Not-so-super Wednesday
Wow, does anyone else feel a little down after seeing who the Republican nominee is going to be? I can almost see myself voting for Obama instead of John McCain. Then again, at least John McCain says he is pro-life, so probably not.
I just don't ever remember myself being so dissapointed about the candidate that I am going to vote for. I feel very "unexcited" - to put it mildly.
How did this happen?!?
I just don't ever remember myself being so dissapointed about the candidate that I am going to vote for. I feel very "unexcited" - to put it mildly.
How did this happen?!?
posted by Rose~ at 9:30 AM
92 Comments:
Good morning! A new topic. (yea!)
Rose, it was my fault. I tried to stand in line for 2 hours in the New Hampshire primaries - but I didn't make it til the end (husband on business in FL and kids all around!) McCain only won NH by 1 vote, right?
Maybe everyone is hopping on his train because the only hope for a Rep this year is to act like a Dem?
I am disappointed, but still excited that its highly likely we may have our first female or Africa-American pres. But I will be trying my best to make sure we vote in Rep's for majority Congress - just to stall the machine. :)
By
Missy, at 2/06/2008 10:04 AM
This comment has been removed by the author.
By
Missy, at 2/06/2008 10:04 AM
Rose,
I'm right there with you sister. I've never in all my almost 47 years been so disappointed in candidates. But thank the Lord, He is still on the Throne!
By
David Wyatt, at 2/06/2008 10:57 AM
You know what I think.
By
Matthew Celestine, at 2/06/2008 11:55 AM
It's not looking good at this moment.
I think the biggest influence has been the media's constant attention of the current top candidates.
It's almost as if it doesn't matter who the people vote for the presidency has already been decided.
By
Jim, at 2/06/2008 12:27 PM
Hi Rose,
What's the aversion to McCain? Who did you want in office?
In Christ,
Ten Cent
By
Ten Cent, at 2/06/2008 1:05 PM
Hi Rose,
If only Condoleezza Rice would run...we could have a conservative African-American woman as president...... :)
Kurt
By
Kurt, at 2/06/2008 2:51 PM
Kurt, I do hope that Condoleeza Rice does run for president one day. I think she would be a very powerful candidate.
However, if she had stood this time round she would not have had a chance. She is too connected with the present administration at a time when there is a powerful desire for change.
She is young and very healthy. She can wait.
God Bless
Matthew
By
Matthew Celestine, at 2/06/2008 5:01 PM
Rose, I know you like Condoleeza Rice.
By
Matthew Celestine, at 2/06/2008 5:02 PM
Rose, I'm sorely disappointed as well.
You ask what happened? You may disagree with me, but what happened was that Christians slept while the enemy crept!
By
Dawn, at 2/06/2008 5:29 PM
You're right - Obama=partial birth abortion=barbarism. And he claims to be a Christian?
By
Jonathan Moorhead, at 2/06/2008 10:11 PM
Hi Rose,
Check THIS out.
~Susan
By
VA ~Susan, at 2/06/2008 10:37 PM
Rose, I am going to be a lot more blunt than I usually am.
* *
Spend a year living in left-liberal Britain and you will so love MCCain.
You American conservatives are talking like defeatists.
You know how bad the Democrats are. If you guys dont unite around McCain you are going to see Clinton or Obama in the Whitehouse.
You might hope that a more right-wing Republican will win next time around, but the American people will remember how you fell out and dithered over the presidential candidate.
I live in Europe and I know about liberals and left-wingers.
McCain is not a liberal. I can see that.
But he is a skillfull poltician who is capable of perceiving the public mood. He can see that people want change.
You have had two terms of a very traditional Republican president. A lot of folks are naturally going to be dissatisfied.
McCain is perceiving this mood. He can re-package conservative values in a more liberal brand that today's voters can buy. That can be seen in his success at the primaries.
Give him a chance. It is surely better than being defeated this time and possibly next time as well.
Stop being defeatist and start getting excited.
You can defeat Obama or Clinton if you work together.
Every Blessing in Christ
Matthew
By
Matthew Celestine, at 2/07/2008 3:03 AM
I'm confused, what makes McCain, "liberal"? Is it because his daughter is a lesbian? Or is he fiscally liberal? Why is he supposedly not a true conservative?
By
Bobby Grow, at 2/07/2008 5:00 AM
Thanks, Matthew.
By
Missy, at 2/07/2008 6:30 AM
Hey y'all.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Matthew, thank you for that encouragement. I may just have to do waht you're saying, but give me a lil' while to get on the bandwagon.
I have things like this in mind:
The gang of fourteen that bother me.
By
Rose~, at 2/07/2008 7:36 AM
Missy,
I feel like Ohio has virtually no say in the primaries, our being so late. I imagine it was very exciting for you! I do hope we can get more conservatives in Congress this time.
Kurt,
I think Condoleeza has a future in poltics. Definitely.
David,
Yes we can find comfort in that.
Jim,
I think the media are pushing McCain because he can be more easily beat than the others.
Jonathan,
Yes, that issue is the one thing that makes me immovable in my suport for the republican candidate and really leaves me with no choice.
By
Rose~, at 2/07/2008 7:40 AM
Dawn,
Yes we can often trace these problems to the complacency of the Christians.
Susan,
Yeah, that is the mood isn't it? I think we will be seeing many more drawings like that.
Ten Cent,
I liked Duncan Hunter and Fred Thompson, but netiher one seemed to have a chance. Now I suppose I am liking Romney because he is the last one left that represents anything close to what I like in a candidate. It doesn't matter anymore though, because it seems that the contest is all but over. poof. I am just shocked.
Hi Bobby!
It is good to see you out and about.
