It’s official. Hillary Clinton has announced that she will be running for the Office of President of the United States of America. Her handlers are already packaging her as Thatcher redivivus. The talk radio pundits of the War Party say she is unelectable. This would be true if we were living in sane times. But thankfully for Mz. Clinton, we are not. She is already polling way ahead of all likely Democratic candidates and is ahead of all likely Republicans as well, except for Giuliani. Presently I put the odds of her winning at 50/50. Much can change, of course, in the next two years. My prediction, though, is that she will not only win the Democratic primary, but the general election as well. So get ready for Madame President and her First Gentleman.
(If Hillary wins, by the way, a Bush or Clinton will have been in the White House for 24 consecutive years [32 if you count G.H.W. Bush’s eight year stint as V.P.], 28 [36] if she is re-elected. Just think of that — 24 years of two-family rule. Who said monarchy is dead?)
I have to admit that I am rooting for Hillary. Though I am not a betting man, I have made a wager with my father and my First Word colleague. If Hillary wins they each owe me a steak dinner. If anybody else wins, I owe them a steak dinner. You see, like Rick’s attitude about whether Laszlo will escape the Nazis, my interest in contemporary American elections is a purely sporting one.
Some will be shocked, shocked by my flippant attitude concerning the current political parade. Elections are too important to take such an irreverent approach. So much, after all, is on the line. But a moment’s reflection should disabuse those who are open to reason that nothing could be further from the truth. Nothing is really on the line. Both Parties will field a statist candidate who will pay lip service to the Constitution and both Parties’ candidates will have no intention whatever of regulating their actions by Constitutional strictures.
The only difference between Democrats and Republicans is a rhetorical one. The latter sound a bit better on a few issues. The reality, though, is that they are two sides of the same debased coin. Indeed, I prefer Democrats since they tend not to make a pretense of conserving Christian values. I find raw humanism more palatable than humanism served with a quasi-Christian garnish.
When it comes to principles of government, I take anything but a sporting approach. It is far too serious a matter to get in the least bit excited about current offerings. When a candidate comes along who stands upon God’s law and swears allegiance to Jesus Christ, I will enter the fray. But since the prospects of such a man arising at this point are almost nil, I will follow Lear’s example.
so we’ll live,
And pray, and sing, and tell old tales, and laugh
At gilded butterflies, and hear poor rogues
Talk of court news; and we’ll talk with them too,
Who loses and who wins; who’s in, who’s out;
And take upon’s the mystery of things,
As if we were God’s spies: and we’ll wear out,
In a wall’d prison, packs and sects of great ones,
That ebb and flow by the moon.
Hillary, McCain, Obama, Giuliani, it makes no difference. But if I can get a steak out of Tweedledee beating Tweedledum, why not? So dad, Tim, I’ll take mine rare.
I agree that both parties are lacking. But come on! I’m not a Republican because it is the Christian pary; I’m a Republican because my values as a Christian come much closer to the right than the left on many issues. Some of these issues might have room for debate even within the Christian realm, but some absolutely do not. For some people and politicians, conservatism might just be humanism with a quasi-Christian garnish, but not for Christians, who make up a substantial portion of the group.
Do you really even believe the things you wrote or are you just trying to get somebody to argue with you? I usually don’t argue with people whose views seem so different that mine that I do not think we could ever agree or persuade each other on anything. But you say that you are a Christian, and that just seems quite inconsistent with what you write here.
Scott –
Before I reply to your comment, please let me know which Christian values you are referring to.
Abortion and gay marriage are the glaring examples. I cannot think of a bigger evil than killing innocent human life.
Don’t get me wrong. I admit that I would still be a Republican aside from these two issues, but these are the most obvious and most pressing. Also, I do not claim that everything the Republican party stands for is the gospel, just that they are more often closer to traditional Christian values (which you alude to with raw humanism vs. the quasi-Christian…).
Scott,
I don’t see Republicans doing that much to stop abortion. In fact, even when all three branches of government were Republican run – Roe v. Wade was left untouched.
As for gay marriage, that has become an issue only because the Republicans have done virtuially nothing to stop homosexual behavior.
In fact, both issues are, largely, only issues because of the coercively implemented changes to the U.S. Constitution. Changes implemented by a party that has not renamed itself to shed that shameful history.
-Turretinfan
I wish Republicans would do more, but the fact that they haven’t is not reason to side with those who promote these evils. Like I said, the Republican party is not a wholly “Christian” pary; they likely would have failed in overturning Roe if they had tried.
As for Republicans not stopping homosexual behavior – I’m not sure how much we can monitor what people do in their own homes (or what exactly you mean by that), but that in no way means that we should or must institutionalize the behavior.
I am not here to defend everything Republicans have ever done, but regardless, they are the party that stands closer to Christian values. Non sequitur: just because they’ve come up short, it does not follow to side with the party that clearly supports the evils that Christians should oppose.
Scott –
I do not “side” with Democrats. You are misreading my post.
Your are typical of many Christians who vote Republican. You are probably decent and honest and want to see the the evils of our age reversed. You hear Republicans talk a good line and believe they are in earnest. But watch what they do. That is the key.
