"1 Timothy speaks of praying for all people including kings and rulers — would it be too far to regularly pray for good Christian rulers?"
We do this every Sunday:
"We beseech thee also to save and defend all Christian Kings, Princes, and Governors; and specially thy servant CHARLES our King; that under him we may be godly and quietly governed: And grant unto his whole Council [the government], and to all that are put in authority under him [the Blob], that they may truly and indifferently minister justice, to the punishment of wickedness and vice, and to the maintenance of thy true religion, and virtue [viz. the vices and virtues detailed in the 10 commandments that were read at the start of the Holy Communion service]"
Things would be much simpler if all Anglicans just stuck to the 1662 BCP.
I hope you don't mind the perspective of an American conservative Christian, who tries to follow British politics and history. I agree with you fully that "we should stand up politically for what is good." Throughout history, when Christians have been publicly active in such a way, it has often had substantial, practical, and spiritual impact, helping to better people's lives and souls. On the other hand, I also differ on a few points.
I agree that, while there are common roots, evangelicalism has developed with different results on both sides of the Atlantic. And currently in America, evangelicals are severely, widely looked down upon by those embracing mainstream culture. Not only is this because of culture clash, but a big element is class snobbishness. While evangelicals now come from all economic classes, they tended in the past to be more rural and working-class. This accounts for some of the snobbishness against them. And sadly for many decades, intellectual rigor hasn't been encouraged enough in church leadership. American evangelical churches still have accomplished great things, attracting lots of spiritually needy people, and often discipling them fairly effectively. And their involvement in politics, along with conservative Catholics, has not been without success. I personally was helped on my way back to God by people in the pro-life movement, and by the influence of some Christian politicians. Many others have been in the same boat. Personally I've been attracted to traditional, conservative Anglican congregations here, but I've seen the great value that evangelical congregations have.
As readers here will know, American mainstream culture is now very degenerate, and it is doing great damage to millions of people. I find that the best way for me to evangelize is to quietly engage with troubled people in my own life, to offer personalized help with a Christian perspective, and to try, as much as I might stumble, to be a good example. This does not at all negate the value of a Miriam Cates, or any sincere Christian politician or activist. Such people can do some of what I try to do on a much broader, public level.
I also agree strongly that "a communal relationship of the Church to God" is vital. Even though America is permeated by individualism, I think that a fair number of American Christians sitting in the pews understand this, and act upon it. I don't think that church leaders have been very effective, though, in stressing or explaining this. There has been a huge rush by many churches, liberal and conservative, to embrace the outside world, partly in order to attract more members. With this, I think clergy and other leaders also do a lot of pandering to individuals that's terribly counter-productive.
And I like your point about potential problems with the "We lose down here" attitude. I have witnessed this attitude many times from American Christians. I agree with them that we need to focus on being part of God's kingdom, but I also emphasize that, "God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good." I believe that there are very good reasons for things in this world such as beauty, and for fighting for it.
Despite the problem you highlighted about a lack of Christian political engagement in Britain, do you see any potential for Christians to move away from the Uniparty, towards the Social Democratic Party for example? It seems that with their claim of being a "culturally traditional" party, and "economically left-leaning," they might have some appeal. If I was a Briton I would consider them. I know that "first-past-the-post" is a big problem, though.
Regarding your note about Trump, many of us do know that he is not always the best example of a Christian gentleman, but since 2016 he has offered the best hope politically for salvaging what is good in America, and for combatting what is, frankly, great evil in government, politics, and culture. We know his flaws, and we know how he stumbled badly sometimes, and has advocated some un-Christian things, yet we also have seen him show a lot of courage and sacrifice on our behalf. Christians in politics shouldn't make the perfect the enemy of the good.
Thanks for your reply. Ed West is right that there are interesting parallels between America and Russia (I couldn't read all of his piece due to it being for paid subscribers). And like the Roman, Russian, British, French and other European empires, the earlier American empire had some benevolent aspects. But as "Academic Agent" has described, the current "GAE" (Global American Empire), is much more harmful than any of these previous empires, both to Americans and non-Americans, and without real benefit to anyone except a few people at the top, like Larry Fink.