OK, so what is it I don't like about McCain: I think he has slapped the conservatives on the tops of the head one too many times. He holds hands with liberals and appeases them at every turn. McCain-Feingold is anti-American, against everything we stand for in freedom of speeach. He is for immense governemnet regulation on private sector operations. This is a key feature of liberalism. I don't appreciate his views on taxes. I do not like his views on amnesty.
He is good on the war. Thankfully, I don't think he will take the radical approach of the Dems with that one. But... you never know with him!
I don't know, when someone compromises so much with liberals, I just don't trust them. It seems like "anything goes."
Plus, I don't appreciate him telling a colleague: "F--- you" because he thinks he is smarter. You don't need to say those kinds of things if you are a reasonable person. That kind of thing is why conservatives call him a maverick.
Oh well.
Then again, I think Matthew has a point.
By
Rose~, at 2/07/2008 7:59 AM
Does that explain a little better why I am not so thrilled?
By
Rose~, at 2/07/2008 8:00 AM
Hi Rose,
Here are two verses I find very comforting in times like these.
John 19:10,11
So Pilate said to Him, "You do not speak to me? Do You not know that I have authority to release You, and I have authority to crucify You?" Jesus answered, "You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above; for this reason he who delivered Me to you has the greater sin."
Here, Pilate is trying to explain to Jesus that he is the one in command. And I love Jesus' reply. God gave him that authority. God's plan wasn't being thwarted by this official, it was being accomplished by him.
And then I look at:
Romans 13:1,2
"Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God."
What's reassuring about this is that there isn't an exception. "There is NO authority except from God." So if McCain, or Obama, or Clinton get in office, God put them there. And His purpose will not be thwarted by 4 or more years of their governing our land. In fact, His purpose will be accomplished by that person in office.
Here's where our theology comes into play. I'm not advocating for us to not vote. I believe we all ought to use the means God has given us. Our freedom is a gift from Him. But in the end, it won't be our vote or lack thereof that puts somebody in office. God puts him (or her) there. And I can have complete confidence in Him, that He knows best. And even if the vote doesn't go the way I think it should, it will go the way that God wants it to go.
So rest in Christ. He's not wringing His hands, worrying about McCain getting the nomination :)
In Christ,
Ten Cent
By
Ten Cent, at 2/07/2008 8:46 AM
Oh, and one more thing....
(this is more on a practical level)
I do not think he has any appeal as a candidate. I don't think he will be elected. He has no charisma. He isn't attractive so he won't get votes based on looks. He doesn't have the heart of the base of the republican party so he will not excite passion or enthusiasm there.
The only thing that would draw people to him personally is that he is a former POW and the great respect they will have for him based on that.
Then again, he m ay excite people who have a passion for compromise, in the good sense of that word. He could strike a chord with them.
I am just saying that for a lot of people, unfortunately, (because many are so shallow) they go by impressions... they like this person... or they don't like that person. I feel like he is not really a likeable candidate for one reason or another - looks, charisma, standards, etc...
His wife is really strikingly beautiful, though... myabe that will get him some votes.
And one more thing....
The way our general elections work is that you have to win state by state. (Hi Matthew) There are certain states that usually go for the R 0 we call these red states. The ones that go for the D are called blue sattes. He is winning the nomination based on the blue states. These states will not help him win in Novemeber. Those states will most likely go fro the D. He is losing the primaries in the red states - any republican needs the red states to win in November - this is their base of victory. This doesn't bode well! Get it?
By
Rose~, at 2/07/2008 8:46 AM
Ten Cent,
So true!
Thanks for those comments. I wring my hands, but God doesn't. :~)
By
Rose~, at 2/07/2008 8:48 AM
I can't type very well today. Sorry about that.
By
Rose~, at 2/07/2008 8:49 AM
Rose,
Whether you typed well or not, you articulated it right on target. God Bless. Also, NC primaries are in May, & it will be all but over by then too. It is so frustrating.
Bro. Dime, (Ten Cent, get it?!! HA!)
Your comments are so appreciated!! God Bless you brother!
By
Anonymous, at 2/07/2008 9:47 AM
Rose, that is true, but you have to bear in mind that floating voters in both the Red and Blue States may not have voted in the primaries.
They are the people whose votes need to be won in the presidential election.
Having the conservative party as red and the 'liberal' party as blue is weird. The two colours are the opposite way around in the UK.
God Bless
Matthew
By
Matthew Celestine, at 2/07/2008 9:49 AM
Matthew, maybe we're still trying to shake off the influence of the mother-country? {c;
By
Missy, at 2/07/2008 10:22 AM
Rose, this was my first NH Primary since I moved from TX. It was crazy. I live in a small country town and EVERY candidate came to the local diner or churches and schools to speak and visit at LEAST once. The people take it very seriously here. I love the involvement.
By
Missy, at 2/07/2008 10:29 AM
Hi Rose,
I hope the lines below don't sound too dramatic for what was but the early stages of an election, but I think they are super!
And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth. (Revelation 19:6)
When statesman have had their last parley,
And despots have made their last threat,
When prophets are dumb with misgiving,
And forces of conflict are set,
When factions misleading and treacherous,
Bring chaos where order prevailed,
When freedom long cherished has vanquished,
And leaders long trusted have failed,
When God and His word are derided,
And men call it useless to pray,
Remember God is still sovereign,
And He has the last word to say.
Who could not but help saying: Amen!
By
Colin Maxwell, at 2/07/2008 1:22 PM
Hi Rose
Hi Colin
Colin it’s a little difficult to get behind you with a BIG amen because of all the connotations Calvinist bring to the word Sovereignty.
Connotation 1. The act or process of connoting 2.something connoted; idea suggested by or associated with a word, phrase, etc. in addition to its explicit meaning, or denotation: as, politician has different connotations from statesman.
