'“Men of Israel, take care what you are about to do with these men. For before these days Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and a number of men, about four hundred, joined him. He was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing. After him Judas the Galilean rose up in the days of the census and drew away …
'“Men of Israel, take care what you are about to do with these men. For before these days Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and a number of men, about four hundred, joined him. He was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing. After him Judas the Galilean rose up in the days of the census and drew away some of the people after him. He too perished, and all who followed him were scattered. So in the present case I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or this undertaking is of man, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You might even be found opposing God!”' - Acts 5:35-39
The casting is indeed of vital importance. Is Jesus like the other political rebellious leaders like the others identified in Acts or is his claim of being God and being raised from the dead credible? If Jesus claim to divinity is true, his timescale of producing lasting political regime change is on the Last Day when, as stated in the Nicene creed, "[Jesus] will come again with glory to judge the living and the dead. His kingdom will never end." I think those Christians on the right are exploring the implications of that eternal claim in the present have differing conclusions: some are resist the tide to preserve the republic (French, the integralists in First Things) while others aim for higher ground (Dreher). They are serious people who recognize that preservation of the faith still requires sacrifices in some fashion in the present even if the ultimate goal of having a lasting kingdom has been achieved by the work of Christ.
However where I think your post hits home is for the "unserious" Christians who have used the political freedom bought by previous generations has been to seek the same amusements and comforts offered by the American merchants instead of being a "living sacrifice" to bear the gospel to the nations like Paul. Why rest your hope on a future kingdom when you can have it now in the American empire which is redeemed by the new creeds on rainbow lawn signs or on red-white-and-blue bumper stickers? Only if you believe that Jesus the man wasn't truly God.
'“Men of Israel, take care what you are about to do with these men. For before these days Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and a number of men, about four hundred, joined him. He was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and came to nothing. After him Judas the Galilean rose up in the days of the census and drew away some of the people after him. He too perished, and all who followed him were scattered. So in the present case I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone, for if this plan or this undertaking is of man, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them. You might even be found opposing God!”' - Acts 5:35-39
The casting is indeed of vital importance. Is Jesus like the other political rebellious leaders like the others identified in Acts or is his claim of being God and being raised from the dead credible? If Jesus claim to divinity is true, his timescale of producing lasting political regime change is on the Last Day when, as stated in the Nicene creed, "[Jesus] will come again with glory to judge the living and the dead. His kingdom will never end." I think those Christians on the right are exploring the implications of that eternal claim in the present have differing conclusions: some are resist the tide to preserve the republic (French, the integralists in First Things) while others aim for higher ground (Dreher). They are serious people who recognize that preservation of the faith still requires sacrifices in some fashion in the present even if the ultimate goal of having a lasting kingdom has been achieved by the work of Christ.
However where I think your post hits home is for the "unserious" Christians who have used the political freedom bought by previous generations has been to seek the same amusements and comforts offered by the American merchants instead of being a "living sacrifice" to bear the gospel to the nations like Paul. Why rest your hope on a future kingdom when you can have it now in the American empire which is redeemed by the new creeds on rainbow lawn signs or on red-white-and-blue bumper stickers? Only if you believe that Jesus the man wasn't truly God.