Notice what you write, “they likely would have failed in overturning Roe if they had tried.” Turretinfan has already pointed out that the R’s controlled (until this month) all three branches of the Federal Gov’t. Why could they not have succeeded? But the main problem is found in your subordinate clause. They do not even try. And if they don’t try, why bother voting for them?
Most Christian Republicans have “Battered Voter Syndrome.” They elect an R into office; in office he ignores them and breaks his promises. Next election he vows that he will be better this time. The faithful then vote for him again and, again he ignores them and breaks his promises. At no point does the battered voter realize the simple way to stop this cycle: leave the abuser.
You said you prefer the raw humanism of the democrats because at least it is not pretentious. But I am saying that not all Republicans are pretentious. They would have failed overturning Roe because they wouldn’t have had enough support because NOT ALL republicans vote the same (varying degrees of conservatism). If it were up to most republicans in congress, Roe would be overturned, but those few who would not make all the difference. They have to be strategic about when they try to get things passed (yes, it’s all politics), and they would have failed (for a variety of reasons) which would have done more damage to the cause in the end (how are you going to get support to put the same bill on the floor a second time after it fails?).
But all of that is not the point. Yes, we’re battered. But I can not reconcile bowing out entirely with scriptural exhortations to run the race strong to the end. We are called to be the salt of the earth, not to shrink back into the shadows. This hopeless and fatalist attitude does not speak well for Christians.
We would be a lot further down the road to destruction if all Christians just stood idly by to let the workers of iniquity reign in the political (and other) arena(s). What we need is for the idle people to get involved, as we would be a much stronger force if we stood together. What if we raised up better leaders that would do what they were elected to do? Are we helpless to do this? Or just complacent? You’re right, politicians do just talk a good line, and WE don’t hold them accountable to do any more.
Dear Scott,
The argument: “they would have failed, which would have done more damage to the cause in the end,” partly depends on the cause you have in mind.
“Do what is right, and let the consequences be what they are,” is a cause worth getting behind.
South Dakota seems to be on board with that cause on the abortion issue.
Personally, I find their approach more savory. Is it politically expedient? Time will tell.
-Turretinfan
I’ll grant you that; we should do what is right regardless of the consequences. But the results I have in mind would be actually overturning Roe v. Wade. So doing what is right when the time is right is even better than doing right when it is less likely to accomplish the desired result, though we are doing what is right in either case (if we are to grade “rightness”).
Scott, you have to remember that Mr. Butler is a postmillenialist reconstructionist. Its not enough for Christians to be IN culture, they must DOMINATE the culture. The impression I’ve received from Mr. Butler over the past months is that until that is happening, who cares what happens?
Scott,
You said, “I am not here to defend everything Republicans have ever done, but regardless, they are the party that stands closer to Christian values.” after admitting failure in both of the “glaring examples” you used. Therefore, this seems to be the main thrust of your argument, correct?
What is more likely, that the majority of Republican (officials) really care deep down about these issues and just don’t ever get around to acting like it or that they are paying games with you?
If you are going to side with the Republicans just because they “stand closer to Christian values” (whatever that could mean since they don’t act like it) then why don’t you become a Constitutionalist since they stand even closer to Christian values?? If you argue that you are not a Constitutionalist because it wouldn’t be pragmatic then why are you a Republican since that isn’t pragmatic either?
Keith,
Are you seriously trying to attribute Butler’s apathy to his eschatological position or are you just fooling around?
I can plug in any eschatological position into a similar formula and have apathy:
“Scott, you have to remember that Mr. Butler is a premillenialist dispensationalist. Its not enough for Christians to be IN culture, they will never DOMINATE the culture. Therefore, they should just preach the gospel and let politics and hollywood do what they may.”
If we are going to look for worldviews that motivate people to get out there and do something how about Arminianism or Dualism? It’s a battle against good and evil, the outcome hasn’t been decided yet and we must rise to the challenge! Aaargh!
You state, “The impression I’ve received from Mr. Butler over the past months is that until that is happening, who cares what happens?”
Could you please give us some specific examples of how you got this impression? I have been reading along as you and I haven’t gotten this impression, granted I don’t agree with everything Mr. Butler says.
Furthermore, if you think Butler’s attitude is wrong then I would be interested in seeing an *argument* demonstrating why and how and the proper attitude that should be taken.
On top of that, I think I share MRB’s basic eschatology, and yet I don’t share his sardonic apathy. Thus, I don’t think its fair to attribute his political views to his eschatology.
-Turretinfan
Why not vote for Ron Paul? He is running as a Republican but he is most certainly not one:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2007/120107ronpaul.htm
http://www.911blogger.com/node/5648
JonathanB,
In all likelihood, we will always have a two-party system. No third party will likely ever do anything but detract from one of the other two.
Why not be a Constitutionalist? Well, when you put it that way, I guess I don’t care so much that I’m Republican as that I am a Christian and that I vote like a Christian (i.e. I represent Christ to the best of my ability in this, as in every other, aspect of life). So if somebody wants to be a Constitutionalist and vote for conservatives by whatever name they go, I find that acceptable and even admirable.