Conote 1. To suggest or convey (associations, overtones etc.) in addition to the explicit, or denoted, meaning: as, the word mother means "female parent," but it generally connotes love, care, tenderness, etc.
quote:
(Webster’s New World Dictionary)
one drink from the Christ
alvin
By
alvin, at 2/07/2008 2:44 PM
Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words.
By
Glenn W, at 2/07/2008 2:47 PM
Alvin: Take it for what you can get out of it.
By
Colin Maxwell, at 2/07/2008 3:08 PM
Hey, Rose, I think Mitt Romney must be visiting your blog.
I think he read my comment about the need for Republicans to unite around McCain.
It is good to have some influence.
God Bless
Matthew
By
Matthew Celestine, at 2/07/2008 3:55 PM
Hi Rose
Colin I see Calvinism as not part of the solution but part of the problem!
When God and His word are derided,
Calvinism causes the deriding of Scripture and God and brings about an elitist spirit in those who imbrace Calvinism. When things become very difficult the Calvinist can return to their shells and proclaim the Sovereignty of God, knowing within their hearts that the elect will be saved no matter what, and all the rest will eventually end up for what they were created for,Hell!
When people grasp the Calvinist teaching I can see why many become atheist and deride God and His word.
Note: The political exigencies of the years of the French wars of the Napoleonic period forced the Methodists, in particular, into passivity that was underlined by a sterner interpretation of Calvinist theology.
What good is prayer when people reject the very milk of the word (John 3:16; 4:10; 5:24; 6:47; 11:25,26). Do you believe God will hear your prayer when you have rejected and twisted God’s simple invitation to lost man?
And the Spirit and the bride say, “Come!”
And let him who hears say, “Come!”
And let him who thirsts come,
Whoever desires, let him take the water of life freely.
God will ONLY answer prayer from the ones who have believed Him!
One drink from the Christ
alvin
By
alvin, at 2/07/2008 4:32 PM
Thanks Rose,
I'm not pleased with McCain either, but I do like him better than Huckabee.
What I am frustrated with, politically, is how we Evangelicals have politicized the gospel . . . in so doing we have marginalized the gospel--by making it a set of ethical concerns (negatively), rather than emphasizing the fact that the gospel isa PERSON, Jesus of Nazareth. I'm surprised that we think we should work towards a "theocracy" in American politics, as premillers, I can see how postmillers would want to do that. Anyway just a little rant . . .
By
Anonymous, at 2/07/2008 4:51 PM
Rose, how do you think all this happened?
I have not been following this particular race because there was just no one who has excited me as a potential candidate. Also, I get so emotionally involved I did not want to go through the emotional rollercoaster again. Though, I have friends who have followed this so I have been able to at least keep tabs on the candidates' positions. I have to say that McCain as the nominee has surprised me, but maybe that's because I haven't been following all this very closely. I really thought it would be Giuliani or Romney.
By
Dawn, at 2/07/2008 4:53 PM
Alvin, Not sure how to answer you without igniting something - especially after the last thread which Rose eventually closed down,(although it had little to do with Calvinism) except to say that I disagree with your analysis. I am unsure how even to try and help you, so I'm going to leave it there.
Everyone else: If you can think about the sovereignty of God without getting caught up in the Calvinist controversy, then the poem, and the verse that heads it, should encourage you no end.
Regards,
By
Colin Maxwell, at 2/07/2008 5:11 PM
Bobby,
You said, "What I am frustrated with, politically, is how we Evangelicals have politicized the gospel . . . in so doing we have marginalized the gospel--by making it a set of ethical concerns (negatively), rather than emphasizing the fact that the gospel isa PERSON, Jesus of Nazareth."
Can you give some examples? And, how would you suggest christians approach politics?
You said, "I'm surprised that we think we should work towards a "theocracy" in American politics..."
Which would you rather? A godly theocracy or a secularist theocracy?
By
Dawn, at 2/07/2008 7:01 PM
Matthew, I think your comment on
2/07/2008 3:03 AM is right on Brother. I think you have even a better propective than most of us who live here.
The extreme reglious right may be just as off base as the extreme liberal left. How can the extreme right wing justify being against abortion(of which I am) and at the same time be willing not to give grace to the alien and stranger in our land to give them a chance to get documented and stay here and work? Seems almost like hypocrisy to me.
But each of our votes is a personal thing and we should each respect each other regardless.
I am not ashamed to vote for John McCain this year. I cannot find it in my reasoning to vote for either person still battling for the Democratic nominee.
Sorry James Dobson, I won't follow the pied piper.
It may not be a "Not-so-super Wednesday" but I feel it could be worse.
Grace & Peace
Kris
By
Kris, at 2/07/2008 10:21 PM
This comment has been removed by the author.
By
Kris, at 2/07/2008 10:21 PM
Kris, it is nice to come across an American who is not obsessed by fears about illegal immigration.
Illegal immigration is a problem and we have it in the UK too.
But an illegal immigrant is only a criminal because his or her actions went against the particular regulations that were in force at a particular time.
I think there is a case for a more compassionate approach to that issue.
Every Blessing in Christ
Matthew
By
Matthew Celestine, at 2/08/2008 2:57 AM
Somehow I doubt you are feeling liberal today, Rose.
By
Matthew Celestine, at 2/08/2008 2:58 AM
Dawn said:
Can you give some examples? And, how would you suggest christians approach politics?
Sure. Secularists know Christians as those who are against things like abortion, homosexual marriage, stem-cell research etc. They don't know us for Whowe are for, Jesus (i.e. the personification of the gospel). Certainly as Christians we are for the sanctity of life, but that is because first we are for Christ.
I suppose "Christian politicians" could run on platforms that are framed by language that says: "I am for Christ and His kingdom--and world Here is what that means". Instead of me trying flesh this out here just go and read an article I wrote on this, here's the link:
The Politicized Gospel: Paul Metzger and Karl Barth
Dawn said:
Which would you rather? A godly theocracy or a secularist theocracy?
