Christians are now complaining that "turning the other cheek" is nothing more than liberal talking points...

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/3377375

I read an essay by a christian a while ago that pointed out that the separation of church and state wasn’t about protecting the state from religion - it was about protecting religion from the state.

The gist of the argument was that religion should be concentrating on the eternal, and politics, by necessity, concentrates on the immediate. The author was concerned that welding religion and politics together would make religion itself political, meaning it would have to conform to the secular moment rather than looking to saving souls or whatever.

The mind meld of evangelical christianity and right wing politics happened in the mid to late 70s when the US was trying to racially integrate christian universities, which had been severely limiting or excluding black students. Since then, republicans and christians have been in bed together. The southern baptist convention, in fact, originally endorsed the Roe decision because it helped the cause of women. It was only after they decided to go all in on social conservatism that it became a sin.

Christians today are growing concerned about a falloff in attendance and membership. This article concentrates on how conservatism has become a call for people to publicly identify as evangelical while not actually being religious, because it’s an our team thing.

Evangelicals made an ironically Faustian bargain and are starting to realize it.

  • SCB@lemmy.world
    3·
    1 year ago

    It’s bizarre to me the things people will make up to rationalize to themselves that Christianity is not non-violent.

    No one was seeking to “trick” romans into getting in trouble by hauling shit extra distances. That doesn’t even make sense as a concept. It’s again, email-forward level of “just trick the system!” It’s nonsense.

    The entire point of that passage is that the Gospel is to be spread through meekness and humility. Which is why, you know, every single teaching of Jesus’s revolves around these concepts.

    • randon31415@lemmy.world
      1·
      1 year ago

      In what way was helping the Romans by lifting there stuff violent? The whole concept of Gandhi’s speeches was that pacifism wasn’t just rolling over and taking abuse. Jesus’s non-violent teaching went on to inspire many movements from Gandhi’s, Martin Luther and Martin Luther King. Trying it back the article, it seems people think non-violent = weak these days. I’m just pointing out that there is a nuance that has seemingly been lost, and sometimes the non-violent approach is one of the strongest approchs you can take to a situation.

      • SCB@lemmy.world
        2·
        1 year ago

        I didn’t say carrying things for a roman was violent. I said the radical misinterpretations of Christianity are done to make room for violence. The “carry it 2 miles and get them in trouble” thing is just false, and the story about Ghandi referencing it probably apocryphal.

        Jesus commands all Christians, very explicitly, to be non-violent regardless of circumstances, up to and including their own torture and death