What I do not find acceptable, and what is the thrust of my argument, is people who are willing to sit back and do nothing. I also find it unacceptable to side with liberals because conservatives are not conservative enough, which is what it sounds like some Christians are beginning to do, despite how obviously counter-productive that is.
Scott just a quick point of clarification. When both candidates claim to be pro-life as was the case in the Penna. senatorial race last time– then do you allow voting for either one? or is there still something wonderful about being a Republican per se?
Tim H,
While I do regard protecting innocent life as being of utmost importance, there are other issues about which I am concerned. Some of my positions come from Christian values and some might just be my amoral opinion about things. Though I do think that many of the things that I view as being fundamental human values, rights, or freedoms are not outside the scope of scripture; it’s just thought I might not be able to quote chapter and verse as to why I believe certain things, as they might be gleaned from scriptural principles. Then again, there probably are things that I believe that are almost entirely amoral. Lastly, there are points where I would part ways with Republicans, because my first allegiance is to Christ.
Scott,
“In all likelihood, we will always have a two-party system. No third party will likely ever do anything but detract from one of the other two.”
How do you know that it won’t always be a two-party system because of people like you who think they can’t defeat the big-bad two-party system so they might as well join it? Isn’t this just the pragmatic argument I anticipated in my last post or am I misunderstanding?
Since when is it bad to be pragmatic?
Anyhow, I didn’t say anybody else shouldn’t join a third-party, I just said a third party is unlikely to succeed. It’s simple math. It’s not “people like me;” it’s just a fact. Look at history, at other governments.
Besides, I didn’t say people shouldn’t join another party, just that Christians shouldn’t join or support a liberal one and that Christians shouldn’t be politically idle.
Scott:
You said, “Christians shouldn’t be politically idle.”
Do you have any Biblical examples of Christians being politically active (other than praying for those in authority)?
-Turretinfan
Well, sir, was there democracy in the Bible that allowed the people a voice? They had kings, caesars, and pharoahs who handed down the law. The difference is clear. Striving to overcome evil with good is not a matter of choice. Of course we should do all we can to influence our culture and society for Christ! Of course!
Butler et al,
All I ask is that if you are weary of the race and would like to bow out, please do so quietly and gracefully so as not to influence weaker brothers.
Christian men,
How you run the race determines how you finish. Serving our Lord is not just for certain aspects of life. Forget what is behind and strain toward what is ahead. Press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called us heavenward in Christ Jesus.
Scott– I get the feeling you must be one of our newer readers– in that case, welcome, but also, I suggest you go to this post which has links to many of our previous articles on the subject.
The case against the Republicans, both old and new, is being made a teaspoonful at a time. It’s fair to point out that any given teaspoon is leaky; it’s not fair to object that the whole bucket is not filled with just one scoop.
Mike’s post here does not really present an argument for not voting. The pros and cons of that stance will be presented in due course.
Rather, he is proposing an aesthetics of politics, given that one has “seen through” the sham of our political situation. That aesthetic suggests that life can still be rich and fun. Life can continue orthogonal to that whole subculture.
Tim,
I agree that life can still be rich and fun (not that that is the most important thing). But if the whole subculture you refer to is the realm of politics and people who participate, then life continuing orthogonal to it depends on what one values in life. The things at stake in the political arena are important to me (this is my country!), so though life will continue, it will not be unaffected. This will be increasingly true if we are to throw our hands up and let anything happen. Eventually, the law would encroach upon something you hold dear, even if your values do differ that much from mine. How can you watch the country go to hell in a handbasket and say it’s immaterial? Sham or not, we have a part to play. It is a sham because people have that attitude.
We’re not saying it’s immaterial. We’re questioning whether showing up and pulling a lever every two years is the best solution. Please read all that we have written on this before continuing to opine. I think we all know you’re opinion. We’re ready to interact with some substance now.
Scott:
You said: “Striving to overcome evil with good is not a matter of choice. Of course we should do all we can to influence our culture and society for Christ! Of course!”
No doubt. Yet the question remains:
Does active participation in a “democracy” particularly in the form of an essentially meaningless vote for a candidate something that influences our culture and society for Christ?
-Turretinfan
Turretinfan,
I am talking about more than just voting. But, yes, voting is a start. It would be much more effective if more Christians did it.
Tim H,
I looked over some of those posts, and I see that you are anti-Bush and that you don’t approve of the war. I can accept that even though I disagree. I just can’t accept Christians supporting the democrats and their agenda. We don’t need to over complicate this.
I think I can glean much of your opinion too. I understand the backlash against the Republican Party, but we need to strengthen it, not desert it – we need to make it more Christian. The Democratic agenda is anything but a Christian one. I would just like to see Christians more united about moral/political issues. Our voice is ever weakening because we don’t stand together.
Scott,
Why do we need to strengthen it? Why don’t we strengthen the Democratic party to be a Christian one? The argument of Tim and Mike seems to be that the Republican party is only “Christian” by way of lip service. Why does the fact that the Republican’s pay lip service to Christians make them the party for us to reform? Politics itself needs to be reformed. One way to let the Republicans know that you won’t be suckered by their sweet words and backstabbing actions is to leave the party and thereby reduce their strength.