Neither, if by godly you mean a Christianized government; we already tried that with Constantine, and it has turned into quite the fiasco. And a secularist theocracy is a plain and simple oxymoron. Only the nation of Israel lived under a genuine theocracy . . . and only Christians, proleptically will live under a restored theocracy in Christ (in fact we taste parts of that "now", but the full realization is "not yet.").
Hopefully that helps clarify, Dawn.
By
Anonymous, at 2/08/2008 3:03 AM
I dont believe in Christian politics.
Anybody can find passages in the Bible to support their favorite ideology- conservatism, nationalism, libertarianism, socialism. Even Anarchists can find some support in the Bible.
I do not believe there are any clear guidelines in the Bible as to how we should do politics.
I say we should vote for whoever we think has the policies that are in our countries' interests.
Every Blessing in Christ
Matthew
By
Matthew Celestine, at 2/08/2008 8:09 AM
Matthew, you sound like your from a country with more than 1000 years of practice. {c;
By
Missy, at 2/08/2008 10:23 AM
Hi, Rose.
I personally think that John McCain may turn out to be the best president we have had since Reagan.
By
Anonymous, at 2/08/2008 10:41 AM
Gordon, I am glad somebody else here can say something nice about McCain.
By
Matthew Celestine, at 2/08/2008 11:28 AM
"I do not believe there are any clear guidelines in the Bible as to how we should do politics."
Matthew, that is an absurb statement. The Bible speaks to every area of our life.
That is like the smoker saying, "well the Bible doesn't say I can't smoke"
We are not governed by politics, we are governed by laws. These laws are created by legislators who are duly elected by the electorate.
That being said, there are numerous principles regarding what to do about our leaders. Now obviously those who live under a dictator or Monarch do not have the option of voting. Their duty is no less obvious.
But as citizens of nations who have the right and privilege to elect our leaders, we must exercise wisdom and vote according to our conscience. Furthermore, our conscience must be guided by Biblical truth, unless of course we don't believe the Bible is true.
That being said, government cannot change the morality of a people for the better. But it can prevent anarchy and maintain stability by ensuring justice for all it's citizens.
By
Jim, at 2/08/2008 12:21 PM
Jim
Just a small correction:
"Now obviously those who live under a dictator or Monarch do not have the option of voting. Their duty is no less obvious."
The UK and Canada are under a Monarch, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. And under her reign we enjoy the right to vote.
"The Bible speaks to every area of our life."
Tell me, Jim, does the Bible tell us whether a government should be elected by the people?
By
Matthew Celestine, at 2/08/2008 3:14 PM
Matthew,
You are referring to a constitutional monarchy which is slightly different than the reign of kings typical of the middle ages.
"does the Bible tell us whether a government should be elected by the people?"
Now the Bible does not speak specifically to that. Of course there are numerous passages talking about our responsibility to government. The only two governments during the time of Israel were a theocracy and a monarchy.
I don't think democracies will exist in the Kingdom of God because God is not up for election and neither are His principles.
God bless,
Jim
By
Jim, at 2/08/2008 4:44 PM
Okay, Jim.
So what we then find is that one of the most basic questions about the nature of government cannot be solved through looking to Scripture.
If the Bible tells us nothing about how to organize our political system, how can we expect to find in the Bible any meaningful strategy or direction for a 'Christian politics'?
By
Matthew Celestine, at 2/08/2008 4:57 PM
I like MaCain.
Sorry Rose. I do like him. I really dont think he has done anymore manuevering that all the other republicans havent done since the big dissapointments from the 1994 turnover. Even Bush has angered Rush a few times.
Politics is the art of compromise. If you go back and study History you will see that Ben Franklin used what he could, when He could. He was good friends with Whitfield, but never accepted Christ as far as I know. Thomas Jefferson used to tear out portions of Scripture that he did not agree with. Washington was a Godly man. God has blessed this nation, but I do have leanings like Bobby Grow has. God has His purposes and it is good to encourage the nation toward biblical morals and to pray, but I think by taking the extreme measures and the Justice Sundays that Huckabee supporters have done in the past...is not biblical at all. Some of the same evangelicals that are vehement and emotional about getting the right conservative candidate would probably vote for the Pope as well.
Grace upon grace,
Brian
By
Only Look, at 2/08/2008 8:08 PM
Bobby, I think people do know that we're about Jesus first. When I asked for examples, I meant examples of people who have not proclaimed the gospel while speaking in political circles.
As far as a theocracy, I don't believe that what Christians are doing politically is trying to establish a theocracy in the ecclesiocratic or "genuine" sense. Rather, they're simply trying to regain what America once had beginning with our Founding era (not the Constantinian era): total religious freedom and laws that better protected our society.
I apologize for not asking what you meant by "theocracy" and/or for not defining what I meant by the term. A theocracy can be secular in the sense that it is governed by a set of religious beliefs (e.g., Secular Humanism). Secular Humanism is a type of religion in that it holds to a particular belief system or philosophy. Though, Secular Humanists would probably reject the idea that their belief system is religious.
So, using the term in the broadest sense (for both sides) I was asking which theocracy you would rather live under given our government allows us the choice: christian or secular.
No need to answer at this point (unless you just want to), I just wanted to clarify myself.
By
Dawn, at 2/08/2008 11:53 PM
Dawn said:
Bobby, I think people do know that we're about Jesus first. . . .
then we disagree here.
I am aware of what secular humanism is, that is why I asserted that coupling "theocracy" in its denotative sense, with "secular humanism" is an oxymoron. There is no doubt that secular humanism is a "faith" based belief system . . . of course the object is man worshiping man. So secular humanism is the negation of "theo" in "cracy" which makes it, by defintion incompatible with the "positive" and proper language of THEOcracy.
