Does Christianity support and/or teach racism?

[linux.poet]

What is inherently moral about killing unborn children (a progressive cause), taking guns away from hunters who want to feed and protect said children (sensible gun regulation), and writing books with the specific interest of causing human beings to suffer in the name of preserving trees and animals?

God sets the moral standards for humanity in the Bible. Using any American political party or ideology as the standard of morality is idolatry.

It's not just the Catholic church, it's Galatians 3:28:

28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is [a]neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

And:

12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him;

And:



Not to mention the Great Commission to proclaim the Gospel to the ends of the earth, which means that all people are to be proclaimed the Gospel equally, and people from "every tribe, tongue, people, and nation" (Revelation 5:9) are a part of God's church.

Yes. Ironically, the secularists in public school (who are liberals) wanted to use the Crusades to blame racism on the Catholics, and then they wanted to blame racism on Christianity using the examples of North American conquering and African colonialism.

Having solid Scriptural research was important to break that lie down for them, as I’m Protestant and that’s what we do, memorize and quote Scripture. It would behoove you in an academic context to have the quote from the Magistrium or other Catholic sources where racism is described as an intrinsic evil. But it’s a point where the Catholics and Protestants actually agree.


If the guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. What makes you think criminals get their arms from the same place as hunters? They want arms/bullets that can’t be traced back to them and they need illegal equipment like silencers.

There are plenty of students who have been harassed at school for having hunting knives in their backpacks when they had no intent to use them to harm anyone. The difference between a hunter and a killer is psychological, it has nothing to do with the availability of equipment. Stopping school shooters is a matter of timely and accurate mental health treatment.

It also has to do with beliefs. All of the school shootings I’ve heard about are in public schools, not Christian or Catholic schools. Teaching young people proper beliefs and proper emotional regulation is how we stop people from committing atrocities and crimes.

No, I am speaking to believers in Christ as a caution about how we should approach politics. At no point should we allow our political beliefs to take priority over our faith in Christ. Enmeshing the two is also a trap, because neither American political party is fully aligned with Christian beliefs.

I am not criticizing Bloomberg, but rather providing the caution against making assumptions about his moral character based his political actions. Those actions can be done for personal gain or to appeal to others or improve appearance, common unbeliever motivations. Frankly, since he is an unbeliever, there is no good in him, truly, no matter how subtle he makes his evils.



This verse set describes the Jewish people, and I need go no further in my argument for Bloomberg, as he is one of them. Not that I would claim superiority; for I am nothing more than a lowly Gentile who is worse than this in a fallen state. I stand here in the power of the Holy Spirit and His gracious provision of training in Scripture and its meaning. Without that, I would be in a jail cell by now, I would be among the ones you fear. But Christ chose to save me instead.


Extrinsic evil is just another word for abuse and victimization, aka being sinned against. While I maintain that God not only has to save us from the sins we have committed, but also from the sins committed against us, that doesn’t change the fact that I believe that all evil is intrinsic. If someone punches me in the jaw, the evil of face punching is intrinsic to them.

Taking the idea of extrinsic evil too far supports Jungian and Freudian psychology, which is unbiblical because it maintains that man is basically good.





Therefore, man is basically evil, and Freud and Jung are wrong. I have an English B.A. and we studied the effects of Freudian and Jungian psychology on literature, so I’m actually professionally qualified to tell you at this point: Jung and Christ are oil and water, they contradict each other and they don’t mix.

This experience of secular college is why I have a hard time understanding how a Christian could ever take a liberal political position. On the other hand, I’ve suffered enough from conservatives withdrawing financial support, engaging in verbal and physical assault and telling me I deserved it for being stupid to get the picture that they weren’t exactly acting in my best interest either.

The line between victimization and stupidity has to be correctly evaluated on a case by case basis, because the abusers will always claim their victims deserved it. On the other hand, there is a difference between a bozo whining about his stock market losses and a mentally ill girl complaining about her father whining about her parents withdrawing financial support to force her to quit college. Saving stupid people doesn’t teach them anything. It just reinforces their laziness. Saving a real victim means the world to them, which I think you would know. It’s a big difference.

There is a lot of wrong packed into that paragraph.

