Two-Kingdom W— V— in Iowa

Published on by D. G. Hart

Mikelmann has been on a roll lately as the GOP hopefuls have rolled through Iowa. The inconsistencies that evangelical faith and w— v— convictions place upon Iowa’s citizens and the Republican’s candidates is indeed staggering. It even shows how faith-based political engagement is seriously hurting the integrity of Christ’s followers. But apparently the stakes in the greatest nation on God’s green earth are higher than those of kingdom of grace.

I draw attention to two particular posts. In the first, MM comments on the danger of divided political loyalties (as if the Republican candidates differ all that much) dividing the church:

After the election there will likely be groaning about how the evangelical vote broke up. But mourn not; it’s not always a bad thing to break up. Think of it as an opportunity. Think of it as an opportunity to see that there is no one way for a Christian to vote. Think of it as an opportunity to realize that looking at candidates from an alleged biblical worldview does not inexorably lead to one candidate or another. Maybe selecting political leaders isn’t the same as selecting church leaders. And for those who, like Michele Bachmann, want more political speech in the church maybe it’s a good demonstration of how folks get politically divided and a reminder that we shouldn’t bring that division into the church. Because breaking up a church over politics would be a bad thing.

In the second, MM observes the inadequacies of w—- v—-ism for finding the right candidate:

People who call themselves Evangelicals tend to have a bit of a bandwagon mentality – in part because of their self-perception of belonging under the Evangelical tent – and they may have hopped on board the Worldview Express with the general idea of living Christianly when, really, the worldview commitment is more specific and theologically loaded than that. . . .

The fault isn’t with the voters; it’s with worldview. What does worldview say about federal enforcement vs. state enforcement of marriage and abortion? What does it say about immigration? Does it tell us whether Iran should have nuclear weapons? Subsidies for ethanol? Tax reform? The answers are “nothing” and “no.”

Meanwhile, evangelical parachurch leaders are busily engaged in discussions to find a candidate who is not a Mormon. The last I checked, the U.S. Constitution forbade any religious tests for holding public office. Granted, the Constitution also grants citizens the freedom to use religious tests to oppose candidates. But the flip side of that freedom is the embarrassment to which Christian Americans are entitled when they observe such folly. If you don’t care for Romney’s policies or even his persona, fine. Don’t support him. But don’t use religion as an excuse to oppose the Mormon and then find reasons to support the divorced Roman Catholic. (Such hypocrisy is moving me to support Romney and even to feel a Chris Matthews tingle in my leg at the thought of the nation’s first Protestant president.)

58 thoughts on “Two-Kingdom W— V— in Iowa”

  2. DGH,

    I never figured you to be a protest voter… could leaning toward Romney be about the same as Alex P. Keaton’s eschewing of his parents liberal leanings for a Nixonian brand of Republican politics? Just wondering.

    MM brings up some great points here, so long as the indefinable evangelicals are considered a demographic or a monolithic voting block we are going to see all of this unnecessary rhetoric seeking to discover who is the most spiritually acceptable candidate.

    Another thought here, wouldn’t Romney, given his track record for changing his position on important issues be wise to flip-flop on his religion for the sake of electability? If Romney were an evangelical, heck even a Protestant of any moderately conservative stripe I think he’d be running away with the race by now.

    Like

  3. Jed, w— v— makes me do strange things. I’m a victim.

    But I do think Romney is qualified to be president. Imagine that. (Or should I say w— v— that!)

    Like

  4. What? The next thing you will be telling me is that it’s ok for me to cheer against T-bow and his public displays of Arminianism? If being a Tom Brady fan is a sign of not having a consistent “evangelical” wv, then all I can say is—-go New England!

    “No wonder people are concerned about evangelicals, if we tell teenagers that there are only six categories of people, and if you know what they are, then you can understand the whole world.”

    “A worldview framework that can help the good guys identify false ideas can quickly become a categorize-and-dismiss system—an easy way for to put the guys in black hates in a box and ignore what they have to say, all in the name of love.”

    Like

  5. “so long as indefinable evangelicals are considered a demographic or a monolithic voting block we are going to see all of this unnecessary rhetoric seeking to discover who is the most spiritually acceptable candidate.”
    Jed, I’m starting to use the word “politico-evangelical” to describe self-proclaimed evangelicals in the political realm. Anyway, 37% of them reportedly went to Santorum with the other candidates far behind. Lest we be confused by the fact that he is Roman Catholic, his campaign was tailored to win the politico-evangelical vote as he pushed their hot buttons and emoted when evangelically appropriate. The fact that he home-schools also helped.

