desk.  That should have never happened.

I have also been bothered by some of the Barton type revisionist history.  On both these subjects I have known for decades that not all Christians agreed with my position.  That does not surprise me because there are a lot of issues Christians have different ideas about, but for me it has never been a deal breaker when it came to voting. 

There are a lot of Christians that I would not choose to worship with on Sunday morning because they believe different than I do, but I could still vote for.  That it why I could be comfortable voting for someone who might hold to Bartonism.  To be honest, I do not even know if any of the people I voted for in the primary have those views or not.

Joel Shaffer's picture

When it comes to Christian Nationalism, we tend to overlook the fact that much of what is fueling it nowadays is "Seven Mountains Dominionism." Seven Mountains Dominionism is a Pentecostalism/Kingdom Now Theology applied to politics and culture.  Their theology states that Christians are tasked to take back from Satan and control the 7 social institutions that control society (education, government, media, arts/entertainment, religion, family, and business).  Peter Wagner, who was also involved in popularizing 20th century heterodoxies such as the Homogenious Unit Principle and Power Evangelism, helped popularize seven mountains dominionism in Pentecostal/Charismatic circles before he died in 2016.

In several political-faith rallies and groups) during the past several years (Road to Majority, Faith and Freedom Coalition, Turning Point) have promoted Seven Mountians Dominionism.  When Seven Mountains Dominionism and David Barton's Revisionism are combined, it becomes a lethal cocktail. Sadly, bad theology, ethics, and history are undergirding much of this Christian Nationalist conservatism, which is flexing its muscles and taking over today's Republican party. 

JD Miller's picture

(education, government, media, arts/entertainment, religion, family, and business)

I do not understand why Christians having a desire to have more influence in these areas is such a terribly dangerous thing.  If they are unethical then we need to address those who lack ethics, not their desire to be elected to the school board.   Maybe I am misunderstanding, but it seems like some would just prefer that Christians not have any influence in any positions of power.

Joel Shaffer's picture

I do not understand why Christians having a desire to have more influence in these areas is such a terribly dangerous thing.  If they are unethical then we need to address those who lack ethics, not their desire to be elected to the school board.   Maybe I am misunderstanding, but it seems like some would just prefer that Christians not have any influence in any positions of power.

Having a desire for influencing these spheres and controlling these spheres are two very different things.  Of course Christians have been called to be salt and light. The issue is how do we become salt and light? 7 mountain dominionism is basically Pentecostal Christian Reconstructionism.  Also, the origins of the seven mountain mandate  came from “visions” that modern day apostles and leaders had and is heavily promoted by modern day "apostles" such as Bill Johnson (Bethel Church) and others connected to the New Apostolic Reformation. One problem is that this type of dominionism is authoritarian in how they achieve their goals and how they apply "Biblical Precepts" in our pluralistic society. That's why you have certain far-right religious politicians such as Lauren Broebart suggesting that "we need some legislation that requires constitutional and Biblical citizenship training in our public schools."  I get that the far-left has proposed some authoritarian social agendas, but the antidote to left-wing authoritarianism is not right-wing authoritarianism.  We don't have to put up with only those two options.  Also they justify why and what they do by revelatory visions and supernatural dreams, which undermines the Sufficiency of Scripture. Some influential apostle gets a direct vision or dream from God about how to take dominion from Satan in America with these 7 mountains and the masses of Pentecostal Christians have jumped on board. 

It also leads to some bad naive theology of sin and evil. They are so intent to point out the evil and sin among the Democrats/Progressives/Far-Left, that they miss out on seeing the potential of themselves doing evil because of our sin nature. When Christians minimize their propensity to do evil, combined with authoritarian tendencies, justified by a revelatory vision-based pragmatism, it's a recipe for disaster.   

 

Bert Perry's picture

Joel, I'm going to reveal my ignorance here; never heard of what you're talking about, so I'm wondering, in your experience, where it's found and what the extent might be.  Ballpark guesstimates are just fine.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

G. N. Barkman's picture

Joel, I agree that a law requiring Biblical leadership training in public schools is problematic.  But do you also object to requiring teaching the United States Constitution in schools?  I would love to see that happen.

G. N. Barkman

dcbii's picture

EditorModerator

G. N. Barkman wrote:

But do you also object to requiring teaching the United States Constitution in schools?  I would love to see that happen.

I was wondering about that too.  I think Civics (especially including the Constitution) should be just as required as reading, writing, and arithmetic.

Dave Barnhart

Bert Perry's picture

Regarding civics education, I remember quite a bit that I'd like back, particularly my teachers' attempts to more or less write the 2nd Amendment out of the Constitution.  Even back then, I guess I had a good degree of textualism/originalism in my blood.  