"Secularists" (particularly in this context) are those that want to keep religion out of public schools, government and other public institutions. They are neither all "liberals" nor all non-Christians. (Far from it.) Secular public schools is literally my oldest political position and it goes back to around my First Communion. Promoting secularism in public institutions is not oppositoin to religion it is opposition to theocracy and trends toward theocracy.

Who uses the Crusades to blame racism on Catholics anywhere ever? I'd never even heard the notion until I read this post. Racism (and race) as we know it today is the product of colonial slavery and European colonialism. It has nothing to with the Crusades. Catholics had nothing to do with slavery in the British colonies as there were virtually no Catholics there.

Christianity didn't create slavery or racism, but it certainly did nothing to stop it for 200 years either.

This paragraph, like the rest of the post, has nothing to do with the topic of the thread, but it was so wrong.

A couple of dumb professors at the state university near me. It was a pretty simple correction for me to make. Christianity does not teach racism, so it’s a “correlation does not imply causation” type fallacy they were making. Since a lot of Europeans were Christians, and a lot of Europeans were racist, they assumed that Christianity caused the racism.

The crusades were about “racism against Islamic people” in their warped framework. They pointed to a selection of historical literature that had negative characterizations of the Arab people. What they forgot was that the Moors were invading Spain at the time. It’s not racist to call an enemy an enemy when you’re actually fighting them.

If you go too deep into believing racism as an ideology, any sort of European expansion outside of Europe is criminal, heaven forbid that any other culture conquer another, express any sense of superiority, or cause each other any inconvenience.

Which Trump doesn’t agree with, considering that he is causing other countries and cultures inconveniences with his tariff plan. It’s pretty obvious that he believes in American superiority at the expense of other countries and cultures. That his guiding philosophy.

Actually, Christianity has taught racism. It was even a major cause in the creation of the Southern Baptist Church (though it did not start there). The original trial judge in Loving v Virginia, the case that the Supreme Court used to invalidate bans on interracial marriage, used the Bible and his Christian faith to explain why miscegenation was illegal and was not UnConstitutional.

Yes, much has changed over the last 50 years but prior to that, since Christ's time, there have been major sects of Christianity that promoted racism. And you still see some today, in both much of the rhetoric against immigrants from Hispanic America and various forms of the Great Replacement Theory.

The Southern Baptist Church seems like a big deal in the American South, but it's not a "major sect."

The fact that the Southern Baptists were forced to separate themselves from American Baptists (which were opposed to slavery, and itself isn not a "major sect") is evidence that slavery is not a "Christian" doctrine any more than rejection of science is a "Christian" doctrine.

The SBC is still the largest Protestant denomination in the US.

The Southern Baptist Convention constitutes approximately 0.55% of the global Christian population.

Christians can be taken in by the lies of the world.

It should be sufficient to note The Scriptures I quoted earlier to confirm that racism was not what Our Lord Jesus Christ intended on the earth. That is the most important thing, and it should be sufficient guidance for Christians as we move forward. Christ wants to save people from every “tribe, tongue, people and nation.” That means we need to communicate with people of different skin colors and welcome them to the faith, not treat different people with partiality. James spoke of the need to be impartial in the church, and while he was addressing classism, I think it’s fair to say that about racism as well.

The "Curse of Ham" was something that was pretty widely preached, wasn't it?
The same with Manifest Destiny - which I would argue, at least in some regard, is still alive and well today.

To be clear: I'm not arguing that racism is encouraged in the NT scriptures. But I would agree that it is a part of the culture in some church denominations, like the SBC.

No. I was confined to a relatively small number of people in the southeast US after 1830.


That was never taught as Church doctrine. That was a political stance.

As I've mentioned, the SBC makes up half a percent of the Church.

It has some Biblical basis, but I would argue that it has been canceled by the blood of Christ, just like the Genesis 3 curse on women got canceled when Mary gave birth to Jesus. (The context of the latter curse was women throwing themselves at their husbands for centuries in hope of giving birth to the Savior of The World from sin.) Likewise, the male curse of toiling for bread has also been largely canceled by the advent of modern technology.

Even if the Curse of Ham was still in effect, Christians should not be adding to it. We are called to show mercy to those who are suffering, not dominate and control like Rehoboam.

