personal trainer

"Saving" the GOP

Former US Senator John Danforth (R), who is also an Episcopal minister, fears the GOP is being hijacked by the religious conservative wing of the party.  He writes an op-ed in today's NYT that includes the following:

I do not fault religious people for political action. Since Moses confronted the pharaoh, faithful people have heard God's call to political involvement. Nor has political action been unique to conservative Christians. Religious liberals have been politically active in support of gay rights and against nuclear weapons and the death penalty. In America, everyone has the right to try to influence political issues, regardless of his religious motivations.

The problem is not with people or churches that are politically active. It is with a party that has gone so far in adopting a sectarian agenda that it has become the political extension of a religious movement (italics mine).

When government becomes the means of carrying out a religious program, it raises obvious questions under the First Amendment. But even in the absence of constitutional issues, a political party should resist identification with a religious movement. While religions are free to advocate for their own sectarian causes, the work of government and those who engage in it is to hold together as one people a very diverse country. At its best, religion can be a uniting influence, but in practice, nothing is more divisive. For politicians to advance the cause of one religious group is often to oppose the cause of another.

Does Danforth overstate his case, or are his fears grounded in reality?  Does this have anything to do with the movement in Ohio to recruit 2000 religious leaders to push the local GOP to the right?  Has the church overstepped its bounds, or is the party too open to religious influence?   

UPDATE:  Hugh Hewitt responds to Danforth.

Francis Schaeffer & George Bush

Marvin Olasky, of World Magazine, perceives the shadow of this Christian philosopher/theologian over the 2004 elections.  Here is an excerpt:

"Schaeffer died in 1984, at a time when some hard-line Christian separatists still looked down on political involvement as cavorting with Satan, and a few romantics yearned for the second track. Many evangelical thought leaders, though, had absorbed Schaeffer's teaching, which then trickled down to millions more. The result was political organization and pulpit exhortation that propelled evangelicals to the polls, where they overwhelmingly voted for conservative candidates, including George W. Bush. Karl Rove is one among many who said the evangelical vote made the difference."

I was under the impression the evangelical vote was as expected.

A Quote

Sent to me by a friend:  “No man who ever held the office of president would congratulate a friend on obtaining it" (John Adams).  Having just finished listening to Adams Versus Jefferson: The Tumultuous Election of 1800 by John Ferling, I understand Adam's remark.  Time tends to make these men seem immortal, but mere men they are, and in some cases perfect proof for the doctrine of total depravity. 

Here are the quotes of other president's on the office: 

Jefferson called the office “a splendid misery.”  Lincoln added: “If to be the head of Hell is as hard as what I have to undergo, I find it in my heart to pity Satan himself.”  Cleveland called it “self-inflicted penance.” Grant “never wanted to get out of a place as much as I did to get out of the presidency.”  Hayes called it a “life of bondage, responsibility and toil.”  Harding likened it to “a prison.”  Wilson said it required “the constitution of an athlete, the patience of a mother, the endurance of an early Christian.”  FDR called it “a goldfish bowl.” Truman said it was “like riding a tiger – a man has to keep riding or be swallowed.” Kennedy called its burdens “heavy and constant.” Johnson said it was “like a jackass standing alone in the middle of a field in a driving hailstorm – there's nothing he can do but stand there and take it.”  Nixon felt “isolated from the reality of American life.” Carter called it “a terrible experience.”  But Theodore Roosevelt said, “I don't think any president ever enjoyed himself more than I did.” 

Bush, Jefferson, and Original Sin

David Tucker, at No Left Turns, makes this interesting observation about the President's Second Inaugural:

"Perhaps the principal reason Jefferson believed so ardently in self-government is that he believed not at all in original sin. He therefore believed in a fundamental sense that freedom could not produce evil. As in other respects, this meant that Jefferson was at odds with traditional Christian teachings, which in varying degrees remained skeptical of natural man. Over time, most Protestant denominations in the United States in effect gave in to or accommodated Jeffersonianism. Holiness movements and the doctrine of sanctification accompanied the development of the view that when man reached moral perfection, then Christ would come again. In this perspective, it made sense to anticipate the end of tyranny on earth and to work ardently for that day, through Abolitionism and other movements of moral improvement. It was this theology and its political manifestations that, or so I was taught, Lincoln dissected and satirized in the Temperance Address. Lincoln did not think that it was possible to end tyranny in our world, that there would actually be a Reign of Reason. What does President Bush, an adherent it appears of the theology descended from holiness and sanctification, think? Clearly, remarks in the speech are intended to show some moderation, but the claims he makes are quite grand. He claims, for example, to know the direction of human history. He does not appear to speak with irony about this. (His new Secretary of State, in an article published before President Bush’s first election, claimed that the United States was on the right side of history.) If this is true, then Bush is really a follower of FDR (Bush spoke of freedom from want and fear) and of LBJ, more than a follower of Lincoln."