    Like

  6. DGH,

    It seems curious to me that you would describe Romney as qualified. I agree that his Mormon beliefs do not disqualify him to be president. But from a 2K perspective, his perpetual inability to administer justice equally to all men (that is, his record) would, I think, disqualify him.

    Like

  7. Ben, do you have a 2k guide to the candidates and which ones come closest to administering justice to ALL MEN? Has that ever been the standard for American politicians? Is it really a 2k standard?

    Like

  8. DGH,

    But I do think Romney is qualified to be president. Imagine that. (Or should I say w— v— that!)

    This is where all of that 2k tolerance becomes nothing if not inconvenient, since I have absolved all conscience-coercive powers of w___v____ism and never would have been a good theonomist like our friend and interlocutor Ben. Moreover, since the Lord hasn’t recently spoken to me on the topic of which canndidate he endorse, I’ll just ask, really?!?! Between your approval of Romney and MM’s approval of Palin, we might see a GOP nomination that could often be confused for a Ken and Barbie advertising campaign. Albeit a campaign that would probably opt for more wars of aggression like Iran, and would look a lot like the Democratic alternative except with a folksy evangelical-mormon, Red state brand of enormous government which basically means more guns and less butter, but about the same value on the federal balance sheet at the end of the day.

    The last thing we need to see next year is you channeling the Dude, railing on about the “unchecked aggression” of our own gov’t towards say Iran, and the tacit evangelical and w___v____ approval of it….I know, I know, my vote for Ron Paul slip is showing again.

    Like

  9. Jed, I’m not so sure Palin is qualified in that new hairdo. And that oddly reminds me of Ron Paul’s visit to my daughter’s high school. You may know that he’s quite popular in that age group, so I asked my daughter why. She thought it was his anti-war statements and the fact that the kids think “he’s kinda of a cute little old man.” Not cute like Palin, but cute like “E.T.”

    Like

  10. MM,

    I’m starting to use the word “politico-evangelical” to describe self-proclaimed evangelicals in the political realm. Anyway, 37% of them reportedly went to Santorum with the other candidates far behind. Lest we be confused by the fact that he is Roman Catholic, his campaign was tailored to win the politico-evangelical vote as he pushed their hot buttons and emoted when evangelically appropriate. The fact that he home-schools also helped.

    I am in agreement with your observation, but I wonder about the terminology here, even though we could quip forever on defining the “evangelical” voting block. The fact of the matter is the conservative voting block seems to span major confessional (or anti-confessional), lines here, heck it even spans major Religions. Conservative protestants and Roman Catholics are often voting allies, along with conservative Jews. I am really enjoying DGH’s analysis in Graham to Palin on this. In Iowa the religious conservative vote definitely takes on a midwestern evangelical flavor, but for a national definition this GOP base could be “Religious-Conservatives-Who-Prefer-Protestants-First-Catholics-Second-Jews Third-and-Mormons-Only-When-We-Have-No-Better-Electable-Alternatives”. This seems to be a strange amalgam of the Moral Majority, Evangelical’s and Catholics Together and all other quasi-ecumenical conservative political cooperations. Frankly it’s bizarre, especially if we are supposed to use w___v___ to distill a dogmatic opinion of who is the best candidate.

    I am not sure why voters of any stripe are not just comfortable in conceding that the voting process always entails approximations of who best embodies our civic, and for those so inclined, spiritual ideals. Only in a homogenous society will compromise be minimized, in a plural one like our own it will always be present, unless you just don’t vote.

    Like

  12. Jed, we all know MM has a crush on SP. I reserve my man crush for Kenneth Branagh (for now, though a dose of Larry Sanders over the weekend has Gary Shandling rising in my affections).

    Like

  13. Darryl,

    As a professed 2K-er, I believe that the biblical role of the civil magistrate is to administer justice to all people (with justice being defined as punishing those who infringe upon the rights of another person) without promoting one religion over another or legislating morality (defined as those actions that do not infringe upon another person’s rights, but which happen to be disliked by a particular group of people; take for example, smoking).

    My point was that while Romney’s religious beliefs do not necessarily hinder his ability to perform such a role (and ought not to be the basis on which we support or oppose him for president of a secular, pluralistic state), his past record and his professed views indicate that he either doesn’t understand or is unwilling to accept this fundamental duty of one who serves in a magisterial capacity.