The Manifest Destiny is just unbiblical fantasy forged into existence by violent imperialism. Nowhere does God speak to the North American continent in the Scriptures, which means that these continents aren’t included in God’s plan except as a place to house believers in Christ.

I’m not sure that the SBC even teaches racism these days. Do they? I know that my non-denominational sector does not, and I thought we were a spin-off of the SBC branch tree. Likewise, I went to a Baptist church in my hometown for a Sunday, and while the teaching was NOT up to par for us non-denominational intellectuals, I don’t recall any racism being said.

(Also, I know this discussion is fascinating, but we need to get back on topic.)

We got off topic in another thread down in American politics, so I have started a new thread for those who want to continue debating and exploring this question.

 

[essentialsaltes]

An easier question would be "Have/Do Christians teach Christianity as a religion that supports/teaches racism?" for the answer is clearly yes.

The answer to the question posed is more along the lines of "There's a huge text and an even huger commentary on the text, and like every other things that Christians disagree on (abortion, divorce, clerical celibacy, female clergy...) supporters on both sides rely on their interpretation to support their view as 'what Christianity says'."

 

[2PhiloVoid]

We got off topic in another thread down in American politics, so I have started a new thread for those who want to continue debating and exploring this question.

Short answer: no, Christianity does not support or teach racism.

There. Let's all get back to enjoying our lunch now.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

The teachings of the bible collectively do not support Racism.

Theologies that teach racism tend to focus heavily on the Old Testament making the teachings about one people.

 

[MehGuy]

Sometimes I wonder if Christianity indirectly contributed to the idea of racism. Christianity fostered a strong community empathetic connection. This wasn't racist at first, Christians predominantly in Europe learned to be sensitive with one another. We fought a lot of bloody wars, but by the middle ages widespread enslavement of our own people was rare or winding down compared to the ancient world.

Sadly, Christians while practicing this, eventually started flourishing economically/technologically. We couldn't bare the thought of enslaving one another (abuse still happened) so we turned to another race that we were not familiar with and took away their humanity.

Still.. the faith that practices empathy eventually warmed the Europeans to get rid of slavery for everyone. sadly, the concept of race has taken a life of it's own.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Sometimes I wonder if Christianity indirectly contributed to the idea of racism. Christianity fostered a strong community empathetic connection. This wasn't racist at first, Christians predominantly in Europe learned to be sensitive with one another. We fought a lot of bloody wars, but by the middle ages widespread enslavement of our own people was rare or winding down compared to the ancient world.

Sadly, Christians while practicing this, eventually started flourishing economically/technologically. We couldn't bare the thought of enslaving one another (abuse still happened) so we turned to another race that we were not familiar with and took away their humanity.

Still.. the faith that practices empathy eventually warmed the Europeans to get rid of slavery for everyone. sadly, the concept of race has taken a life of it's own.

It didn't. But utter human ignorance did.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Sometimes I wonder if Christianity indirectly contributed to the idea of racism. Christianity fostered a strong community empathetic connection. This wasn't racist at first, Christians predominantly in Europe learned to be sensitive with one another. We fought a lot of bloody wars, but by the middle ages widespread enslavement of our own people was rare or winding down compared to the ancient world.

Sadly, Christians while practicing this, eventually started flourishing economically/technologically. We couldn't bare the thought of enslaving one another (abuse still happened) so we turned to another race that we were not familiar with and took away their humanity.

Still.. the faith that practices empathy eventually warmed the Europeans to get rid of slavery for everyone. sadly, the concept of race has taken a life of it's own.

In a sense we could ask what, exactly, is racism. Or perhaps, what do we mean by "racism" exactly; because obviously systems of oppression and personal prejudices against people on the basis of tribal, ethnic, linguistic, and other social categories have existed in various forms throughout history. Though the idea of "race" most of us today operate under is a fairly recent invention, one that arguably was birthed out of the major and transformative period that we would call the Modern Age, going back to around the end of the 15th and start of the 16th centuries.

The European Age of Discovery, the religious crises of the Reformation and Post-Reformation period, the Wars of Religion, and the advent of the European Enlightenment are all major factors involved here.

