Archbishop Welby is baffled by Christians who back Trump... https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nb...ury-baffled-christians-who-back-trump-n824001 Given the state of the Communion, one might be equally baffled by Christians who back Welby. Questioning the religious faith of those we disagree with politically seems immature and beneath the dignity of the office of good Archbishop. ...sort of blasphemous really.
Given his anti-Christian beliefs, which he has chosen to be very open about, I'd be skeptical of the genuineness of faith of those who are emphatic and enthusiastic about our president, but I wouldn't extend that same criticism to those voters who played the lesser-evil game, a popular position to take, especially when the government as it stands does very little for regular people.
I gave up on +++Welby when he was elected. I'm not surprised when he caves into being liked, wanting popularity over piety. There were better options to lead the Anglican Communion.
I think a lot of us are baffled about a lot of things. In a sense what I understood the race for the US Presidency amounted to was a choice between someone who had been part of the machine and promised more of the same, or an absolute flip brake stop in a renewal of the attempt to provide something different. Of course we outside have little to go on other than what we are fed in the press, who paint a picture of someone who is some sort of cross between Thurston Howell III and Richard III, with a touch of Dennis the Mennace. That there are significant shifts in the politics of the current period is not simply a North American experience, we have seen odd things in Australia as well, with some rise and falls in the stakes of One Nation and of Clive Palmer, and in the UK with the Brexit Poll, and indeed in the Anglican Communion with GAFCON and related matters. There seem to be a raft of movements where people are saying basically that they want better and they see going down the road they are being led on does not seem right. Now of course the money invested in a US Presidential election is mind boggling. https://www.investopedia.com/insights/cost-of-becoming-president/And clearly when you look at spending the best part of a Billion for a job that pays the best part of a Million one may wonder if there is not more to the story. Trump's net wealth is estimated to be greater than the sum of the wealth of all the presidents who preceded him, so we assume he is not in it for the money. With a growing gap between the very rich and the very poor and the middle ranks becoming thinner, we are going to expect to see some strange results. The theatre that DJT brings to the job - the delight in the outrageous, the capacity to demonise his opponents, and the ongoing assumption that everyone agrees with him or they are wrong, heave meant that he has provided a wealth of material for the comics of our world. In the USA you seem much more interested in your Presidents religion that we are in Australia. In short succession we have had Anglican - Atheist - Anglican (same one) - Catholic (conservative) - Catholic (though hardly anyone knows that). Mind you I also acknowledge that Church attendance is much higher in the USA than in Australia. In fairness I think I will allow +Justin to be a little baffled, and in fairness I think that some of the state of that is that the 'free' press around the world has been caught up in the opinionated entertainment value of the news rather than a fair and balanced coverage of it. I think my reaction to the appointment of +Justin to Canterbury was somewhere between under-impressed and urrgh. As time has gone on, I think I have become more impressed, and whilst he is not yet a Fisher or a Ramsey, a Cranmer or a Laud, I do at times see flashes of a Parker. And I am sure that Parker was baffled by some of the things he saw as well, and he to no doubt baffled some who observed him in the role as ABofC. I suspect that the current trend of painting everything black or white, in order to dumb down the news cycle has been less than helpful, and we all need to see something more of the positives in our opponents, if we are to become a more generous version of ourselves.
"Thurston Howell III and Richard III, with a touch of Dennis the Mennace" lol, a fitting analogy...I liked to think of them as Tweedle Dumb and Tweedle Dirty
For all I know, he may have been corrected on them, but there was his insistence on not ever needing forgiveness, just "doing better next time," and his favorite verse from the Bible being "an eye for an eye." It's textbook pandering, but done very poorly. And he hasn't quite indicated to me that these errors have truly been rectified. So I can see why a Christian leader may be concerned with so many of the flock following somebody so wholeheartedly, as if he were King David (and yes, some people are very, very enthusiastic about Trump, I know them very well). I'm not passing judgement on him as if I do not myself sin as if I do not need forgiveness and let anger and covetousness take me over. But I do think we as Christians should be concerned about Trump, but moreso the extent that he has so many brothers and sisters so fervently devoted to questionable causes. Nor does that include those who voted for Trump simply because he was not Clinton; I myself refused to vote for Clinton so I can see where they come from. The problem that the Archbishop is getting at here, I think, is similarly shown in another story that I've seen recently, that Alabama Evangelical voters will be more likely to vote for Moore after his sexual abuses towards women and underage girls surfaced. Christianity in this country is in shambles, frankly, and I don't mind the Archbishop saying it.
Came across this... reasons like this might explain why many Christians are supportive of Trump all things considered: https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michae...y-lifetime-has-defended-christian-faith-trump
I didn't vote for Trump, but I preferred (and still prefer) him and "his" party over Hillary and "her" party. There doesn't seem to be a large anti-Christian "sect" in the Republican Party as the Democratic Party seems to have. Has the Archbishop considered that some Christians may not want to vote for people who are hostile of their beliefs?
I am no great fan of Trump, or of Clinton. I voted for Darrell Castle of the Constitution Party myself. But I think you take the President out of context with your examples. If I recall correctly, he was being tongue in cheek. As I understand it, he and his cabinet and WH team meet regularly if not daily for bible study and morning prayer. I would actually be more concerned over the Christians in the US who don't support him. After all, St. Paul tells us in Romans 13 to be subject to governing authorities and that those who resist them are resisting God, since it is God's will that they rule. Scripture tells us elsewhere to "fear God and honor the king", which in the USA most closely means the President. IMHO the good archbishop would be better served in trying to build connections and friendly ties with the president than impugning his good name...something I have yet to see Welby do with many of the true monsters in high places on the world stage.
If he is a man of God surely ++Welby should head the instruction to "....judge not lest ye shall be judged"
According to his thinking, that clause has an exception, when talking about the traditionalists and the faithful, who must indeed be judged, scourged, and then driven out I am so glad that he is only the first among equals, and not my spiritual father... He can be corrected, reproved, and deposed, and we aren't stuck with him like our own Pope Francis
And yet another COE bishop wags his finger at American Christians who didn't vote for the candidate he liked ... questioning their faith https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...donald-trump-says-paul-bayes-bishop-liverpool