    Like

  14. Or, to put it a bit more bluntly, Romney advocates policies that go far beyond the administration of justice and actually involve the exact opposite – the administration of injustice, in which one man’s resources are taken by force and transferred to another.

    I guess I’m just surprised a bit. Given the 2K emphasis on *not* having the magistrate enforce God’s law on unbelievers, and the denial that we should only vote for “Christian” politicians, I would expect that we would be a bit more attuned to recognizing those politicians who *do* advocate that which we believe the Bible tells us the magistrate is supposed to do: namely, administer justice and nothing else. To my knowledge, Ron Paul is the only candidate who has made any claim similar to this point (whether you happen to agree with him or not). Romney seems to be advocating positions that go far beyond what the 2K position would argue is the proper role for a magistrate in a pluralistic state.

    Like

  15. Ben, isn’t the standard of administering justice equally to all men (yeow!) more of a postmil worldview-y standard than amil 2k-ish? So I am still wondering why you think Romney’s inability to bring his alleged future powers of deity to bear on his earthly vocation should find 2k sympathy. I thought 2kers liked underdogs.

    Like

  17. Ben,

    To borrow a couple questions… whose justice? which rationality?

    The pushback you are getting here is that your particular conception of justice is at odds with your professed 2kism.

    Hope that helps,
    John

    Like

  18. “The last thing we need to see next year is you channeling the Dude, railing on about the “unchecked aggression” of our own gov’t towards say Iran, and the tacit evangelical and w___v____ approval of it….I know, I know, my vote for Ron Paul slip is showing again.”

    Jed, perhaps the Dude is precisely the politician we need. If Darryl can channel the dude, I would endorse that, possibly even put it on a Jesus fish sticker on my car.

    Like

  19. Ben, how exactly is Romney any more guilty of tolerating or implementing injustice than any other politician? But then again, isn’t Nero the standard?

    Like

  22. Jed – “The fact of the matter is the conservative voting block seems to span major confessional (or anti-confessional), lines here, heck it even spans major Religions.”

    But Darryl’s “Sarah Palin, etc.” helpfully makes the point that the politico-evangelicals aren’t conservatives. “Conservative” is Russell Kirk and William F. Buckley. The politico-evangelicals vote according to a small number of litmus tests, and don’t really have a coherent political or constitutional philosophy. They bewail feds taking over abortion rights but then want federal action on abortion and marriage (hello, Rick Santorum). Judges who reach the “wrong” result are activists but judges who reach the “right” result in an activist way would be applauded. Some look suspiciously at Ron Paul for having a commitment to constitutional structure. Etc. They just happen to have an end-game with more in common with conservatives than liberals.

    Like

  24. Hart,

    You forgot to mention Pope Vander Plats endorsed Santorum. Why would Reformed people have more of a problem with Mormons than Romanists? Both religions believe their leader gets direct revelation from God. Steve Hays over at Triablogue has devoted his time to bashing Paul and kissing the holy ring of Santorum.

    Santorum is free to run on a platform of a return of the Holy Roman Empire but how Reformed pundits with any historical sense could back this platform is beyond me. This goes beyond W — V — straight into Statism. Vander Plats and Hays have no business calling themselves Reformed in any true sense of the word.

    Like

  25. D.G.,

    Could it be said on the basis of what the presidency entails, all of the GOP candidates are qualified (minus Bachman’s hysterics)? Certainly if Barry Obama was qualified than Newt Gingrich is? No, I am not supporting the grey-haired rebel rouser. I just cannot vote for Romney – not because he isn’t Christian or because he is a mormon – but because he is not a classical liberal. As destructive as evangelicals and their life and world ____ is to an informed thinking on matters of U.S. polity; it doesn’t follow that a protest vote should be handed to Romney just because he irratates evangelicals (the enemy of my enemy is my … Ah … Friend).

    On the basis of ideological considerations – if one believes in individual sovereignty ( in a penultimate sense) state rights, personal choice, the radical reduction of executive and legislative statism over the individual American – and the reduction of the statist’s paternalistic overreach into American private life, then Mitt Romney is the wrong candidate for classical liberals/libertarians.

    There is a sonerous jingle going down within conservative circles to support Romney. And it expresses quite a bit of sardonic overtones, that in Romney, conservatives are voting for muc what they oppose on ideological and Constitutional grounds.

    But I suppose no one cares. And thank our LORD the Kingdom of God is far more important than the state and the temporal polis.