It’s like giving money to an alcoholic in order to go for AA meetings when he keeps spending it on more alcohol. Not entirely analogous admittedly.
That is inane. The Republican Party is already full of Christians (even though it is full of many non-Christian conservatives too). The Republican values are already closer to traditional Christian values (although not entirely, quite moreso than the Democratic values). It is silly to say we should try to take over the party with whom we have so little in common, when we already have one that has the foundation – we just need to make it live up to what it stands for. It is also silly because liberal climate of the left will embrace Christian values around the same time hell freezes over.
Scott,
Granted, the Republican party is full of Christians, what efficacy does this give the Republican party to act in a Christian manner? Apparently no more than the Democratic party which doesn’t have that foundation.
Perhaps by Christians continuously trying to support a party that abuses them they are only teaching the Republican party that they are gluttons for punishment.
Again though you appeal to the fact that we should support and reform the Republican party because it stands closer to Christian value than the Democratic party… but this goes back to my initial argument. If I can point out another party, X, which stands even closer to Christian values than the Republican party than your logic would lead one to conclude that we should support X over the Republicans. Since there is such a party then why don’t you support them instead?
Your answer seems to have been that it is because the other party won’t win elections, correct? As I pointed out this is largely due to the attitude that that it won’t win because it has no support so lets not support it… But this is ridiculous logic in my opinion. A party will never have efficacy from support if you won’t support it because it isn’t immediately born with support and efficacy.
If somehow we absolutely knew that Democrats would win every election for the next 100 years would you start voting for Democrats and adopt the label in order to reform it from the inside out? If not, why?
Do you really believe what you are saying are just arguing for the sake of arguing?
This logic is not ridiculous. Any political scientist will tell you what the chances are of a third party succeeding. Your question about knowing Democrats would win for the next 100 years… what good are impossible hypotheticals? But I will entertain the question (I guess I am a glutton for punishment, or just that bored, I guess).
Would I vote for the wrong party because otherwise I would vote for the loser? No. How do I reconcile this with voting for Republicans when their might be third party Christians who are better? Well, first of all, I might vote for the third party Christian candidate. Secondly, the Republican party is not so broken that no good can be wrought with it, so the situation is not as exaggerated as you make it out to be. Also, voting for and trying to fix a weakened second party is not akin to voting for a third party which will never gain enough support to do anything effective.
Don’t get me wrong; I am not opposed to voting for or joining conservative third parties. If Christians stood together, it would not matter if we were Republicans or third party members. But we do need to conserve our conservative values.
You continually put the D’s and R’s on the same moral level. This is a mistake. Yes, little gets accomplished, but not all Republicans are Christians (or as moral as many others). Christians are a minority! Christians obviously do not control the whole party, but we still share far more values than with the D’s.
__”Any political scientist will tell you what the chances are of a third party succeeding.”
What does this have to do with your argument?
__”Your question about knowing Democrats would win for the next 100 years… what good are impossible hypotheticals?”
Why is this an “impossible hypothetical”? By what science is it impossible for the Ds to win the next 25 elections? Or are you just referring to my “know” word?
__”Well, first of all, I might vote for the third party Christian candidate. Secondly, the Republican party is not so broken that no good can be wrought with it, so the situation is not as exaggerated as you make it out to be. Also, voting for and trying to fix a weakened second party is not akin to voting for a third party which will never gain enough support to do anything effective.”
Well, I’m not going to debate the whether the Republican party’s ship is sunk or sinking so I’ll grant you that.
On what grounds are you claiming that a third party will never have support or be effective? I’d be very interested to hear this argument.
I really have no gripe with you if you admit the faults with the Republican party and the Neo-Cons (but it doesn’t sound like you are ready to do that yet).
If someone agrees that the Republican party is not what it pretends to be and still wants to call themselves Republican then that is fine… but what’s the point? It’s like me coming out of Catholicism and still going to a Catholic church thinking I might bring the church with me eventually. But you would probably say that the Rs are not that bad.
You see, if there are not enough Christians willing to make party X efficacious then what in the world makes you think there are enough Christians to reform party Z? If you can slowly work on Z then you can also work on X.
By the way, Buchanan has a good article on the President’s State of the Union: http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=10391
P.S. I can’t say anything for the actual website “antiwar.com”. All I did was pull the article link from there, I original read the article through an e-mail.
Yes, I do agree that there are faults with the Republican Party. I just think it would be more effective for us to try to claim the party that we already have some amount of influence in (X?), than to put efforts into another (Z?) when our divided effort would weaken both fronts.
I just don’t agree that the Republican Party is not at all what it pretends to be. The Party is no greater or less than its members and officials. There are many good Republicans, even though there are some bad ones. So the failings of the party are due to the fact that they are not all the good ones, as Christians would define them. So I am still a Republican for the good that is left in the party, and I will do my part to make it better. When the party is wrong on something, I will not defend it as right.
