I think Christians are always between a rock and a hard place when it comes to politics. Both sides use religious rhetorics to achieve their end goals. The Bible is used as a gimmick by both sides. One side identifies as “Christian” while the other uses Christian ideologies to meet their own agenda. Christians remain in the middle pointing fingers at each other instead of resolving issues at the grassroots level. The modern rich people or Christians cannot sell their belongings and distribute to the poor, so the Leftists are the modern Robin Hood. The brawler in chief masquerades as the solution to the divide between the two. I hope you are not alluding that one side is the angel of light, and another one is the angel of darkness. In my opinion, they are the same side of the coin.
Max, this a great comment. I think you articulate what a lot of people feel when they read an article like this. What about the Left?
Your sentence here makes the exact right point: 'One side identifies as “Christian” while the other uses Christian ideologies to meet their own agenda.'
Yes. But I would argue that there is a significant difference between using Christian rhetoric/ideologies and identifying as Christian. I actually think it is good to use Christian rhetoric in politics. It was chiefly Christian rhetoric that ended slavery (Douglass' appendix to his Narrative Life is case in point, also Lincoln's speeches). Almost every President of the United States (on the Right and the Left) has appealed to religious rhetoric/ideology to some degree. That is part of the point of this article.
But no administration has so openly embraced Christian Nationalism like the Trump Administration. Not ever. That is different than using Christian ideology/rhetoric. https://x.com/peoplefor/status/1953838030495666259
And yes, the Left likes to quote Leviticus 19:33-34 when it comes to immigration, and it likes to quote Proverbs 19:17 when it comes to helping the poor. But this once again is categorically different than hauling a giant cross to the Capital and a flag that says "Jesus 2020" (January 6th) or calling your president "God's Anointed".
"Both side" language runs the risk of obscuring such differences.
Liberals are very generous!... with other people's money. They will happily use political power and democratic rule to seize property of rich elites like Trump and give them to the poor. How caring and righteous... except the whole breaking the eighth commandment thing: "you shall not steal". In that sense liberals are very generous.
Leftist "compassion" is extremely misguided and often harmful. Take for example the following embarrassing examples of liberal compassion: passing out drug paraphernalia on the streets of Portland, facilitating sex changes for minors, and killing babies for the sake of pregnant teenagers' "well-being". I wish I was making these things up. It makes me sick even saying it.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. The devil always weaves truth into his lies, because all his works are a corruption of the original truth ordered by God. Satan masquerades as an angel of light, an agent of righteousness.
Trump on the other hand, I don't know anyone who thinks he is an angel of light. It is obvious that Trump is not an angel of light. He is a brawler. He is a fighter. He is certainly not Christian, but the convervative Christians put up with him because he is fighting for some good things. The liberals hate him with a superlative, rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth, murderous hatred. It's insane.
Wake up and get the noose off your neck my friend before the floor falls out. After they finish destroying Trump, the pigs will turn and trample you.
Your comment is drenched with sarcasm and mockery, so it is legitimately difficult to know what exactly you are referring to. In regards to "stealing" for instance, are you just talking about taxes? For instance, the 16th amendment?
My point is that liberal generosity and compassion typically are at someone else's expense, which is actually not very admirable at all. It's common knowledge that blue folks are in favor of larger government welfare programs, funded by uneven tax structures; that doesn't really need explanation. Yes it seems like liberals care about the poor and the immigrant based on their words, but is a larger government welfare program really righteousness? It's easy for me to vote for someone else to pay increased taxes in order to fund welfare... but does that make me a better person?
Besides, does the liberal veneer of righteousness really make them more ready for the Gospel, as you suggest? Does it really indicate that liberals are ripe to repent and believe the gospel? Don't you know that those who are "well" have no need of a physician, but rather those who are sick? Jesus didn't come to save the righteous, but sinners.
You aren't doing the secular liberal any favors by appealing to their self-righteousness. The left (and the right too) need to know that they are sick, desperately sick, and terribly sinful. They need to break over their own sin, if they would be saved. Christians need to boldly speak conviction to each heart and preach faith through repentance and belief in Jesus. They don't need a Christian voice patting them on the back for their love of socialism and vicarious philanthropy.
I appreciate this comment and your point is taken. I am not pointing to the Left as exemplary in their policies of Justice and Love. Things like underage gender reassignment surgery and abortion rights (under the guise of "pro-choice" or "women's rights") are troubling to me too. And I also, like you, am skeptical toward most liberal economic policies that argue that if only we divided the rich's wealth more evenly everyone would be okay. I think these things are oversimplified and have potential to reek havoc upon our culture.
My point is also not to say that the Right's policies are a just a little worse than the Left's policies. I typically favor Republican policy over Democratic policy, by quite a bit actually.
My point is to say that, right now, the Right's behavior and name-calling rhetoric is breaking our political system like no other presidential administration, right or left. Trump, Hegseth, Miller, Noem, have consistently used inflammatory language like "scum" and "garbage" and "deranged" to refer to Democratics (and also Somalians and Haitians and immigrants in general).