    Like

  28. Zrim/John,

    When I speak of “justice” I’m referring to civil justice, as in civil protection, not unlike that which was afforded to Cain and his offspring (and by extension to all mankind, both believers and nonbelievers). I’m essentially advocating Machen’s classic liberal position, which is very similar to the position Frederic Bastiat presents in “The Law”.

    Like

  30. Darryl, if you have to ask then I’m not sure about your inner Dude. I mean, this isn’t ‘Nam, it’s bowling, there are rules.

    Like

  31. Ben, so you want a leader to be able to administer civil justice equally to all men? I don’t see how this helps. It still seems like you’re demanding a man to afford other men what God afforded Cain. Doesn’t that strike you as a little wonky…since men aren’t God, I mean?

    Like

  32. MM,

    I can see how DGH makes the claim, I just haven’t read far enough to see him unpack it in Graham/Palin. Historically speaking he is right, there is a very real sense in which evangelicals aren’t conservative, at least of the political/paleo category. However, the same argument can be made of the GOP in general which has been overrun by neo-con’s.

    I haven’t read anywhere where you have self-identified yourself as a paleo-conservative so I don’t want to assume here. But in the interests of the playful jabs at you and DGH, I would say that both Palin and Romney fit the neo-con mold much more than they do the paleo. Paul however fits much more in line within the older strands of political conservatism – obviously of a libertarian flavor. Now, one need not support the bulk of a candidate’s ideology to vote for him, as “Whether or not I agree with him, I think he will do well as a President” is to me a sufficient reason to vote, so I am not knocking the validity of the approach. But having read your writing and having followed DGH now for a couple of years I can’t help but think that there is something other than a convergence of political ideology in your respective preferencess in this race. I tend to vote more in line with my political ideology (libertarianism) when possible, but I have voted for canditates at least 4 (counting independent) parties, so I get when ideology isn’t entirely informing the decision.

    Like

  33. Jed, no doubt, Romney is not paleo and Paul is more so. But after 1865, my interest in U.S. political candidates is like following the NFL playoffs with my team at home in the living room.

    Like

  34. Interesting analogy of watching sports and watching politicians. The politicians seem to have a lot of self confidence, but most of them don’t seem to have very professional skills. I watch “evangelical” historians talk and write about “evangelicals”, and I remember that the historians do this for a living. But you don’t have to be a Muslim in Indonesia to write Muslim history in Indonesia.

    Exiles know that they are not in charge of the place, so no need to ask them now what they would do if they were in charge. At least I think that most paleo-conservatives (Bill Kaufman!) know that they have never been in charge.

    mcmark

    We don’t need to do what we think God would do if God were here and in charge
    God is here, God is in charge.

    Like

  35. Jed P;

    Is there an assumption that the GOP is a conservative minded political party? And has it consistently been conservative historically? You write that the current GOP is chalked full of Neo-cons – please define Neo-con for me, please. For many generations those whom identified with classical liberal principals and the inherent individual diversity this welcomed, voted Democrat. And Theodore Roosevelt’s progressive march and popular form of Republicanism was not classically liberal. With Woodrow Wilson and FDR; progressvism was firmly married to the Democrat Party; but truth be told both parties have done a hot potatoe act with policies which summit statist presumptions and utopian bilge about the nature of government.

    Truth be told, the GOP is a statist-lite party in the wake of an increasingly hard statist Democrat Party. While classical liberals – from the paleo variety to the Consquencialist Libertarian vareity – have better chances, electorally speaking, within the GOP – that certainly does not mean the party itself is classically liberal or has been for any considerable length of time. The rise of the religious confirms an identity much more with progressive affinities than those of the classical liberal free minds, free markets, philosophy. Professor Hart is of course razor sharp in his estimation that many evangelicals are not classically liberal, that is conservative, but adhere much more to the unconstrained vision of progressive leftism. Dr Thomas Sowell is helpful here in understanding the difference between the uncontrained vision of the left and the constrained vision of classical liberalism as it related to humankind and is explicitly adhered to in the U.S. Constitution.

    Like

  38. Interesting new essay in new WTJ (73:2) by Jonathan Beeke, “Was There a Time when the Two kingdoms were one?”. He travels from William Ockam (nominalism!, arbitrary positive laws) to the two swords to Karl Barth (“a Lutheran breathing space for german paganism”)

    I was glad to see in the new journal a follow-up essay by DVD to “The law is Not Of Faith”. He notices that the book has been at once criticized as “antinomian” (Venema) and “semi-Pelagian”. I found DVD very helpful this time on Romans 6:14. “How could not being under the Mosaic law have anything to do with one’s justification?” (p322).