Well, this has been interesting. I won’t be online for the weekend. I pray that regardless of our political affiliation, we will all represent our Lord in the very best way that we can, which will hopefully lead us to more unity as American Christians.
God Bless.
Scott,
The good of what you refer to as “impossible hypotheticals” is that they serve to show the absurdity of certain arguments. Earlier you asked what was wrong with pragmatism? The problem with pragmatism, whether in politics or any other realm, is that it is not Christian. The ends never justify the means on there own. All things (including political activity) are justified only by their conformance to the Law of God. The problem your pragmatism presents is that if the Christian MRB earlier referred to was to show up and run for political office in America, obviously upon the platform that all things must be conformed to the Law of Christ, you would be compelled not to vote for him, simply because at this point in America’s history, he would have little or no chance of winning. Thus, your pragmatism would lead you to vote for the candidate in rebellion against Christ rather than the one who stood upon God’s Law simply because the rebel had a greater perceived chance of winning.
You insist that because the GOP is supposedly “full of Christians,” that we ought to lend our support to it. Upon what basis should we see that the Republican party is “full” of such Christians? A great man once said that we will know the tree by its fruits…not the false label someone gives it. Jesus was simply referring to the fact that the Law of God must be written on the forehead AND THE BACK OF THE HAND. It is what a man does that substantiates what he claims. The Republican party has for decades now paid lip service to “Christian values,” but its “faith” is dead, because it has not works. While I doubt that the Law of God is as frontlets between the eyes of the GOP, it is certainly not upon the back of its hand and thus its “faith” is dead and cannot save it or this nation. The GOP is in rebellion against Christ as it does not even attempt to obey his law. It has repeatedly engaged in ungodly behavior from unjust wars, rebellious economic policies, political enslavement through the deprevation of the liberties of American citizens to just plain lying about its commitment to the sanctity of life. The GOP is no more Christian than the Democrat party, and suggesting that we should engage in reforming the GOP by joining it is directly analogous to suggesting that we reform the Mormon cult by joining it. After all, they do use much of the same terminology and even “hold to” many of the “Christian values” you speak of. While I definitely believe in reforming the Mormon cult, joining it to do so is absurd. It is a rebelious stronghold that must be torn down and called to repentance, and so is the GOP. It is quite impossible to call the enemies of Christ to repentance if we have joined their ranks. Pragmatism and political, or other, expediency does not trump our Lord’s call to come out from among them and be ye separate. If Christians will repent of their synchratism and govern themselves according to the Law of God, then Christ’s reign will be manifest in this land, and HE will remove the tyrrants that currently rule over us apart from either our political activism or our idleness. Christ will only raise up judges to deliver his people when they repent and cry out unto him…not when they compromise with those who rhetorically claim to be ideologically closest to them.
Are you seriously trying to attribute Butler’s apathy to his eschatological position or are you just fooling around?
Yes, I am serious.
“Scott, you have to remember that Mr. Butler is a premillenialist dispensationalist. Its not enough for Christians to be IN culture, they will never DOMINATE the culture. Therefore, they should just preach the gospel and let politics and hollywood do what they may.â€
Your formula, unfortunately, is a non-sequitur with two bad premises, so no I don’t accept your point. Premill dispys don’t argue that Christians must dominate culture in a reconstruction sense. Nor do we argue (well, some might, but they can’t infer it from scripture) that Christians just preach the gospel and do nothing else. And even if the first premise were true, the conclusion wouldn’t logically follow. The conclusion MIGHT be true, but not because of the first premise. So, yeah, your argument is a mess.
Could you please give us some specific examples of how you got this impression? I have been reading along as you and I haven’t gotten this impression, granted I don’t agree with everything Mr. Butler says.
The above post?
Furthermore, if you think Butler’s attitude is wrong then I would be interested in seeing an *argument* demonstrating why and how and the proper attitude that should be taken.
If syllogisms don’t count as arguments then I guess I’m in a lose-lose situation with you! :P
Keith,
I don’t know how to do italics so please bear with my other markings.
–“Your formula, unfortunately, is a non-sequitur with two bad premises, so no I don’t accept your point. Premill dispys don’t argue that Christians must dominate culture in a reconstruction sense. Nor do we argue (well, some might, but they can’t infer it from scripture) that Christians just preach the gospel and do nothing else. And even if the first premise were true, the conclusion wouldn’t logically follow. The conclusion MIGHT be true, but not because of the first premise. So, yeah, your argument is a mess.–
Well, you may not agree with the form of argument, and I’m glad you don’t, but I have heard some of my own theology professors (which shall go unnamed) use this same type of argument.
However, to be more specific:
–“Premill dispys don’t argue that Christians must dominate culture in a reconstruction sense.”–
True, but the point of the statement was that Dispy’s argue (not all) that there is no hope for the political/secular world because it is in an inevitable decline. Therefore, they must simply preach the gospel. Naturally all Dispy’s don’t believe this (i.e. Chuck Baldwin a member of the CP who was running for VP last election) but this does not negate the fact that some do.