To what degree did Christianity itself contribute to racism? On the one hand, given that Europe was a rather staunchly Christian land and thus the majority of everyone of the West in the Modern Age have been, to a greater or lesser extent, Christian; there is at least perhaps some kind of implicit contribution. That is to say, Christians certainly were part of it. Christians were involved in colonial enterprises, and thus involved in the slave trade, and thus an emerging "Christian European" social identity vs a largely non-Christian and non-European world backdrop was quite real.

On the other hand, the contribution of the Enlightenment is itself quite significant; the attitudes of the European elites and their general philosophy of human history was one of a somewhat linear climb from savage primitivism toward an enlightened civilized culture; with Europe being the example of enlightened civilized culture. I.e. France was "civilized" the indigenous peoples of the Africa and the Americas were "savage"; and spirituality and religion was a contributing factor toward the un-enlightened and primitive. As, such the Enlightenment's preferred mythology went, human history and society progresses through stages of social evolution wherein religion is less advanced, for the goal is the enlightenment of reason in which "superstitious" beliefs, whether in totemic spirits, gods, or in the a resurrected Jewish carpenter eventually must subside.

My conclusion wouldn't be that "Christianity supports or teaches racism"; but Christianity insofar as it was connected with so-called "Western Civilization" was often used in such a way that it could be used to collaborate and collude with the principalities and powers of Western Civilization, and one of the products of Modern Western Civilization is, in fact, racism. Racism in the sense of "White" Euro-centric ethnic superiority over and against the alien others whom the Europeans were coming into contact with over the course of the centuries of European colonial expansionism and global empire-building.

Which is to say, Christians colluded with the powers; but that isn't unique to what we're talking about here. The problem of Christian collusion with the powers is always a problem that needs to be addressed. Though that's a discussion for a different time and a different place.

TLDR: Racism is the offspring of Western Civilization, "Christian" Empire-building, and the Enlightenment.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[com7fy8]

False Christianity supports racism. Jesus does not.

So, it can be avoiding the real question, if we ask if "Christianity" supports racism.

What matters first is what Jesus desires, plus Jesus is going to judge every person.

Jesus died for any and all people >

"And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world." (1 John 2:2)

"for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23)

Our Apostle Paul was a Jew. Jews have been the chosen people of God. However Paul who had been a Jew put himself in the same category as "others", by saying "we all once" "were by nature children of wrath, just as the others" (in Ephesians 2:3).

And in Jesus >

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:28)

So, physical differences do not make us really different. We are spiritual, deeply. Plus, we in Jesus are being changed into His likeness . . . so we leave behind anything physical which this world uses to give someone one's identity. How we become in our character is what matters.

And we are to love our neighbor as ourselves. So, in loving we love anyone the same as ourselves . . . in God's all-loving this is.

So, if in my heart I make anyone unequal to others because of the person's physical anything, this is a hate crime against Jesus Christ's shed blood. So, yes there have been ones claiming to be Christians but who have lived as enemies of Jesus Himself.

But I have been one to discriminate about how beautiful a woman is. This is against Jesus and how He desires for us to love any and all people. People of all races can be capable of beauty discrimination. And we have reports of how people of one ethnic group can try to wipe out ones of another group, via ethnic cleansing. So, whites and bigots are not the only ones who have been discriminatory.

"if you love those who love you, what reward have you?" (in Matthew 5:46)

Ones can cry out against racism, right while they discriminate about who is worth loving and who is good enough for them to love. Ones can have a way of loving those they hope to use for what they want. Favoritistic loving also is found in false Christianity and all through this evil world.

 

[FireDragon76]

It didn't. But utter human ignorance did.

Greed and lust for power was a significant factor as well. Colonial empires were looking to exploit as many resources as they could, including human resources, to achieve an advantage over their adversaries.

Of course Christians were enmeshed in systems of oppression that perpetuated colonialism and racism, but much of it was motivated by purely secular logic, with religious justifications the result of motivated reasoning.

Christianity itself only ever had a loose hold over the European continent. While the authorities paid it lip service, rulers often kept its moral obligations at arms legnth, and there were constant struggles between church and state, vying for power and influence. And sometimes, the institutional church itself became bound up in a lust for power.

 

[FireDragon76]

An easier question would be "Have/Do Christians teach Christianity as a religion that supports/teaches racism?" for the answer is clearly yes.

