There is no such thing as a neutral public space, so which is a more significant threat to the Church and society: Christian Nationalism or Christian apathy?
There is nothing in his first article that makes him an anti-vaxxer. He opposed the COVID-19 "vaccines" because of their link to aborted fetal material.
Where did Pr. Ristau defend the "scary people" Christian Nationalists, or is this just more guilt by association?
He not only refused the COVID vaccine, but he also said he "repented" of all the vaccines he received earlier in his military career. So which vaccines is he not against? Regardless of the reason, he is an antivaxxer. Both he and you also repeat the antivax canard that the COVID vaccine is a "vaccine," i.e. "not a vaccine." If being tested on fetal cell lines makes taking a medicine immoral, then practically all modern medicines are immoral. Your putting "scary people" in quotation marks tells me you don't think the examples I cite are truly concerning. So I guess you are OK with things like abolishing woman suffrage or religious freedom.
That does not make Pr. Ristau an anti-vaxxer; it makes him a concerned realist about his own health.
Yes, any medicine that involves development through ungodly means is immoral. If we find out that research from Japan's Unit 731 produced a potential medical benefit, would you consume it?
"Scary people" was in quotes because you failed to define it, but now you have: anyone who opposes female suffrage and the demand for unlimited religious freedom.
Saying all vaccines are sinful makes him "a concerned realist"? No, it makes him a religious fanatic and a danger to anyone who listens to him. Nearly all modern medicines were tested on cell lines developed decades ago from fetal cells. Should I not take any medicine (I currently take five)? I have driven on roads originally built with slave labor, and I live on land originally stolen from the Indians by white settlers. Am I an enslaver or a thief? Of course not. And how come I never heard anyone breathe a word in Lutheran circles about fetal cells until COVID? These cell lines have been used since the 1970s. I suspect it's because Trump gave Christians permission to be their worst selves and call it a virtue, and the Internet has enabled crackpots to reinforce each other's craziness. I see ordained Lutheran clergy promoting ideas that would've gotten them laughed off the Jerry Springer Show 20 years ago. Those were just two examples I provided of scary ideas. You don't think repealing the 19th Amendment or persecuting non-Christian Americans would be bad?
Certainly the answer to the question of "public space" was answered most persuasively in the landmark book "The Naked Public Square," authored in 1984 by great friend and colleague Pastor/Father Richard John Neuhaus (+). His pioneering work in urban Brooklyn at St. John the Evangelist Lutheran Church among African-Americans in the projects is still well-remembered. Neuhaus was captive neither to left nor right in terms of the political spectrum, which is important in considering the guest article by Harold Ristau. Fr. Neuhaus desired, as William Buckley before him, that Christian culture academically and socially be included in the national conversation, and not excluded simply because of the ostensible separation of church and state. In some regards, therefore, Ristau is an inheritor of that tradition.
Unfortunately, in my opinion, the Ristau's points seem invariably to tack to the cultural-political right, making a warm and inviting bedfellow with the contemporary Trumpist Christian Nationalism. That's simply too knee-jerk for me, as one who has hewn closer to the Neuhaus line. It is possible and laudable, in that version of reclaiming public space, to arbitrate on behalf of and not in opposition to the poor, to immigrants/immigration, and to a Pro-Life category extending from conception through birth and life to life's end as an authentic responsibility of both the Christian church and its ecumenical/interfaith fellow-travelers as well as through codification in law and program by the state.
Quoting Luther in favor of "Christendom" in the way Ristau does is an obvious anachronism, the Holy Roman Empire being the soup du jour and hundreds of years prior to democratic governance. It's OK to long for the past, but do we really want an Emperor? Uh, wait - don't answer that. What is needed and is bracing is the conversation itself, with full participation and not just reaction from all ends of the Christian, Lutheran, and Other Faith leaders in full sight of and participation by academic, cultural and political leadership both in the US and around the globe. If and as Dr. Ristau opens a door for those interchanges, a most valuable and Godly service will be provided.
Thanks so much for the invitation! As schedule permits, I would be happy to offer an article on the issues presented, and will contact you in advance prior to any publication.
The separation of "Church and State" does not mean the separation of the Church from the State, but the State from the Church. Obvious religious testing abound in the States during political appointments before Congress. Letting casinos stay open, and not churchgovernance. the pandemic,is another obvious example. One can believe whatever, in private, or in a religious congregation, but one MUST burn a pinch of incense to the Caesar(s) by not letting religious world-views inform their public goverance. The West is losing to the neo-pagans.
“Christian Nationalism” is a phrase applied only to those who are deemed “Conservative” or “Evangelical.” Yet there is a greater push among the other side, call them “liberal” or “revisionist”, who adopted social and political positions as their lens to view scripture. Their implication is to infuse external views void of scripture on the church. There appears to be a greater argument to be made that the “Christian Nationalism” label applies to the ones who throw it upon others.