Anyway I don't really want to argue with you on this. Thanks for the clarification.
In Christ.
P.S. hopefully that article I linked to will help shed some light on where I am coming from.
By
Anonymous, at 2/09/2008 5:06 AM
This comment has been removed by the author.
By
Dawn, at 2/09/2008 11:06 AM
Bobby, "So secular humanism is the negation of "theo" in "cracy" which makes it, by defintion incompatible with the "positive" and proper language of THEOcracy."
I agree that it makes it incompatible in the "positive" sense of the proper language, but like I said I was using it in the broadest sense of the term for both sides because Christians are not trying to create a theocracy and the Secular Humanists are a god unto themselves. Man is their god. So the "THEO" actually does fit but moreso in the broadest sense of the term. I was basically using it tongue in cheek (for the most part) since it was the term you chose. I'm not trying to argue with you, just clarifying once again.
Both sides want it their way and I believe the Christian way (especially since our nation was founded on Christian principles) is the best protection for all of society.
Have a good day.
By
Dawn, at 2/09/2008 11:16 AM
Bro. Gordon,
You said, "I personally think that John McCain may turn out to be the best president we have had since Reagan." So you really believe so? I respect you & your posts that I have seen, so I'd really like to hear your reasoning behind this. It looks like he's gona be the pub candidate, so like it or not, & I decidedly do NOT at this point, I'd sure like to hear some clear reasoning (perfect blog for that, huh, Rose?!!) for this. God Bless!
By
David Wyatt, at 2/09/2008 11:22 AM
Dawn,
"Both sides want it their way and I believe the Christian way (especially since our nation was founded on Christian principles) is the best protection for all of society."
What is politics under Christian principles?
Why does the United States have any more claim to be founded under Christian principles than Calvin's Geneva, Tsarist Russia or New Zealand?
Where in the Bible do we find these Christian principles that you claim the United States is founded on?
By
Matthew Celestine, at 2/09/2008 12:27 PM
Dawn said:
"Both sides want it their way and I believe the Christian way (especially since our nation was founded on Christian principles) is the best protection for all of society."
and this is my point. It is not an we/they us/them mentality Christians start with . . . it is an us/HIM (see. Titus 3:1ff). Also, the article I pointed you to, which I see you read (maybe after you posted here)fleshes out the relationship (at least points to how we might flesh this out)between sacred and secular through the lens of Chalcedonian Christology and the intrarelationship between the human/divine natures in the person Jesus. When taken analogically, I believe this provides an excellent way and via media for understanding how to engage the broader culture for Christ (i.e. without the divinization of the secular, and the secularization of the divine)--seeing both the sacred and the secular as distinct, but inseparably related in Christ.
As far as the origination of our nation, and its Christian principles you should read: The Search For Christian America by Mark Noll, Nathan Hatch, and George Marsden (all top notch historians--and incidentally, all Christians). They bring clarity on this front, and provide perspective on the "Golden Age" gloss many of us assign to the founding of the states. They adequately demonstrate how the Christianity on which America was founded was syncretized with Enlightenment/rationalist (a la John Locke, et al) principles--which actually tends more toward "natural theology" and "pelagian" trajectory than anything historically Christian--doctrinally anyway.
Thanks for the discussion.
peace.
By
Anonymous, at 2/09/2008 4:36 PM
Good question Matthew. Also we are a nation founded on slave
owning principles and one in which many slaves discovered the true meaning of the gospel message before their puritan and pilgrim owners did. Yet they did perhaps study the scriptures more and memorize them in their schools more diligently than the slaves did, yet they fought for their independance(which is good) while the slaves yearned to be delievered and saved and through that waited for Jesus to carry them into His bosom for a new heavenly life with Him. The puritans and pilgrims did have understanding of foundational Christian principles but perhaps not always an understanding of the purpose of the gospel, yet the nation did have an understanding of some of the priniciples of the Bible and some of the founding fathers were Christians. Some were slave owners as well. We did violate the biblical principles laid down in Romans 13 when we rebelled agains the sovereign crown. As believers under the New Covanent we were to honor and obey the crown. Freedom would have perhaps come later as it did in the case of slavery and William Wilberforce contending to usher laws that would protect the slaves. Who knows?
We can simply be thankful for the nation we have today and honor those in authority as well as vote as we are given authority as the people to do so.
These are hard questions to consider and this is why in this area I agree with Matthew. This is defeatism calling McCain a bad candidate. We must be thankful for men like him and stop our complaints and gripings.
By
Only Look, at 2/09/2008 4:55 PM
1 Peter 2:17
It says in this verse that Christians should honour the king.
How can a nation founded on Christian principles be a rebel state that rejected the lawful authority of the King George III?
It seems that rebellion must be a Christian principle.
By
Matthew Celestine, at 2/09/2008 5:33 PM
Bro. David, I'll be glad to share my opinion with you. (And I stress, it is nothing more than an opinion) :-).
The reason I say that McCain may be the best president since Reagan is probably a conclusion based on a number of a things. While I do not find myself in agreement with McCain on all things, I believe he has some characteristics that are necessary for a great president.
Reagan had strength of character. By that, I mean that he was not afraid to speak his mind, even at the risk of alienating others. We have seen ample example from McCain on this score.
Despite this quality, Reagan had the ability to make allies of people who were of different persuasions. McCain has demonstrated this as well. Some may call his efforts compromise, and I would agree that there are certain core values that cannot be diluted, but at some point the bickering between parties has to stop and some common ground will be found. I believe McCain is best suited for finding this common ground and bringing the country to a closer state of unity.
Reagan knew the value of a strong military as a deterrent. Our current military, while doing their jobs valiantly (and I have nothing but respect and appreciation for them) is stretched a little thin to serve as a deterrent. I believe McCain recognizes this and will rebuild our armies to a sufficient level that will force any potential enemies to think twice before starting something.