Saying that without qualification isn't intellectually honest. Only some Christians support or teach racism, at least explicitly. And that number is vanishing small in the modern age, and often due more to the conflation of ethnic tribalism with religion. More common are parroting unthinking memes or dog whistles more than overt racism.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Only some Christians support or teach racism, at least explicitly.

Certainly.

And that number is vanishing small in the modern age,

The rise of Christian Nationalism in the US has put a lot of additional wind in the sails of White Christian Nationalism in the US.

It is not huge, but it is neither small nor vanishing.

 

[FireDragon76]

Certainly.

The rise of Christian Nationalism in the US has put a lot of additional wind in the sails of White Christian Nationalism in the US.

It is not huge, but it is neither small nor vanishing.

White Christian Nationalism is more White Nationalism than Christian. And what Christian character it has is more sociological than doctrinal or moral in character, attached to a particular way of being Christian that isn't universal.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Greed and lust for power was a significant factor as well. Colonial empires were looking to exploit as many resources as they could, including human resources, to achieve an advantage over their adversaries.

Of course Christians were enmeshed in systems of oppression that perpetuated colonialism and racism, but much of it was motivated by purely secular logic, with religious justifications the result of motivated reasoning.

Christianity itself only ever had a loose hold over the European continent. While the authorities paid it lip service, rulers often kept its moral obligations at arms legnth, and there were constant struggles between church and state, vying for power and influence. And sometimes, the institutional church itself became bound up in a lust for power.

Yes, I agree. But there were other factors, both philosophical and theological and (Mis-)hermeneutical, involved in the long term, historical composition of Europe, both West and East.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

White Christian Nationalism is more White Nationalism than Christian. And what Christian character it has is more sociological than doctrinal or moral in character, attached to a particular way of being Christian that isn't universal.

Personally-----------and I say this with sheer abandon-----------I think all unreprentant racists go straight to 'hades'......................

I studied all of this quite a bit in my Master's, so I don't have time for racists of any kind.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Personally-----------and I say this with sheer abandon-----------I think all unreprentant racists go straight to 'hades'......................

I studied all of this quite a bit in my Master's, so I don't have time for racists of any kind.

This is the appropriate application of St. James, in my estimation, in speaking about "dead faith", or we might say "sheer belief" ("Even the demons believe, and tremble") vs the sort of faith St. Paul speaks of, which is a redemptive trust in Christ that is living and working, changing us.

Dr. Luther once wrote "Mortal Sin and faith cannot coexist". And that's important, especially when it was often accused of Luther and the early Lutherans that they were antinomians, or even today when Luther's "sin boldly" statement is taken out of context.

Impenitence is deadly. As St. John says, "There is sin that leads to death", i.e. there is "mortal sin". While the Lutheran tradition does not speak of mortal and venial sin the same way the Roman Catholic tradition does, we do recognize that sin is mortal, deadly, without repentance. I cannot live a life of total impenitence, remorseless, and then say "Well, I'm a Christian, so I get my prize in the end". Being "a Christian" isn't going to mean anything at Judgment Day. That's the whole point of what Jesus Himself says concerning those who say "Lord, Lord", a life of "sheer belief" of having "the right religion" or rather "the right religious identity" isn't going to mean anything. It's the same reason Jesus lambasts those Pharisees who said, "We have Abraham as our father" but then goes on to call them children of the devil. Simply having the "correct" religious affiliation, simply holding to the "correct" beliefs by having crossed the right t's and dotted the right i's on a theological examination, or simply holding to the appearances of piety will not actually mean anything when we have existed as a brood of vipers or white-washed sepulchers.

That doesn't mean we are justified by our works; but faith that is "sheer belief", faith wherein we "go on sinning, since 'grace will abound'" is not faith. If we harden ourselves to the work of the Spirit--who quickens us with faith and brings conviction to us through the Law so that we fall down in repentance--we choke out faith, we drive out faith, we "make shipwreck of faith". It is like the birds who come and pluck the seed after it is sown, or the seed that is baked in the hot desert sun, or the seed that once sprung is choked out by thistles and weeds.