    DVD’s good answer: “Justification is indeed ultimately not about whether a person is under the Mosaic law as a member of corporate Israel, but about whether a person is under the federal headship of the first Adam or the last Adam. But insofar as one of the chief divine purposes for the Mosaic law was to cause OT Israel to recapitulate Adam’s probation and fall, being under the Mosaic law was a profound illustration of the plight of humanity under the first Adam.”

    Read the essay “Israel’s Recapitulation of Adam’s Probation”

    Like

  39. David,

    I agree with many of your points about the relationship between conservatism and the GOP, however the modern resurgence of conservatism did take place within or influenced currents of the GOP with figures such as Goldwater and Buckley and others. To deny conservatism has nothing to do with the GOP is a bit much though, and I don’t think it can be substantiated. The fact is the GOP is not a monochromatic party, as the current primaries show with a strong showing by Ron Paul. If a fuller-orbed expression of historic conservatism exists in the GOP today, then why argue as if it never was present.

    “Republican” and “Democrat” as labels tend to obscure as much as “Evangelical” does. The fact is one must always qualify what sort of “Republican” they are and sames for Dems. Something in American culture seems to cause major cultural phenomena (such as politics) tend to centralize, then polarize around only a few options, essentially lumping everyone in the same basket, even if the basket they are lumped in is an odd fit. It would be better if big government, pro war GOPers (ie: neo-cons) and small government, fiscal conservatives could part ways, but as long as the GOP exists, they need each other to get elected over the larger democratic party. The two-party system definitely doesn’t help bring homogeneity to the respective ideologies that comprise each respective party.

    Like

  40. DGH,

    Fair enough, but I am a little surprised at that perspective given how much you write on Christianity’s (esp. Reformed and Evangelical Christianity) relationship to politics.

    Like

  42. Jed, not to claim victimhood, but I believe the Religious Right forced me to think more seriously about politics. If you’re going to understand contemporary evangelicalism, you need to account for the politics.

    BTW, I’m still registered Anti-Federalist.

    Like

  43. Mark,

    Read the essay “Israel’s Recapitulation of Adam’s Probation”

    Wow, I’m salivating to get my hands on that esay. Maybe I’ll finally have to subscribe to the WTJ. I can’t for the life of me figure out why so many are unwilling to speak of law and grace in redemptive historical terms (Moses/Christ) and not just in ordo salutis terms (Adam/Christ).

    Like

  44. Darryl,

    I read the Federalist Papers a long time ago but am a bit rusty on what the main debates and issues were all about. If I remember correctly, Alexander Hamilton was the most vocal proponent of Federalism where John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were the most vocal Anti-Federalists. George Washington kind of the played the mediatorial role in trying to hold the nation together. The Federalists wanted a big central bank and more power for the Federal Government but the Aniti-Federalists wanted more power for the the state governments for fear of too much consolidated power. Is that the gist of the issues and debates or was there more to it? Would you mind summarizing the differences?

    Like

  45. Mr Jed

    My point was not to say conservstism was not part of the GOP – it was that the GOP’s own history cannot be portrayed as wholly conservative. Not a hundred years ago and not recently either. Reagan was hated by the GOP establishment and rebuked by most all country-club republican typed until he won. As soon as Reagan was gone, however, it was back to mainstream GOP-dom with Bush Sr and the nomination of Dole in 1996. With the rise of the religious right, however, a Buckley-Goldwater conservstism – which was essentially a Consequencialist libertarianism in the vain of Milton Friedman – conservatism of the paleo-Consquencialist libertarian vareity was obscured, in favor of the current pop conservative expression – a populist and progressive vision in many ways – which fails to capture the essential nature of classical liberalism, that is conservstism, which is a large reason for Ron Paul’s ascendancy to greater electorally victory, in 2011-2012; at least in primary settings. D.G. Hart got to the point on this in A Secular Faith and his newest book, in that he shows quite profoundly that religious righters positioned themselves and expressed a so-called conservatism far different than that expressed by Goldwater or Buckley. Further, the Cato Institute supported Goldwater, Buckley, and early Reagan conservstism until it was taken over by the religious right and moral majorities “moral progressivism. Thus, The evangelical religious right Big Government conservatism has failed in the eyes of many voters – young and old – consequently, Dr Paul has invigorated these folks with a consistent classical liberalism, especially on domestic issues.