While continually being labeled a "liberal", McCain has a pretty consistent track record on moral issues, just as Reagan did.
At the risk of being branded an apostate, let me say that in his faith, Reagan was hardly in line with the mainstream religious right. Neither is McCain.
Maybe I'm on the right trail here, maybe this is wishful thinking, maybe I'm just whistlin' Dixie.
Time will tell.
By
Anonymous, at 2/09/2008 6:49 PM
Hi Rose.
Great thoughts Gordon. I too feel the same way you do about McCain.
I was never comfortable with the lynching McCain received in 2000 in being branded a liberal, but I think the way he has come out of the smoke and handled it is testimony to his character as a leader. I think he will do well.
For those who love ol Hucklebuck...and who wouldnt like Him,,My mom does and is indignant that I should vote for him in Tuesdays primary here in Va, he is still going strong. Only time will tell.
Grace upon grace,
Brian
By
Only Look, at 2/09/2008 8:21 PM
Bro. Gordon,
Thank you for taking the time to state your case with clarity & grace as you did! It definitely leaves me with some thankin' to do! At least I don't feel quite so bad at this point & can maybe let up on the grip on my nose in the ballot box in November!
Howdy there Rosemeister!
By
David Wyatt, at 2/09/2008 9:14 PM
Hi Rose
Hi Matthew, you said:
Why does the United States have any more claim to be founded under Christian principles than Calvin's Geneva, Tsarist Russia or New Zealand?
That's what I've been studying lately “Calvin's Geneva.” Sounded like he ruled with an iron fist. If you disagreed with him especially about his belief of "infant baptism" and showed up at his church you were arrested and later burned at the stake. He recommended the death penalty for adultery and also called the one man that disagreed with him after he died a "dead dog." He also controlled what people ate and pretty much everything they did. Even a ladies hair, she was put in jail for two days for the style of her hair. He sounded like a real spirit filled guy. Sounded like he would have put most politicians to shame. I think he makes John McCain look like an angel. And I agree with you on John McCain.
One drink from the Christ
alvin
By
alvin, at 2/10/2008 12:19 AM
Alvin,
I am glad you agree with me on McCain.
Calvin's Geneva-
I am sure Monsieur Calvin could find plenty of Biblical passages to support running Geneva in that manner.
I think one would actually find it much easier to use Scripture to justify such a system than to justify a secular, liberal republic like the UNited States was meant to be.
My main point is that it seems very doubtful that we can establish some kind of hermeneutic to determine whether one political system as opposed to another is based on Christian principles.
I am expressing extreme scepticism over the idea of Christian politics.
Every Blessing in Christ
Matthew
By
Matthew Celestine, at 2/10/2008 3:59 AM
Rose, I hope you are feeling merciful today.
By
Matthew Celestine, at 2/10/2008 4:00 AM
If it comes down to McCain, Comradette Hillary or O'Bummer, I'll hold my breath for McCain.
Whatever the result, this passage helps me to keep my head in election years.
“The king’s heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will,” (Prov. 21:1)."
By
Lou Martuneac, at 2/10/2008 7:40 AM
Whatever the result, this passage helps me to keep my head in election years.
“The king’s heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will,” (Prov. 21:1)."
Lou, you make it look as if the result has been already ordained of God. I agree.
By
Colin Maxwell, at 2/10/2008 10:51 AM
Any Republican is better that Hillary or Obama!
Thank you all for your comments.
By
Rose~, at 2/11/2008 12:32 PM
Thanks, Gordon. I found your comments encouraging.
By
Rose~, at 2/11/2008 12:34 PM
This comment has been removed by the author.
By
Dawn, at 2/11/2008 5:07 PM
Matthew, you said, "What is politics under Christian principles?"
I'm not exactly sure what you're asking, but if I understand you correctly, politics under Christian principles is protecting those principles which in turn protect our God-given rights. In order to protect these principles and rights we must continue to believe in them.
You said, "Why does the United States have any more claim to be founded under Christian principles than Calvin's Geneva, Tsarist Russia or New Zealand?"
I never said it did. Last time I checked, American politics was the topic. What I'm saying is that since we were founded on Christian principles and we have a democratic process (unlike some other countries) we should try to maintain those principles. The problem is multi-pronged and very compelx, but it begins with our obedience to God. The vast majority of our Founders believed in the God of the Holy Scriptures/Holy Bible. (I'm speaking to America's Founding only.)
You said, "Where in the Bible do we find these Christian principles that you claim the United States is founded on?"
The law (which encompasses much), the fact that God is no respecter of persons, etc., etc. E.g., all men are created equal and we have certain inalienable rights: life, liberty and the pursuit of hapiness. Liberty and the pursuit of hapiness come with responsibility and that responsibility is bound within biblical parameters as evidenced by our judicial history up until around the middle of the 20th century when things began to drastically turn toward a downward moral spiral and moreso in recent decades. That doesn't mean there weren't fights in the courts and other areas of concern along the way because there certainly were, but I don't have time to go into all of that.
When we look back on America's history from the time of its founding we can see where we made our mistakes and it goes back to the Christian either letting down his guard or believing he shouldn't be involved in things such as politics. Americans (both Christian and non-Christian) grew lazy in many areas such as education, politics, biblical studies, etc. and what we now experience is the result of all of that. Some believe we are in a post-Christian state in America. They may be right (or maybe not), but I'm not so ready to concede just yet.
Hope this answers your questions.
By
Dawn, at 2/11/2008 5:10 PM
Bobby, I'll have to respond to your comment later. Gotta get back to doing taxes. Ugh!
By
Dawn, at 2/11/2008 5:11 PM
Dawn, I do not think you have outlined any clear and absolute principles that could be identified with any particular system.
