Comments on: The Evangelicals Screwed Up! http://mikebrandes.com/2008/12/12/the-evangelicals-screwed-up/ Sat, 14 Aug 2010 18:16:27 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: John Lofton, Recovering Republican http://mikebrandes.com/2008/12/12/the-evangelicals-screwed-up/#comment-17 John Lofton, Recovering Republican Mon, 15 Dec 2008 03:56:37 +0000 http://mikebrandes.wordpress.com/?p=141#comment-17 Forget "conservatism," please. It has been Godless and thus irrelevant. As Stonewall Jackson's Chief of Staff R.L. Dabney said of such a humanistic belief more than 100 years ago: "[Secular conservatism] is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today .one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt bath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It .is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth." Our country is collapsing because we have turned our back on God (Psalm 9:17) and refused to kiss His Son (Psalm 2). John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com Recovering Republican JLof@aol.com Forget “conservatism,” please. It has been Godless and thus irrelevant. As Stonewall Jackson’s Chief of Staff R.L. Dabney said of such a humanistic belief more than 100 years ago:

“[Secular conservatism] is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today .one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt bath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It .is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth.”

Our country is collapsing because we have turned our back on God (Psalm 9:17) and refused to kiss His Son (Psalm 2).

John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com
Recovering Republican
JLof@aol.com

]]> By: Phil Garber http://mikebrandes.com/2008/12/12/the-evangelicals-screwed-up/#comment-16 Phil Garber Sun, 14 Dec 2008 20:26:09 +0000 http://mikebrandes.wordpress.com/?p=141#comment-16 I have been thinking about this topic quite a bit lately. I just finished a paper on Just War Theory throughout the history of the church, and the way church-state relationships have impacted Christianity and the idea of Christendom over the years. I used to hold to the views of conservative Christians in America, supporting faith-based initiatives and close church-state relationships. After my research and reading on these topics, I tend to lean more towards the views of Anabaptists...maybe not quite as extreme...but I do believe that conservative Christians should re-evaluate their priorities and opinions when it comes to church and state relationships. We tend to view America as "the greatest gift God gave man on the face of the earth," as Sean Hanity claims. Paul in Romans says that we should submit to our governing authorities, but I do not think that means we should use the church as a form of political platform. The idea of Christendom is prevalent in American Christianity...a view that I believe is wrong. Being Patriotic is OK in my opinion, but equating America with God's Kingdom is over the top. I have been thinking about this topic quite a bit lately. I just finished a paper on Just War Theory throughout the history of the church, and the way church-state relationships have impacted Christianity and the idea of Christendom over the years. I used to hold to the views of conservative Christians in America, supporting faith-based initiatives and close church-state relationships. After my research and reading on these topics, I tend to lean more towards the views of Anabaptists…maybe not quite as extreme…but I do believe that conservative Christians should re-evaluate their priorities and opinions when it comes to church and state relationships. We tend to view America as “the greatest gift God gave man on the face of the earth,” as Sean Hanity claims. Paul in Romans says that we should submit to our governing authorities, but I do not think that means we should use the church as a form of political platform. The idea of Christendom is prevalent in American Christianity…a view that I believe is wrong. Being Patriotic is OK in my opinion, but equating America with God’s Kingdom is over the top.

]]> By: The Economy » Blog Archive » The Evangelicals Screwed Up! « Mike! Brandes http://mikebrandes.com/2008/12/12/the-evangelicals-screwed-up/#comment-15 The Economy » Blog Archive » The Evangelicals Screwed Up! « Mike! Brandes Sat, 13 Dec 2008 20:35:47 +0000 http://mikebrandes.wordpress.com/?p=141#comment-15 [...] The bias of the liberals could be that George W Bush had no political recourse for establishing these faith based initiative, but solely because he thought it was a good idea did he ignore congress ’ overwhelmingly negative vote and sign …[Continue Reading] [...] [...] The bias of the liberals could be that George W Bush had no political recourse for establishing these faith based initiative, but solely because he thought it was a good idea did he ignore congress ’ overwhelmingly negative vote and sign …[Continue Reading] [...]

]]>