Tom Holland needs to learn a lot more about the whoring, woman-beating, plagiarizing, Communist-sympathizing Martin Luther King. Trump is certainly no more of a "huckster" thank MLK was. Holland doesn't admit how pushing King's supposed ideals within government and elsewhere in society has resulted in huge, untold amounts of suffering, among black and white Americans, with a growing black and white "underclass" tied to a very dysfunctional welfare state. American "conservatives" try to promote King's statement about judging someone by the content of his or her character, but King didn't do well at all by that standard, based on his own sordid life, and he didn't seem very sincere about saying it, based on radical ideas about race that he eventually pushed.
It is sad to see that British conservatives now want to separate their history from the US's, this is a noticeable trend since BLM. Another writer, Sean Thomas, also warns about importing American politics into the UK:
Christianity already has a Constantine Option, and that existing Constantine Option even has an elite figure who engages politically. You might have heard of the Pope.
RETVRN!
The “one holy, catholic, and apostolic church” (those words written in *Constantinople*) needs evangelicals' energy and discipline. A house divided cannot stand.
Good points. Regarding how to prepare for the future, I like a lot of what the English lawyer Gavin Boby has said. While it isn't overtly Christian, it follows traditional English emphasis on rule of law, combined with freedom. It might provide a good framework for British and Americans after a major economic and political collapse. And I agree that a British First Things would be good. Regarding Dreher, I liked some things he said about community, but he badly disappointed me when he doxxed a man associated with his child's school, who had written under a pseudonym about problems with "Diversity." The man lost his job as a result.
"1 Timothy speaks of praying for all people including kings and rulers — would it be too far to regularly pray for good Christian rulers?"
We do this every Sunday:
"We beseech thee also to save and defend all Christian Kings, Princes, and Governors; and specially thy servant CHARLES our King; that under him we may be godly and quietly governed: And grant unto his whole Council [the government], and to all that are put in authority under him [the Blob], that they may truly and indifferently minister justice, to the punishment of wickedness and vice, and to the maintenance of thy true religion, and virtue [viz. the vices and virtues detailed in the 10 commandments that were read at the start of the Holy Communion service]"
Things would be much simpler if all Anglicans just stuck to the 1662 BCP.
I hope you don't mind the perspective of an American conservative Christian, who tries to follow British politics and history. I agree with you fully that "we should stand up politically for what is good." Throughout history, when Christians have been publicly active in such a way, it has often had substantial, practical, and spiritual impact, helping to better people's lives and souls. On the other hand, I also differ on a few points.
I agree that, while there are common roots, evangelicalism has developed with different results on both sides of the Atlantic. And currently in America, evangelicals are severely, widely looked down upon by those embracing mainstream culture. Not only is this because of culture clash, but a big element is class snobbishness. While evangelicals now come from all economic classes, they tended in the past to be more rural and working-class. This accounts for some of the snobbishness against them. And sadly for many decades, intellectual rigor hasn't been encouraged enough in church leadership. American evangelical churches still have accomplished great things, attracting lots of spiritually needy people, and often discipling them fairly effectively. And their involvement in politics, along with conservative Catholics, has not been without success. I personally was helped on my way back to God by people in the pro-life movement, and by the influence of some Christian politicians. Many others have been in the same boat. Personally I've been attracted to traditional, conservative Anglican congregations here, but I've seen the great value that evangelical congregations have.
As readers here will know, American mainstream culture is now very degenerate, and it is doing great damage to millions of people. I find that the best way for me to evangelize is to quietly engage with troubled people in my own life, to offer personalized help with a Christian perspective, and to try, as much as I might stumble, to be a good example. This does not at all negate the value of a Miriam Cates, or any sincere Christian politician or activist. Such people can do some of what I try to do on a much broader, public level.