My point was that slippery-slope arguments about how one’s eschatology will effect their action is not always a good one. I don’t believe Butler is apathetic due to his eschatology. For example, Postmillers believe that Culture will make progress but that progress will be made by means of their action.
To use another example, look at Calvinism. How many times have you heard the Arminian say that Calvinists don’t believe in evangelism or that if everyone was a Calvinist that Christianity would die off because no one would witness? I have heard this tones of times. But, to the Calvinist, this is absurd because it is through our faith in God’s sovereignty that we believe evangelism will make a difference.
–“Nor do we argue (well, some might, but they can’t infer it from scripture) that Christians just preach the gospel and do nothing else.”–
My theology professor used Scripture in his class. It has been a few years so I don’t recall exactly what the texts were but I’d imagine it went with 1 Cor. 2:2 and other texts about shunning the world.
Now obviously you and I would agree that this is a misuse of texts but my point wasn’t that they argued this correctly.
–“And even if the first premise were true, the conclusion wouldn’t logically follow. The conclusion MIGHT be true, but not because of the first premise.”–
Well, then I give your non-sequitur right back because the premise that Christianity will spread throughout culture does not imply that Christian activism has nothing to do with that spread. (This was actually the point of my Dispy analogy)
–“The above post?”–
I understand that the post caused you to think Butler was apathetic and this is understandable. My main concern was that you predicated this due to his eschatological position.
–“If syllogisms don’t count as arguments then I guess I’m in a lose-lose situation with you! :P “–
I didn’t notice any syllogistic arguments as to why Butler is wrong about politics (wasn’t refering to apathy) in this thread. Perhaps you have done so under different threads and I didn’t see it.
Postmillenial reconstructionism doesn’t argue that Christians will or should dominate the culture except in terms of the census. It is God’s law that will dominate in our view and that only through evangelism. Further, postmillennial reconstructionism does anything but promote apathy. We just don’t take a “if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em” approach. We believe one day the law of God will dominate the hearts and actions of men the world over and it will do so when Christians quit compromising by yoking themselves with those who are in opposition to Christ. It will come when the peoples (including those of our own nation) see the wisdom and understanding of the Law of God and think to themselves, “Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people. For what great nation is there that has a god so near to it as the Lord our God is to us, whenever we call upon him? And what great nation is there, that has statutes and rules so righteous as all this law…” Of course, if we continue to yoke ourselves with those who disdain the Law of God for the purpose of political expediency and a fleeting influence that is here today and gone tomorrow because it is built upon the sand, then the peoples have nothing to see and our promised hope will wait for a more penitent and faithful generation.
I don’t think MRB’s eschatology is to blame here. Of course, I don’t see MRB’s failure to get excited about the rabbit in the hat trick a problem. He already knows that the rabbit was in the hat. It always has been, and as long as we keep going to see the same magician we can expect it to always be. He simply doesn’t get excited about the same old tricks and perhaps he can’t figure out why others still do. He’s simply suggesting that we not bother going to see the same magician anymore until he gets some new tricks…preferrably ones not based upon illusion. I’m guessing he probably doesn’t believe in Santa Claus anymore either.
Greg,
I am not defending pragmatism as the essential measure of something’s meaning or value; I am just saying that being practical is not bad, as long as it doesn’t go against the scripture. I am not regarding it as higher than God’s law by any means. I would vote for the Christian in your example.
As far as the GOP being full of Christians, I am not saying that the majority of Republicans are Christians, but I would venture to say that most Christians are conservative, and thus vote conservatively, which means Republican in many if not most cases. Many of these conservative Christians are probably even Republicans. So, I still think we are better off trying to gain ground where we already have some than to start from scratch. I don’t think it is fair to cast off the whole party because it is not entirely Christian. Can we not join with like-minded individuals, if only on certain issues, to accomplish the desired results? We don’t have to bend our morals to do this; there is nothing inherently wrong, so long as we do not conform to their standards to accomplish the desired ends, which would be doing evil that good may result.
I follow and agree with much of your logic. But where there are Christians in the GOP (or just conservative Christians who support the conservative side of legislation on moral issues), there are people trying to accomplish good in the name of Christ. The GOP is more Christian than the Democratic Party because of the Christians in it; the party is no greater than its members. Even if the GOP does not always achieve the desired results, it is the party the fights against the liberals on the issues we care about. Liberal America hates Christianity.
Your analogy of joining the Mormons is misleading. Joining a religious cult and a political party have different ends in mind, and the former task is antithetical to its purpose.
The sense that I get from all of the gentlemen here who refuse to join with the GOP and other conservatives (I don’t care by what name, the common purpose is what counts here – in politics) is that you want neither to be of the world nor in it. I am anxious for Christ to return and reign too, but in the mean time, I do not see the evil in being pragmatic about protecting the unborn, protecting the family, and preserving the freedoms I hold dear. I do not advocate using evil means that good may result, only joining with other Christians, wherever they may be found (and like-minded non-Christians, if it can benefit the cause without evil being done). Is it not possible that we can be politically active in a God-honoring way and still be practical about achieving our desired ends?