If I murder, but live a remorseless impenitent life confident that, though I have murdered, "Well, I'm a Christian", I will have a rude awakening come Judgment. If I hate my fellow human beings made in God's Image, live my life cursing them with my tongue, it doesn't matter if with that same tongue I bless God with my words, I am accursed, for "They honor Me with their lips, but their hearts are far from Me". The Lord said that if we are coming to bring offering, and we have a dispute with our brother, to go make peace with our brother and then bring offering. Otherwise all our new moons and sabbaths, all our burnt offerings, they are detestable to God; worship without justice, so-called faith without repentance, these are false, and mean nothing.

Grace means that though we should fail a thousand times a day, there is a God of infinite loving compassion who welcomes us in, because He forgives the most wretched of sinners. It does not mean I get to claim grace as a kind of cheap commodity that guarantees me a place at God's table though I live my life wretchedly and without remorse.

This is why tax collectors and prostitutes were entering the kingdom ahead of the religious elites and hypocrites, as Jesus said.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[FireDragon76]

This is the appropriate application of St. James, in my estimation, in speaking about "dead faith", or we might say "sheer belief" ("Even the demons believe, and tremble") vs the sort of faith St. Paul speaks of, which is a redemptive trust in Christ that is living and working, changing us.

Dr. Luther once wrote "Mortal Sin and faith cannot coexist". And that's important, especially when it was often accused of Luther and the early Lutherans that they were antinomians, or even today when Luther's "sin boldly" statement is taken out of context.

Impenitence is deadly. As St. John says, "There is sin that leads to death", i.e. there is "mortal sin". While the Lutheran tradition does not speak of mortal and venial sin the same way the Roman Catholic tradition does, we do recognize that sin is mortal, deadly, without repentance. I cannot live a life of total impenitence, remorseless, and then say "Well, I'm a Christian, so I get my prize in the end". Being "a Christian" isn't going to mean anything at Judgment Day. That's the whole point of what Jesus Himself says concerning those who say "Lord, Lord", a life of "sheer belief" of having "the right religion" or rather "the right religious identity" isn't going to mean anything. It's the same reason Jesus lambasts those Pharisees who said, "We have Abraham as our father" but then goes on to call them children of the devil. Simply having the "correct" religious affiliation, simply holding to the "correct" beliefs by having crossed the right t's and dotted the right i's on a theological examination, or simply holding to the appearances of piety will not actually mean anything when we have existed as a brood of vipers or white-washed sepulchers.

That doesn't mean we are justified by our works; but faith that is "sheer belief", faith wherein we "go on sinning, since 'grace will abound'" is not faith. If we harden ourselves to the work of the Spirit--who quickens us with faith and brings conviction to us through the Law so that we fall down in repentance--we choke out faith, we drive out faith, we "make shipwreck of faith". It is like the birds who come and pluck the seed after it is sown, or the seed that is baked in the hot desert sun, or the seed that once sprung is choked out by thistles and weeds.

If I murder, but live a remorseless impenitent life confident that, though I have murdered, "Well, I'm a Christian", I will have a rude awakening come Judgment. If I hate my fellow human beings made in God's Image, live my life cursing them with my tongue, it doesn't matter if with that same tongue I bless God with my words, I am accursed, for "They honor Me with their lips, but their hearts are far from Me". The Lord said that if we are coming to bring offering, and we have a dispute with our brother, to go make peace with our brother and then bring offering. Otherwise all our new moons and sabbaths, all our burnt offerings, they are detestable to God; worship without justice, so-called faith without repentance, these are false, and mean nothing.

Grace means that though we should fail a thousand times a day, there is a God of infinite loving compassion who welcomes us in, because He forgives the most wretched of sinners. It does not mean I get to claim grace as a kind of cheap commodity that guarantees me a place at God's table though I live my life wretchedly and without remorse.

This is why tax collectors and prostitutes were entering the kingdom ahead of the religious elites and hypocrites, as Jesus said.

-CryptoLutheran

It goes back to what Bonhoeffer called "cheap grace", which is really about not being convicted, or even threatened, by God's Law.

I see alot of talk from American Evangelicals about "identity in Christ". And I think what you said pretty much covers what I have against this language. God doesn't see our "identity"; it makes no difference concerning God's settled disposition against sin- God's wrath. All our "identity in Christ" rhetoric is, is reframing Christianity as another kind of consumerism or cultural tribalism that we can use to advance our own interests. It is not evidence of a living faith.