    You are correct that most conservative candidates will look at the GOP as the vessel to run in fsr more than the Democrat Party, but that is simply a result of the Dem’s hard and fast slip into radical leftist progressivism. Still, my entire point was wondering how D.G. Hart – renowned paleo-conservative/anti-federalist can flirt with supporting Romney?

    Just becsuse evangelicals don’t like him. While I certainly disagree with faith-based politics; believing they have not only hurt true classical liberal polemics and policy discussions, but also seriously undermined the institution of the Church and the faith; I am certainly not going to vote for Romney because evangelicals do not like him.

    I will not vote for Romney because I am not convinced by reason or Romney’s record he will dismantle federal encroachment on regulations, markets, and personal choice. Nor do I think he return power to the states or take a razor blade to the paternalistic nonsense of the Federal Government. And the problem is other than Ron Paul, no other candidate will. And that is the problem because it should be the first priority of agenda for a candidate who considers himself truly classically liberal.

    Like

  46. John Y., that’s about it. The way I read the papers, the Federalists were really nationalists, and the anti-federalists were the true Federalists. But whom are you going to believe?

    Like

  47. David, I am not ideological about voting. Paleo-conservatives don’t have many choices. But given the state of the economy (which I would prefer to be agrarian — as long as it allowed me to blog), and given the state of the federal government (which I would prefer to be the size of Harrisburg, Pa.’s bureaucracy — as long as I eventually get my social security checks), I wouldn’t mind seeing what a businessy wonky Republican can do.

    Like

  48. Did DGH ever claim to be “classically liberal”? I would think he has more in common with Russell Kirk than with laissez-faire individualism–you know, I think he likes that Bill Buckley “”organic” stuff.

    see Gillis Harp, “The Liberal Captivity of American Evangelicalism”, Christian Scholars Review, Fall 2011

    That stuff makes me glad to be an individualist. Crony capitalism thrives in that “organic” environment, and Philip Blond won’t make it go away.
    .

    Like

  50. Russel Kirk’s six “canons” of conservatism. 1) “Belief in a body of natural law,which rules society as well as conscience.” 2) “Affection for the proliferating variety and mystery of human existence, as opposed to the narrowing uniformity and utilitarianism” 3) The “conviction that civilized society requires classes.” 4) “Freedom and property are closely linked.” 5) “Faith in custom and tradition, coupled with a distrust of economists.” 6) The idea that “hasty innovation may be a devouring conflagration, rather than a torch of progress.”

    Bruce Cockburn: “The trouble with normal is that it only gets worse.”

    Like

  51. Corey Robin, The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Sarah Palin: “Conservatism is the theoretical voice of animus against the agency of the subordinate classes. It provides the most consistent and profound argument as to why the lower orders should not be allowed to exercise their independent will, why they should not be allowed to govern themselves or the polity. Submission is their first duty, agency, the prerogative of the elite.”

    Like

  52. I wouldn’t mind seeing what a businessy wonky Republican can do.

    Hopefully avoid starting WW3. Truth be told, I think that war is on the horizon due to a mad dash for resources amongst developing nations, which is usually a major cause for how wars start anyway. With econ as one of my hobbies, I began to study resource depletion and the race for them a while back, and ten years ago I gave us 30 years till the next major global conflict, by those counts we should all have another 20 years…trust me, I know these things. Any gov’t agencies reading this blog are free to hire me out at $500/hr consulting fees can contact me at any time.

    Like

  54. MarkMc-

    As far as Kirk is conerned, I agree with 1,2,and 4. 3 will happen regardless. 4 &5 are out.

    The Corey Robins quote is too elitist. That’s are current problem.

    Like

  56. Read this review essay. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/08/books/review/the-anointed-evangelical-truth-in-a-secular-age-by-randall-j-stephens-and-karl-w-giberson-book-review.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref

    “evangelicals’ commitment to applying the “Christian worldview” to every dimension of life has led young people to “reflect on their deepest beliefs” in a manner that “lacks a secular counterpart,” Stephens and Giberson write. … For all evangelicals’ supposed disdain for secular academia, it is telling that their favorite guru is not an undereducated quack, but a thinker that “The Anointed” mentions only in passing: C. S. Lewis. American evangelicals adore Lewis because he was an Oxford don who defended the faith in a plummy English accent, thus proving that one could be a
    respected intellectual and a Christian too. The “parallel culture” that “The Anointed” vividly describes, then, is not a bald rejection of Enlightenment reason….”

    Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.