I cannot see from your comment how America has drifted from what you view as Biblical principles of government or why most European countries do not follow them.
I would argue that there is simply no such thing as Christian politics.
A politician who advocates a Christian approach to politics is simply doing what is right in his own eyes and calling it Christian.
Every Blessing in Christ
Matthew
By
Matthew Celestine, at 2/12/2008 1:20 PM
Simple reason why I wouldn't vote for McCain or Obama, but will probably go with the third party.
#1) Embroyonic stem cells
#2) Marriage Amendment
#3) Abortion.
How could I vote for someone who does not support the unborn. I don't think I could support anyone who is pro-abortion. How could you lead a country if you don't support a ban on abortion. I agree with Randy Alcorn and Dobson on this one.
I remember a friend giving me this listing for what the civil magistrates should be used for voting.
Based on Exodus 18: 13-23
1. Must be a man.
2. Must be "able"- meaning having proven capacity AND willingness (future verses speak of a man known amongst you) to perform the defined duties of civil government. Thus, if a man is unwilling to wield the sword (capital punishment) and defend the innocent (unborn babies), he does not meet the minimum requirements for civil government leadership.
3. Must fear God. This means the man's presupposition must be that all knowledge begins only with God, including laws and authority. The man must believe that civil authority comes only from God. The man must believe that civil legislation may come only from God's Law- corollary = any law MUST be an extension of God's Law or it is unauthorized.
4. Must be trustworthy. This means the man has never given anyone any reason not to trust him. He must have a sterling reputation. Adultery, divorce, lies, bankruptcy, fiscal insolvency, disorderly and/or disobedient children, frequent unexplained church absence, or any other forms of unreliable behavior are disqualifying.
5. Must HATE a bribe. This means he must not take or tolerate bribes. I believe it also means he must not accept gifts before, during OR AFTER his time of service that could even possibly appear in the least bit unscrupulous.
By
Shawn, at 2/13/2008 8:27 AM
Ps. I don't agree with all of the above exactly but a good list when thinking of a candidate.
By
Shawn, at 2/13/2008 8:30 AM
I will be voting for Huckabee in the primary next week, but after that I am assuming either a write in candidate or third party in November
By
Shawn, at 2/13/2008 8:57 AM
Shawn,
Thanks for your thoughts.
I feel like there really isn't a choice for a conservative. It is like R. Limbaugh said - with McCain as the nominee, conservatives have no voice. Writing in a candidate is a voice - but very small and barely audible.
God bless.
By
Rose~, at 2/13/2008 9:58 AM
Bobby,
You said, "They adequately demonstrate how the Christianity on which America was founded was syncretized with Enlightenment/rationalist (a la John Locke, et al) principles--which actually tends more toward "natural theology" and "pelagian" trajectory than anything historically Christian--doctrinally anyway."
Can you please expound on how these priniciples on which our nation was founded lead to "natural theology" and "pelagian" trajectory...doctrinally?
I am aware of the accusations against John Locke and against other sources the Founders cited as well as many of the Founders themselves. No doubt that others were influenced by his writings and used his ideas for their own purposes, but it is clear where he derived much of his own political thinking and truths (i.e., the bible). You may not find the following of interest, but maybe someone else reading this comment will:
"Many law and history professors and uninformed historical writers commonly assert that John Locke was a secular political writer or a deist. Often, these claims are made without the logical effort of studying Locke or his writings directly. (Rather, the views of other writers who wrote about Locke are studied!) If you have such a professor, or hear such assertions, here are a few helpful questions that you can use:" (emphasis)
Here is the entire article about John Locke.
Also, a good source is Original Intent. It is inexpensive, well worth the money and an easy read.
I agree, it is us/HIM; however, in matters of civil law there is always going to be an us/them when it is us/HIM. Our jobs as Christians, first and foremost, is the preaching of the gospel. Of course we're to love our neighbor but that doesn't mean we cannot hate the sin and fight against sin and its effects through government. There is ALWAYS going to be that element that will fight righteousness and we must do our best to maintain righteousness else evil will prevail, and we certainly seem to be paving the way for that to happen. True, our fight is primarily spiritual, but the fight oftentimes manifests itself in the flesh.
When I say "fight" I don't mean that we should be hateful. The only hatefulness I've seen is from the likes of Fred Phelps and his ilk. However, the mere mention of overturning Roe v Wade, voting against same-sex marriage, etc. is seen as hateful even when discussed in the most civil and loving manner possible. My goodness, they're even trying to make it a hate crime for a person or a preacher to teach that homosexuality is a sin! It's already against the law in some countries.
You stated earlier that "christian politicians" should state something to this effect, ""I am for Christ and His kingdom--and world Here is what that means"."
Many of the candidates have done that and continue to do so. It infuriates many when they do it because they believe that separation of church and state means that we must leave our christianity at the door and not allow it to influence policy which is absurd.
Many of the laws that are being changed are done through judicial fiat and not the will of the people which goes against the Constitution.
I'd warn us all to "Be not deceived, evil communications corrupt good manners." (I Cor 15:33) I like the way one person said it because the same truth holds, civilly speaking, "Evil laws corrupt good societies." The longer we allow evil to prevail the more it corrupts society's thinking. I've seen it happen before my eyes over the years. We see how much the church has been corrupted by it.
I know we won't change each other's minds so we'll have to agree to disagree. But I do hope you will answer my question about "natural theology" and "pelagian[ism]".
I wish you well.
Here are a few more resources for anyone interested.
Wallbuilders
American Vision
National Center for Constitutional Studies
By
Dawn, at 2/13/2008 3:57 PM
This comment has been removed by the author.