Now this is interesting analysis.  To what extent does Arminian-evangelical theology actually inform the President's speech?  Are these views representative of the President, his speech writer, or is it just the language of optimism into which we are guilty of reading some theological perspective?  Though I affirm the ideals of Bush's words, I find myself nodding vigorous assent to Lincoln's realistic opinion of the human heart.  This does not mean we do not attempt to fan freedom's flame, but one must recognize the depth of human depravity and the need for Word-centered regeneration.  Does the spread of human freedom hinge upon the spread of Christ's Gospel? 

Pity Laura Bush

A comment on an older post has resurrected a discussion about women, work, roles and responsiblities. The American Thinker has an interesting commentary regarding an article expressing a "non-traditionalist" woman's perspective on Laura Bush.  If only the First Lady would get out from behind her husband's stetson and express an opinion now and then. 

In the Name of Jesus

The Second Inauguration of George Bush ended yesterday with a benediction by Kirbyjon Caldwell, pastor of Windsor Village United Methodist Church in Houston, Texas.  He concluded his prayer with these words, "Respecting persons of all faith, I humbly submit this prayer in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen." 

Now that may seem innocuous to some, but those are actually bold words.  In our politically correct, overly tolerant, hopelessly relativistic culture, one is not supposed to pray in the "name of Jesus."  It may be deemed overly offensive to adherents of other faiths who pray to gods with different names.  Now mind you, if Pastor Caldwell was a Buddhist monk praying in the name of some unknown god inhabiting a mountain in Tibet, the liberal establishment would have marveled at the display of such diversity in a public gathering, and hailed religious faith (whatever that is) to be a good thing if it works for you.

Why the difference?  How is it that Christians are singled out as targets in the arena of public prayer?  I believe it is because of the exclusivity of Christianity.  The mountain gods of other religions are rather harmless creatures.  They do not make exclusive truth claims like Jesus; they do not declare themselves to be The Creator of heavens and earth with the obvious ramifications for human beings--fall down and worship.  The gospel of diversity will let you have your god, just keep him packaged nicely, and try not to make a mess of things when we absolutely have to talk about religion. 

Pastor Caldwell is to be thanked for his boldness, kindness, and clarity.  He spoke the truth in love, and set an example for those of us who have opportunity to call on the name of the Lord in public places.  You can drop Pastor Caldwell an email and thank him here.

Bush Two

Congratulations to President Bush and the American people on the occasion of his inauguration to a second term as President of the United States.

Four years ago I was standing in the crowd during the inauguration.  We froze our tails off, but is was well worth it.  All the pomp and circumstance is awe-inspiring and goose bump raising.  Though many tried to keep references to God out of this year's ceremonies, the music, prayers, and speech were theologically oriented, and some might even argue, God-centered.  Here is a link to the full text of his speech. 

Meanwhile...Back at the Ranch

Al Mohler writes an excellent, must read, piece on the presidential inauguration.  You will appreciate the paegentry of the next couple days if you make the historical connections.  Here's another thoughtful inaugural read.

Joel at Unknowing has some good thoughts on liturgy--we all do it, only some do it better.

Razorskiss does some significant evaluation of blogging (look out, there are emoticons).  Hat Tip:  EO

Providence and Human Action by John Calvin

Acorns and Embryos:  A read in support of the culture of life.  Hat Tip:  Mere Comments

Bush and "the Lord"

President Bush recently said, "...that he doesn't see how you can be President without a relationship with the Lord."  Joseph Knippenberg at No Left Turns nicely summarizes Andrew Sullivan's haywire response and Jonah Goldberg's reasonable reply. 

James Dobson in the NYT

James Dobson promises Dem heads will roll if they don't lay off W's judicial nominees.  This is not new, he is just stirring up the troops.