That said, it strikes me that if we taught the differences between modern liberal jurisprudence, textualism, and originalism, we could theoretically convince a lot more young people to be originalists.  Well, at least if you did it honestly and let them know that if you don't have a good degree of originalism in your judicial theory, the Constitution can mean anything and thus means nothing.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

dcbii's picture

EditorModerator

Well, I agree that even teaching the Constitution can be slanted, but if students had to at least familiarize themselves with the actual text, then no matter how the teacher spins it, they can at least see whether that spin matches what is written.  Not perfect, but it would still be better than ignoring it.

Dave Barnhart

Joel Shaffer's picture

I don't have a problem with constitutional literacy. In fact, I remember taking a test on the constitution in my government class as a Senior in high school. I have a much bigger problem with Congress passing laws about Biblical citizenship where the government requires students to learn whatever form of moralism curriculum with Biblical language that will be introduced by lobbying "Christian" groups  

As for 7 mountain dominionism, the majority of Pentecostals/Charismatics that have staked their claim into politics believe a form of it.  Paula White, who was Trump's spiritual advisor, embraces it. Charlie Kirk, the head of TurningPointUSA and former director of the Falkirk Center at Liberty University, stated this about Trump, "finally we have a president that understands the seven mountains of cultural influence" at the 2020 CPAC conference.   David Barton embraces it as well. According to Barton, "those are the seven areas you have to have, and if you can have those seven areas, you can shape and control whatever takes place in nations, continents, and even the world,”  “Now that’s what we believed all along is you got to get involved in this stuff. Jesus said ‘you occupy ‘til I come.’ We don’t care when he comes, that’s up to him. What we’re supposed to do is take the culture in the meantime, and you got to get involved in these seven areas.” (2011 Radio Interview).

Several prominent Calvary Chapel Pastors (Jack Hibbs and Rob McCoy) embrace the seven mountain mandate/dominionism. Charlie Kirk is a regular speaker among several Calvary Chapels thourghout the nation.  

There are several Faith and Politial tours/rallies in America happening all at once that promote 7 mountain mandate/domionism.  The ReAwaken America tour, Road to Majority (Faith and Freedom Coalition) tour, Turning Point's "America Fest." At all these rallies are attended by 2 to 8 thousand people on any given week. What's even worse is that the Seven Mountain Mandate/Dominionism language is then used by Mike Lindell (My Pillow Conspiracy Theorist), Roger Stone, Michael Flynn, and etc, They corrupt the concepts even worse than it already is.

 But the Seven Mountain Mandate/Dominionism is becoming the primary theological and ethical framework for how Christians in Pentecostal/Charismatic circles are to engage America for making disciples.  One of its key Biblical passages is Isaiah 2:2-3. instructing the people of God to take control: 

"In the last days, the mountain of the Lord’s temple will be established
    as the highest of the mountains;
it will be exalted above the hills,
    and all nations will stream to it.

Many peoples will come and say,

“Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord,
    to the temple of the God of Jacob.
He will teach us his ways,
    so that we may walk in his paths.”
The law will go out from Zion,
    the word of the Lord from Jerusalem."

Donald Trump was prophesied by several of its proponents such as Lance Wallnau to be "a mountain king" to rule over American Government. Christians are either supposed to take over mountains or be the primary influencers of those who are controlling these mountains.  Wallnau sees the influential left as God's enemies who are preventing Christians from occupying the 7 mountains. “Our real enemies are the ones that are shaping laws, shaping media, and shaping the next generation.”  So much for Paul's claim that "our struggle is not against flesh and blood....  By the way, Wallnau has circulated around TBN  such as the Jim Bakker show. All of the TBN folks love him!

The problem is that most secular journalists who write about the Seven Mountain Mandate/Dominionism do so with theological ignorance and end up utilizing the guilt-by-association logical fallacy and lumping all politically active conservative Christians together.  

JD Miller's picture

The problem is that most secular journalists who write about the Seven Mountain Mandate/Dominionism do so with theological ignorance and end up utilizing the guilt-by-association logical fallacy and lumping all politically active conservative Christians together.  

I had never heard of Seven Mountains either.  When I read your earlier comments I was concerned that you may have been doing the guilt by assn thing, but I am glad that you clarified that you are not.  You did however mention Boebert.  Can you show how she is connected to Seven Mountains and what her actual views are about it?  If the media is linking all politically active conservative Christians together, how can we know who is connected to Seven Mountains and who isn't unless they make specific statements like Charlie Kirk did?  Further, in all fairness to Kirk, I would like to hear him questioned specifically on what he meant about what he said, rather than to have people say this is what he means.

dcbii's picture

EditorModerator

Joel Shaffer wrote:

Wallnau sees the influential left as God's enemies who are preventing Christians from occupying the 7 mountains. “Our real enemies are the ones that are shaping laws, shaping media, and shaping the next generation.”  So much for Paul's claim that "our struggle is not against flesh and blood...

 

 

Bold mine above.

I think this is where most of us (at least me) have to be careful, and need reminding.  When the influential left is talking about "burning it all down" and saying things like "the Constitution is obsolete and was written by white racists," then I can easily see them as enemies of the U.S. (at least the U.S. I know and love).