I also agree strongly that "a communal relationship of the Church to God" is vital. Even though America is permeated by individualism, I think that a fair number of American Christians sitting in the pews understand this, and act upon it. I don't think that church leaders have been very effective, though, in stressing or explaining this. There has been a huge rush by many churches, liberal and conservative, to embrace the outside world, partly in order to attract more members. With this, I think clergy and other leaders also do a lot of pandering to individuals that's terribly counter-productive.
And I like your point about potential problems with the "We lose down here" attitude. I have witnessed this attitude many times from American Christians. I agree with them that we need to focus on being part of God's kingdom, but I also emphasize that, "God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good." I believe that there are very good reasons for things in this world such as beauty, and for fighting for it.
Despite the problem you highlighted about a lack of Christian political engagement in Britain, do you see any potential for Christians to move away from the Uniparty, towards the Social Democratic Party for example? It seems that with their claim of being a "culturally traditional" party, and "economically left-leaning," they might have some appeal. If I was a Briton I would consider them. I know that "first-past-the-post" is a big problem, though.
Regarding your note about Trump, many of us do know that he is not always the best example of a Christian gentleman, but since 2016 he has offered the best hope politically for salvaging what is good in America, and for combatting what is, frankly, great evil in government, politics, and culture. We know his flaws, and we know how he stumbled badly sometimes, and has advocated some un-Christian things, yet we also have seen him show a lot of courage and sacrifice on our behalf. Christians in politics shouldn't make the perfect the enemy of the good.
Thanks for your essay.
Bill
"Looking for Leaves," https://williammarkley.substack.com/
I think one essay from a British historian might help explain some confusing differences between the US and the UK:
https://unherd.com/2020/06/america-is-the-greatest-story-ever-told/
Another interesting observation from another British writer Ed West: https://www.edwest.co.uk/p/america-as-russia-20
Thanks for your reply. Ed West is right that there are interesting parallels between America and Russia (I couldn't read all of his piece due to it being for paid subscribers). And like the Roman, Russian, British, French and other European empires, the earlier American empire had some benevolent aspects. But as "Academic Agent" has described, the current "GAE" (Global American Empire), is much more harmful than any of these previous empires, both to Americans and non-Americans, and without real benefit to anyone except a few people at the top, like Larry Fink.
Tom Holland needs to learn a lot more about the whoring, woman-beating, plagiarizing, Communist-sympathizing Martin Luther King. Trump is certainly no more of a "huckster" thank MLK was. Holland doesn't admit how pushing King's supposed ideals within government and elsewhere in society has resulted in huge, untold amounts of suffering, among black and white Americans, with a growing black and white "underclass" tied to a very dysfunctional welfare state. American "conservatives" try to promote King's statement about judging someone by the content of his or her character, but King didn't do well at all by that standard, based on his own sordid life, and he didn't seem very sincere about saying it, based on radical ideas about race that he eventually pushed.
haha, From his writing, I actually believe Tom implies some subtle negative attitudes that we share toward the American empire.
As for Ed, you can check out his essay about the parallels between the US and the USSR in his Unherd column:
https://unherd.com/2021/08/america-is-turning-into-the-soviet-union/
This one on how American culture harms Britain is brilliant as well;
https://unherd.com/2021/03/its-all-americas-fault/
It is sad to see that British conservatives now want to separate their history from the US's, this is a noticeable trend since BLM. Another writer, Sean Thomas, also warns about importing American politics into the UK:
https://archive.md/SIGSf
Christianity already has a Constantine Option, and that existing Constantine Option even has an elite figure who engages politically. You might have heard of the Pope.
RETVRN!
The “one holy, catholic, and apostolic church” (those words written in *Constantinople*) needs evangelicals' energy and discipline. A house divided cannot stand.
Good points. Regarding how to prepare for the future, I like a lot of what the English lawyer Gavin Boby has said. While it isn't overtly Christian, it follows traditional English emphasis on rule of law, combined with freedom. It might provide a good framework for British and Americans after a major economic and political collapse. And I agree that a British First Things would be good. Regarding Dreher, I liked some things he said about community, but he badly disappointed me when he doxxed a man associated with his child's school, who had written under a pseudonym about problems with "Diversity." The man lost his job as a result.