Scott –
Pragmatism must be evaluated in terms of results. Give me two or three examples of how Republicans (which until this month have controlled all three branches of the federal gov’t for six years) have protected the unborn, protected the family and preserved the freedoms you hold dear. If you’re pressed for two or three, I’ll take just one.
In addition, show how these two or three “successes” negate or off-set the loss of freedoms and protections which have occured during the last six years.
If you can accomplish this, I will seriously consider your pragmatic argument. If not, will you seriously consider the possibility that you have been played for a stooge?
Wow. I’ve enjoyed Mike’s article and the lively debate. Another thought: We’re in the midst of God’s judgement. Not that He is going to judge us – He is judging us, the instrument He’s using is our rulers. The Republican Party isn’t going to make any difference whatsoever, in fact, I believe its part of that same instrument. It’s the church that doesn’t get it. When we jump on the bandwagon of the Republican Party it demonstrates how little the Church really gets it.
I’m postmil and in the long run optomistic but in the shortrun pesimistic. If we look generationally at the equation, we may have several generation of rebuilding before we can affect a change.
if its going to take judgement before Christians “get it” albeit painful, let it come. In the meantime I’m with Mike, it’s at least interesting to snipe from the sidelines and work on the main thing – the Church.
Are you suggesting that people with your attitude have accomplished more?
Since it seems that you are so anti-Republican, I have trouble believing that you will view anything accomplished by Republicans to be any good. You would throw out the whole batch for any fault you could find.
Who do you think was standing up for marriage when it was an issue in various states? Who do you think backed the Federal Marriage Amendment? Where initiatives failed, was the whole party at fault? You cast out the whole group for the failings of the few.
Being practical does not guarantee success, it only increases the chances of it. Past failures are evidence that we need to do more, not less.
The path you propose (your small step to a different and better course for the nation) just seems toothless and impotent. I am confident that your views will remain in the minority among Christians (although I think you are a great example of how democrats want Christians to begin thinking – divide and conquer, right?).
I am sure that I will end up a stooge one way or another, but I hope it isn’t for giving up or not even trying.
Yep, I’m saying people with my attitude have accomplished more because we’re focusing on the real problem – the church of which the gates of hell will not prevail against. That’s not small or toothless or impotent. It is God’s plan to rule with power and authority. The church is (or at least will be some day) what the world was intended to be.
I don’t advocate not trying but the real issue is not what laws pass or don’t pass, whether it comes through the Democrat Party or the War Party (I like that metaphore). Focusing our efforts on a political party is just what I think the devil would prefer – one step forward, two back – ultimately though you’re going the wrong direction. It seems to me that an unbiased observer would view current political solutions in this way.
Our country worships Ceasar. We look to the State for every solution but really the church is the key. If the foundation of your home has eroded, the immediate concern is not the leak in the roof, though the leak in the roof will need to be attended to at some point.
As you’ve indicated, sooner or later (probably sooner) you’re a stooge. You’re trying in the wrong place.
Thanks, KKitchens, but my comment was for MRB. I should have specified.
But since you called me a stooge, I will defend myself. :) I agree with your comments about the church, and my political involvement is not at the expense of church involvement, support, activity, etc. So yes, the church is a good thing to focus on, but I can still try to use political means to try to accomplish desired ends, whether it be protecting the unborn, marriage, whatever. So, while I may be a stooge, I won’t let you call me that for neglecting to focus on the church.
Well, then I give your non-sequitur right back because the premise that Christianity will spread throughout culture does not imply that Christian activism has nothing to do with that spread. (This was actually the point of my Dispy analogy)
I never said that Christian activism has nothing to do with that spread so now it seems that you’re using a straw man argument.
I believe Mr. Butler has proved your own point (eschatology affects one’s actions). His theonomic ethics and libertarianism have led him to basically give up… I mean, seriously, he says he’d rather vote for Hillary?! Sounds like he’s more interested in merely annoying Republicans than actually doing his country a service by voting. Hillary is an idiot and he as a libertarian should know that full well.
By the way if you want to put something in italics use the HTML tags for italics around whatever text you want to italicize.
Razz –
1. Where did I say I would rather vote for Hillary?
2. Exactly how is voting “doing my country a service”?
3. Libertarian or not, I realize who Hillary is. I would not use the word idiot, but there are probably other pejoratives that we could agree on.
4. I am not a libertarian .
Scott,
I would encourage you to continue in your political activism in so far as it is truly Christian. I think our point is that identifying with the GOP because it is the “Christian Party” or the “more Christian party” or the one closest to us Christians party”, or whatever you want to call it is problematic. To insist that it is the one that upholds Christian values is quite absurd. To suggest that it has fought for the lives of the unborn is rediculous in light of the fact that they have done no such thing. They do not attack Roe v. Wade (even when they control the whole stinkin’ government), and then hide behind the notion that it wasn’t the right time yet. If the GOP is even remotely Christian, when will the right time be for obedience.