By
Dawn, at 2/13/2008 4:04 PM
Matthew, all I was trying to say was that Christians should be very involved in the political process. I see it as their Christian duty since God has given us the opportunity to have a voice in the political process. Our Founders sought direction from God on how to establish our form of government and they did what they believed to be right in the eyes of God and believed that God had blessed our nation. I don't necessarily agree with everything they did (though, I do agree with most of it), but I understand why they did what they did and I do believe that God has blessed our nation, but the blessings may be coming to a halt. We shall see.
God Bless you.
By
Dawn, at 2/13/2008 4:06 PM
This comment has been removed by the author.
By
Dawn, at 2/13/2008 4:06 PM
Hey Shawn,
McCain has a strong pro life record. I do not agree about the stem cell research even if the argument is via past abortions. But he is pro life and that keeps getting skewed for some reason as people continue to misrepresent him and join in with Rushs axe that he wishes to grind in lieu of past fiscal dissagreements.
Rose,
Rush has been very supportive of fiscal conservatives that are pro choice in the past so I do not much listen to him anymore nor do I appreciate his influence. His speech is often pornographic and suggestive very frequently. If niceness matters then why does he appeal to you? He is mainly for fiscal conservatives with a "What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas" mindset on the radio with plenty of dirty and suggestive jokes to tell. This is why I rarely listen to him anymore. His brand of conservatism has not been helpful to this country in my opinion and that is simply what that is...my opinion.
Like it or not, if you do not vote the republican ticket you will be supporting a pro choice nominee that will encourge even partial birth abortion that Obama supports Shawn. I'm going with Gary Bauer over Rush on this one. He encourages us to get behind the republican party in light of the serious nature of the consequences of liberal choices. Do what you will. It is a free country.
I love you all just the same and grace upon grace,
Brian
By
Only Look, at 2/13/2008 5:35 PM
He's pro-life to a point, but not really pro-life in my opinion from what I have read. Please forgive me if I am misunderstanding his position.
Can you give me a position paper from his site or his voting record? Hard to tell with so many unscrupulous websites.
I like this quote from James Dobson. I'm not a big Rush fan myself, never listen to him and haven't liked him. Kind of fits my opinion. I think the issue is that McCain is a pretty good guy on the media, but checking his voting record I think is a bit different.
http://www.citizenlink.org/CLtopstories/A000006444.cfm
By
Shawn, at 2/13/2008 6:24 PM
Bro. Brian,
IMHO you are spot-on in your statements! God Bless you bro! I am thankful to be your brother.
Bro. Shawn, I appreciate your convictions & your civil Christlike attitude here. God Bless you too.
Rose, howdy! Forgive my lack of manners for speaking to you last & not first! You are a blessing as well.
By
David Wyatt, at 2/13/2008 9:21 PM
I found this website on McCain voting record. Not certain if true, but if true could be helpful to research
http://www.ontheissues.org/John_McCain.htm
By
Shawn, at 2/13/2008 10:34 PM
Thanks brother Dave. Bush Sr was considered a moderate when he stepped in, but things panned out. The republican party has never been perfect but I am thankful they open the forum for strong pro lifers and the mainstream of them are pro life. We must do what we can to protect the precious lives God has created.
By
Only Look, at 2/13/2008 10:48 PM
Look,
I only listen to Rush really intermittently - about once or twice a week - and not the whole show at that. I have never noticed him being "pornographic." Wow, I must be missing something.
I agree with your take on the voting. If we don't vote for McCain, it will be voting for the Dem.
By
Rose~, at 2/14/2008 7:54 AM
Shawn,
Thanks for the link.
By
Rose~, at 2/14/2008 7:55 AM
This comment has been removed by the author.
By
Only Look, at 2/14/2008 5:56 PM
Rose,
Thanks. Yes Rush can get dirty at times. He once did a Playboy interview and said that he was going where the sinners go in doing so. At the time he was unapologetically living with a girl who is now his wife. Many Christians excused the behavior saying conservatives dont need to be Christians, yet he was claiming to be in support of abstinance. I think the dirty talk that is sporadic... some days you hear it and some days you dont.... is meant to show liberals that conservatives can be cool too. Over the years it has desensitised us all as well as helped us warm up to the gay conservative platform. I think Rush has set the stage for many republicans to reach across the isle. He has helped to dumb down America as well in my opinion.
All we can do now is work with who we got and I see you agree. In the long run God did not call us to be moralists to the unregenerate, but simply proclaimers of the gospel and our need to repent of sin because of the great sacrifice with which He has given. Rushes brand of politics has sort of gotten in the way in my opinion, along with the brazen double standards that he has laughed and brushed off. This is not a Christian nation and for now people like Rush and other republicans have been kind to Christians and encouraged many in his group to tolerate us, so that will buy us some time for a while but God is sovereign and really needs no man, yet we still must use what He gives us for a given time.
We dont need to put our trust in any men. All we can do is vote and pray.
Grace upon grace,
Brian
By
Only Look, at 2/14/2008 6:02 PM
Also...here is a post from last year by Terry, the best kept secret in the blogisphere:-)
Politics and Gaurding the Heart
I'll never forget the testimony of a strong pro-lifer who thrilled along with many in the Moral Majority to accept credit for bringing Ronald Reagan into power. Even Jerry Falwell at the time said, "Look at what we did!". Well the moral majority member talked about how betrayed she felt by Reagan for not pushing the Pro life aggenda like he said he was and putting them on the back burner in order to accomplish some fiscal goals at the time.
I can also remember the testimony of Mary Madilin(Is that how you spell it?) who said she drew away into the fetal position after she ran the Bush Sr campain and he lost. Her bright spot? Marrying James Carvil who defeated her..both are good friends of Rush. So instead of reaching across the asle...they walked it together.
Its a funny world...so dont take it to personally Rose and dont let it get you down. Terry's article is very timely.
By
Only Look, at 2/14/2008 6:53 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home