There is nothing in his first article that makes him an anti-vaxxer. He opposed the COVID-19 "vaccines" because of their link to aborted fetal material.
Where did Pr. Ristau defend the "scary people" Christian Nationalists, or is this just more guilt by association?
He not only refused the COVID vaccine, but he also said he "repented" of all the vaccines he received earlier in his military career. So which vaccines is he not against? Regardless of the reason, he is an antivaxxer. Both he and you also repeat the antivax canard that the COVID vaccine is a "vaccine," i.e. "not a vaccine." If being tested on fetal cell lines makes taking a medicine immoral, then practically all modern medicines are immoral. Your putting "scary people" in quotation marks tells me you don't think the examples I cite are truly concerning. So I guess you are OK with things like abolishing woman suffrage or religious freedom.
That does not make Pr. Ristau an anti-vaxxer; it makes him a concerned realist about his own health.
Yes, any medicine that involves development through ungodly means is immoral. If we find out that research from Japan's Unit 731 produced a potential medical benefit, would you consume it?
"Scary people" was in quotes because you failed to define it, but now you have: anyone who opposes female suffrage and the demand for unlimited religious freedom.
Saying all vaccines are sinful makes him "a concerned realist"? No, it makes him a religious fanatic and a danger to anyone who listens to him. Nearly all modern medicines were tested on cell lines developed decades ago from fetal cells. Should I not take any medicine (I currently take five)? I have driven on roads originally built with slave labor, and I live on land originally stolen from the Indians by white settlers. Am I an enslaver or a thief? Of course not. And how come I never heard anyone breathe a word in Lutheran circles about fetal cells until COVID? These cell lines have been used since the 1970s. I suspect it's because Trump gave Christians permission to be their worst selves and call it a virtue, and the Internet has enabled crackpots to reinforce each other's craziness. I see ordained Lutheran clergy promoting ideas that would've gotten them laughed off the Jerry Springer Show 20 years ago. Those were just two examples I provided of scary ideas. You don't think repealing the 19th Amendment or persecuting non-Christian Americans would be bad?
Certainly the answer to the question of "public space" was answered most persuasively in the landmark book "The Naked Public Square," authored in 1984 by great friend and colleague Pastor/Father Richard John Neuhaus (+). His pioneering work in urban Brooklyn at St. John the Evangelist Lutheran Church among African-Americans in the projects is still well-remembered. Neuhaus was captive neither to left nor right in terms of the political spectrum, which is important in considering the guest article by Harold Ristau. Fr. Neuhaus desired, as William Buckley before him, that Christian culture academically and socially be included in the national conversation, and not excluded simply because of the ostensible separation of church and state. In some regards, therefore, Ristau is an inheritor of that tradition.
Unfortunately, in my opinion, the Ristau's points seem invariably to tack to the cultural-political right, making a warm and inviting bedfellow with the contemporary Trumpist Christian Nationalism. That's simply too knee-jerk for me, as one who has hewn closer to the Neuhaus line. It is possible and laudable, in that version of reclaiming public space, to arbitrate on behalf of and not in opposition to the poor, to immigrants/immigration, and to a Pro-Life category extending from conception through birth and life to life's end as an authentic responsibility of both the Christian church and its ecumenical/interfaith fellow-travelers as well as through codification in law and program by the state.
Quoting Luther in favor of "Christendom" in the way Ristau does is an obvious anachronism, the Holy Roman Empire being the soup du jour and hundreds of years prior to democratic governance. It's OK to long for the past, but do we really want an Emperor? Uh, wait - don't answer that. What is needed and is bracing is the conversation itself, with full participation and not just reaction from all ends of the Christian, Lutheran, and Other Faith leaders in full sight of and participation by academic, cultural and political leadership both in the US and around the globe. If and as Dr. Ristau opens a door for those interchanges, a most valuable and Godly service will be provided.
Thanks for your comment Dr Benke, we would be happy to have you write an article for us that addresses these issues.
Thanks so much for the invitation! As schedule permits, I would be happy to offer an article on the issues presented, and will contact you in advance prior to any publication.
Thank you! We look forward to hearing from you. You can email us here: Wanita@adcrucem.com
The separation of "Church and State" does not mean the separation of the Church from the State, but the State from the Church. Obvious religious testing abound in the States during political appointments before Congress. Letting casinos stay open, and not churchgovernance. the pandemic,is another obvious example. One can believe whatever, in private, or in a religious congregation, but one MUST burn a pinch of incense to the Caesar(s) by not letting religious world-views inform their public goverance. The West is losing to the neo-pagans.
“Christian Nationalism” is a phrase applied only to those who are deemed “Conservative” or “Evangelical.” Yet there is a greater push among the other side, call them “liberal” or “revisionist”, who adopted social and political positions as their lens to view scripture. Their implication is to infuse external views void of scripture on the church. There appears to be a greater argument to be made that the “Christian Nationalism” label applies to the ones who throw it upon others.