You suggested that the GOP is the party that fights against the liberals on the issues we care about. We have already pointed out that they do not care a lick about overturning abortion (for what other bone would they throw us Christians at election time), as they have not even lifted a finger against Roe v. Wade and the last two Supreme Court nominees (which so many evangelicals had longed for as our salvation) each explicitly stated that they would not allow their personal beliefs to get in the way of their upholding the laws of the land. We have a supposedly Christian president with two opportunities to hand pick what have become these days instant legislators and he gives us two guys that assure us they will not let their supposed commitment to Christ get in the way of their commitment to the will of the people (or whomever they need to please to obtain office).
Further, you’ve got it all wrong. The democrats are not liberal; they are socialist. Yesterday’s liberals are what we call conservatives today, and they are who make up the movers and shakers of the Republican Party. Getting that stright will keep you from thinking the democrats are the only ones who hate Christianity. The GOP hates Christ and his law as much as the democrats. We’ve already been over the fact that people claiming to be Christians in the Republican Party does not make the Party itself Christian. There are plenty of democrats who CLAIM to be Christians too. As MRB suggested long ago in this sequence of comments, it is not what they say, but what they do. My question would simply be, what have the Republicans done to show they are closest to our values? Is it the murders they’ve committed by thrusting men (and women no less) into unjust wars? Is it their massive growth of every facet of government? Is it the stealing of our liberties? Perhaps it is the bearing of false witness as it uses evangelicals for the sole purpose of propping up its own voting base. Maybe it is the coveting of worldwide power and jurisdiction where it has been given none or the vain use of God’s name as it presents itself as the party of Christian values. This could go on and on.
Be politically active all you want. We need godly people in every realm. But remember that political activism for its own sake or for the sake of saying that you at least did something is just busyness. And synchronizing with the doubleminded cannot be profitable. At this point in our history, faithfulness in the political realm isn’t going to come with many victories, and this generation ain’t likely to see it turn around, but I’d gladly give up political expediency and temporary influence if it meant, in light of our unwillingness to compromise, the Lord might raise up Godly judges in my childrens’ generation. However, that means we quit trying to make alliances with those who oppose Christ and take whatever lumps come with calling the world (including the GOP) to kiss the Son.
Greg,
I appreciate your comments inasmuch as you encourage Christian political activism. At the base, this is all I really ask of other Christians as well. I would also ask, though, that even if you cast out the GOP as evil, keep it in mind as the lesser of two evils. If that’s all we’ve got, then that’s all we’ve got (I’ve not meant to portray it the GOP as holy in any sense, as you mentioned, only closer to Christian values). I sense that one of the differences between myself and other Christians who write here is the level of trust in politicians. While mine is admittedly low, I think the general mindset here is that if a politician says it, it must be a lie. Okay, sometimes I might echo that sentiment as well! I believe much of what was said about the timing being off and other political maneuvering surrounding the overturning of Roe vs. Wade, which allows me to continue believing that there are those in the party who genuinely want to overturn it. I am not blind to the fact that politics is dirty business, but it is what it is, and if I can do something, anything, to try to affect change, I will try – and this you encourage me to do. Likewise. I encourage Christian unity in the public arena and real effort to promote any good that we can. It’s a better witness to the world (if nothing else) than poor attitudes, pacifism, apathy, leaving the abuser, or whatever one wants to call it. We could continue to knead out the details, but we’re apparently not going to agree. If you ever happen to see Republicans or another group of Christians actually doing something good, please join them. I will too.
Scott,
I’ve already hinted I’m not a “lesser of two evils” kind of thinker, and I would encourage you to look back at the reformation. I don’t know your theological persuasion, but I am quite thankful that I do not languish in the darkness of Popery all because some really committed brothers of mine finally decided that the lesser of all evils was not good enough and they gave up everything to hold fast to what was good and true. If we continue to say, “well, that’s all there is so we might as well make the best of it,” then that’s all there will ever be. Every great reformation from the Old Testament on started when the people of God finally stood up and said, “that’s enough; no more broken cisterns; the status quo will not due.” The church can be politically active and our voice ought to be heard, but our voice ought to be, “pox on both your houses; we’re not supporting or siding with either of you, and unless you both (republicans & democrats) repent, you will each likewise perish. We don’t have to settle for the lesser of two evils. It’ll cost us our coveted influence in the short term, but it will bring God’s covenant blessings in the long term, and that’s what we’re shooting for, always and only.
As for myself, I can’t see the moral difference between either of the two major parties, and therefore my political activism will consist only of whatever I can do to be apart of a wholesale change, and that is govern myself according to the Law of God and teach my household to do the same, and maybe, just maybe, the Lord will see fit to remove the tyrrants that rule over me now. If not, then maybe he’ll see fit to remove them for my children.
Greg,
I really do appreciate your sentiments. Neither am I a “lesser of two evils” kind of thinker on matters of faith. Holding pagan politicians to holy standards is like throwing pearls before swine. But by God’s help, we can use the swine for something good. If Christians only said “repent or parish” to our government, they would parish, and we would have done less than we could have to ‘care for orphans and widows in their distress’.
There is a real moral difference between the parties because of the composition. There are many Christian Republicans. So if not seeing the difference is your reason for neglecting to join with us, just look, we’re right here. Don’t abandon us because we are not strong enough, help make us stronger.