For instance, consider Rob Reiner's response to Charlie Kirk's death. Gracious and compassionate. Contrast this to Trump's response to Rob Reiner's death. He calls him deranged and mocks him (both on social media and then he doubles down when he is interviewed about it).
Unless we can consistently condemn such rhetoric, we allow the Trump administration's behavior to be a precedent, even for future Leftwing presidents (how scary would that be?). My point in this article is that we, as students of Scripture, should not have to have left-wing heathens (who champion policies like the above) tell us that calling Somalis "garbage", for instance, is unbiblical and damaging to our country. If we don't "put up with" Trump's behavior, we actually have a path toward a legitimate conservative political party which can affect change against dangerous leftwing policy. But up until now, by and large, we have championed the man as God's Anointed president, and we are damning our own agendas and losing our political legitimacy by letting the left take the lead in calling out this hypocrisy.
Jesse, whose side are you on? Your articles on MAGA align with the mainstream left by conflating Trump with conservative Christians and then attacking them both. It's a shell game that substitutes the cosmic battle for good and evil with marxist-framed political struggle that effectively sabotages the strength of the church and glorifies the evil of the left.
You need to start standing in support of conservative Christians, who belong to Jesus and whom Jesus purchased with his blood, instead of mainstream liberals who hate God and hate His Church.
This sentiment makes sense. I don’t mean to conflate conservative Christians with Trump, but rather I mean merely to point to their failure (and their missed opportunity) to condemn him. If you want a strong consertative party that can effectively respond to the dangerous policies of the left, you need to be able to criticize and hold leaders accountable. I do not see this happening.
As far as sides, have you heard Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s quote below? He experienced Soviet labor camps. If anyone had the right to separate political movements as Good vs. Evil, it would be him. But this is what he says:
“The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either—but right through every human heart.”
What do you think? To me that squares well with Paul’s good and evil language in Ephesians 6.
Such an important moment. May the church have the humility to reflect, repent, and change. Course corrections have happened over and over in church history; may now be that time again. What a powerful witness would it be for the church to recognize its error; for leaders to stand up and oppose the transparently evil things happening in the party that usurps the name of Jesus. Which leaders among us will feel the call back to our basic principles? Who will be the Luther, the Bonhoeffer, the Wilberforce, the Ambrose of Milan, the Cathrine of Siena?
You do not have to sell out to the left in order to see the evil of the right. And if you truly want to be able to oppose the left in some of it’s most dangerous extremes, then take care of your own party first. We have to be committed to our principles, not to a party.
I think Christians are always between a rock and a hard place when it comes to politics. Both sides use religious rhetorics to achieve their end goals. The Bible is used as a gimmick by both sides. One side identifies as “Christian” while the other uses Christian ideologies to meet their own agenda. Christians remain in the middle pointing fingers at each other instead of resolving issues at the grassroots level. The modern rich people or Christians cannot sell their belongings and distribute to the poor, so the Leftists are the modern Robin Hood. The brawler in chief masquerades as the solution to the divide between the two. I hope you are not alluding that one side is the angel of light, and another one is the angel of darkness. In my opinion, they are the same side of the coin.
Max, this a great comment. I think you articulate what a lot of people feel when they read an article like this. What about the Left?
Your sentence here makes the exact right point: 'One side identifies as “Christian” while the other uses Christian ideologies to meet their own agenda.'
Yes. But I would argue that there is a significant difference between using Christian rhetoric/ideologies and identifying as Christian. I actually think it is good to use Christian rhetoric in politics. It was chiefly Christian rhetoric that ended slavery (Douglass' appendix to his Narrative Life is case in point, also Lincoln's speeches). Almost every President of the United States (on the Right and the Left) has appealed to religious rhetoric/ideology to some degree. That is part of the point of this article.
But no administration has so openly embraced Christian Nationalism like the Trump Administration. Not ever. That is different than using Christian ideology/rhetoric. https://x.com/peoplefor/status/1953838030495666259
And yes, the Left likes to quote Leviticus 19:33-34 when it comes to immigration, and it likes to quote Proverbs 19:17 when it comes to helping the poor. But this once again is categorically different than hauling a giant cross to the Capital and a flag that says "Jesus 2020" (January 6th) or calling your president "God's Anointed".
"Both side" language runs the risk of obscuring such differences.
Thoughts?
Thanks Jesse for your thoughtful response and citation.
Liberals are very generous!... with other people's money. They will happily use political power and democratic rule to seize property of rich elites like Trump and give them to the poor. How caring and righteous... except the whole breaking the eighth commandment thing: "you shall not steal". In that sense liberals are very generous.
Leftist "compassion" is extremely misguided and often harmful. Take for example the following embarrassing examples of liberal compassion: passing out drug paraphernalia on the streets of Portland, facilitating sex changes for minors, and killing babies for the sake of pregnant teenagers' "well-being". I wish I was making these things up. It makes me sick even saying it.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. The devil always weaves truth into his lies, because all his works are a corruption of the original truth ordered by God. Satan masquerades as an angel of light, an agent of righteousness.