However, I have to make sure I don't see them as "God's enemies."  Of course, there's a scriptural sense in which all the unregenerate are enemies of God.  But since the Bible says I need to love my enemies, I have to constantly remind myself that my political opponents (some of whom may of course be regenerate) are not outside God's love or power to regenerate.

I have to say (with the others above) that I'm also unfamiliar with "Seven Mountain Dominionism."  It's not like I've never heard preaching that conflates our spiritual warfare with our political warfare.  I suppose we all have.  But the Christian circles I'm in now and most familiar with, including my own church, are very careful to keep spiritual things separate and keep politics out of the pulpit, as I suspect is true for most of you as well.

Dave Barnhart

Joel Shaffer's picture

 You did however mention Boebert.  Can you show how she is connected to Seven Mountains and what her actual views are about it? 

Boebert is connected to Seven Mountians through the Truth and Liberty Coalition.  She was their main speaker last September. Here is their mission statement: "Truth & Liberty Coalition, Inc. is a 501(C)(4) non-profit based in Woodland Park, Colorado. Established by Andrew Wommack and other Christian leaders, we seek to educate, unify and mobilize believers in Jesus Christ to affect the reformation of nations through the seven mountains of cultural influence."   Lance Wallnau is on the board of the Truth and Liberty Coalition as well. 

I listened to her speech. In some ways, I really respect her and her background and really appreciated her no-nonsense approach, especially as she functions with the Freedom Caucus in Congress.  However, she also is a-Word-Faith Pentecostal and she said some heretical things as well when she was applying Kenneth Hagin "name it, claim it" theology to politics and history of politics. And she made some really outrageous claims. 

1st, she claimed that America and Israel are exceptional above all other countries in the world because they were created for the purpose of Glorifying God. So she really relies on Barton historical revisions about the Founders' Christian faith (not saying that some of them weren't genuine Christians, but many of them were Deists that embraced Enlightenment philosophy and saw humans as the center of the universe, rather than God. And Glorifying God was not the main purpose for birthing a country. 

2nd, she basically used the word-faith name it, claim it, declare it, language to explain what our founding fathers did when they birthed America. And how Christians nowadays should do the same thing as they speak righteousness and taking America back for God into existence.That the battle has already been won and Christians need to simply have faith and claim it. She talks about that her district is her "inheritance" and other word-faith language peppered throughout the speech. 

3rd, she was discipled in a full-gospel Pentecostal church in Glenwood Springs Colorado. One of the husband-wife co--pastors (the husband) was trained at the Rhema Bible College and Training Center Kennith Hagin's college and ministry.  So it doesn't surprise me that she applies Word-Faith theology to her politics. In fact, this is why so many of the Pentecostal evangelicals that voted for Trump believe that Trump won the 2020 election. They had named it, claimed it, and declared it into existence. So when Trump didn't win, they didn't question their heretical theology, they automatically assumed that the election was stolen by "the enemy" and his schemes. No matter what evidence, no matter what court case, in their minds it couldn't be true because they already claimed victory. Remember that around 50% of evangelicals are Pentecostal/Charismatic in America.  By the way, I did not give exact quotes from her speech but rather paraphrased her. Here is the video. You can check it out for yourself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qUnnSu1Dno

 

Larry's picture

Moderator

Not a lot of interaction on these five statements, but ...

America was founded on Christian principles

I don't think this is really that controversial. It is usually stated as a Judeo-Christian ethic. It is not the same as saying that America was or is a Christian nation, or that founders were Christians, but Christian principles seem to be pretty foundational to much of America's founding.

The liberal agenda is seeking to erode those principles through their ideology which is anti-God

Again, not really controversial, is it?

If we are not careful and the nation turns from God as a result of adopting these elements than God will take away His blessing/His hand of protection and we may see the wrath of God on the US

Could be true, but probably no real way to verify it.

And then they will pull out of the verses of cities/nations that turned their back on God and were punished by Him

These verses are true. Of course we have to figure out how to apply them to today.

Therefore, it is the duty of Christians to stave off this wrath by keeping the US on the right path (i.e. prayer in schools, Ten Commandments in city hall, prohibition on gay marriage....)

This raises several questions:

Is a society better off or worse off if they live by biblical principles?

Skip prayer in schools and ten commandments in city halls (some of the ten commandments are already in the law which boggles my mind that people don't object to them), but skip to sexual ethics. Almost everyone draws a line somewhere. Why should a society accept gay marriage but not polygamy? Why should a society accept gay marriage but not the marriage of 13 year olds? Why should a society accept gay marriage but not the marriage of brother and sister or father and daughter? Where and why draw the line?

Why should we accept a biblical ethic on private property (laws against theft) but not marriage? Is it really a theocracy to have laws against theft? No one would say that. But other laws from the exact same source are a theocracy? We need more critical thinking about these things, IMO.

Pages