Trump on the other hand, I don't know anyone who thinks he is an angel of light. It is obvious that Trump is not an angel of light. He is a brawler. He is a fighter. He is certainly not Christian, but the convervative Christians put up with him because he is fighting for some good things. The liberals hate him with a superlative, rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth, murderous hatred. It's insane.
Wake up and get the noose off your neck my friend before the floor falls out. After they finish destroying Trump, the pigs will turn and trample you.
Your comment is drenched with sarcasm and mockery, so it is legitimately difficult to know what exactly you are referring to. In regards to "stealing" for instance, are you just talking about taxes? For instance, the 16th amendment?
My point is that liberal generosity and compassion typically are at someone else's expense, which is actually not very admirable at all. It's common knowledge that blue folks are in favor of larger government welfare programs, funded by uneven tax structures; that doesn't really need explanation. Yes it seems like liberals care about the poor and the immigrant based on their words, but is a larger government welfare program really righteousness? It's easy for me to vote for someone else to pay increased taxes in order to fund welfare... but does that make me a better person?
Besides, does the liberal veneer of righteousness really make them more ready for the Gospel, as you suggest? Does it really indicate that liberals are ripe to repent and believe the gospel? Don't you know that those who are "well" have no need of a physician, but rather those who are sick? Jesus didn't come to save the righteous, but sinners.
You aren't doing the secular liberal any favors by appealing to their self-righteousness. The left (and the right too) need to know that they are sick, desperately sick, and terribly sinful. They need to break over their own sin, if they would be saved. Christians need to boldly speak conviction to each heart and preach faith through repentance and belief in Jesus. They don't need a Christian voice patting them on the back for their love of socialism and vicarious philanthropy.
I appreciate this comment and your point is taken. I am not pointing to the Left as exemplary in their policies of Justice and Love. Things like underage gender reassignment surgery and abortion rights (under the guise of "pro-choice" or "women's rights") are troubling to me too. And I also, like you, am skeptical toward most liberal economic policies that argue that if only we divided the rich's wealth more evenly everyone would be okay. I think these things are oversimplified and have potential to reek havoc upon our culture.
My point is also not to say that the Right's policies are a just a little worse than the Left's policies. I typically favor Republican policy over Democratic policy, by quite a bit actually.
My point is to say that, right now, the Right's behavior and name-calling rhetoric is breaking our political system like no other presidential administration, right or left. Trump, Hegseth, Miller, Noem, have consistently used inflammatory language like "scum" and "garbage" and "deranged" to refer to Democratics (and also Somalians and Haitians and immigrants in general).
For instance, consider Rob Reiner's response to Charlie Kirk's death. Gracious and compassionate. Contrast this to Trump's response to Rob Reiner's death. He calls him deranged and mocks him (both on social media and then he doubles down when he is interviewed about it).
Unless we can consistently condemn such rhetoric, we allow the Trump administration's behavior to be a precedent, even for future Leftwing presidents (how scary would that be?). My point in this article is that we, as students of Scripture, should not have to have left-wing heathens (who champion policies like the above) tell us that calling Somalis "garbage", for instance, is unbiblical and damaging to our country. If we don't "put up with" Trump's behavior, we actually have a path toward a legitimate conservative political party which can affect change against dangerous leftwing policy. But up until now, by and large, we have championed the man as God's Anointed president, and we are damning our own agendas and losing our political legitimacy by letting the left take the lead in calling out this hypocrisy.
Jesse, whose side are you on? Your articles on MAGA align with the mainstream left by conflating Trump with conservative Christians and then attacking them both. It's a shell game that substitutes the cosmic battle for good and evil with marxist-framed political struggle that effectively sabotages the strength of the church and glorifies the evil of the left.
You need to start standing in support of conservative Christians, who belong to Jesus and whom Jesus purchased with his blood, instead of mainstream liberals who hate God and hate His Church.
This sentiment makes sense. I don’t mean to conflate conservative Christians with Trump, but rather I mean merely to point to their failure (and their missed opportunity) to condemn him. If you want a strong consertative party that can effectively respond to the dangerous policies of the left, you need to be able to criticize and hold leaders accountable. I do not see this happening.
As far as sides, have you heard Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s quote below? He experienced Soviet labor camps. If anyone had the right to separate political movements as Good vs. Evil, it would be him. But this is what he says:
“The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either—but right through every human heart.”
What do you think? To me that squares well with Paul’s good and evil language in Ephesians 6.
Preach, Jesse!
Such an important moment. May the church have the humility to reflect, repent, and change. Course corrections have happened over and over in church history; may now be that time again. What a powerful witness would it be for the church to recognize its error; for leaders to stand up and oppose the transparently evil things happening in the party that usurps the name of Jesus. Which leaders among us will feel the call back to our basic principles? Who will be the Luther, the Bonhoeffer, the Wilberforce, the Ambrose of Milan, the Cathrine of Siena?
You do not have to sell out to the left in order to see the evil of the right. And if you truly want to be able to oppose the left in some of it’s most dangerous extremes, then take care of your own party first. We have to be committed to our principles, not to a party.