the US election

Brian Draper's avatar
Posted by Brian Draper Fri, 05/11/2004 - 10:43am :: News and Current Affairs | more by Brian Draper

Bush is back. And many Christians are rejoicing. The president’s thinking is driven both by a theology of personal morality, and the conviction that he and his country can act globally and unilaterally, on God’s behalf, for good.

Yet any Christian who worries – as many do - about the past and future consequences of this combination is now faced with a choice.

Either they surrender to the sense of disempowerment that swept both coasts of America and much of the world on Wednesday. Or, more positively, they seize the opportunity to ensure that practical theology is not monopolised by the Religious Right for the next four years.

Bush’s reign is no longer a passing phase but an era, and it falls to progressive Christians to affirm what is good, while scrutinising vigorously any act perpetrated in the name of their God, and to expose it – creatively and radically – if it does not seem to match up.

They must stand with scientists, as the Kyoto agreement on climate change slips under a rising tide of neglect. They must stand with peacemakers, who fear the fall-out of the imploded nuclear non-proliferation treaty. They must stand with ordinary Iranians, whose country may well be next on the hit list.

During the election campaign, 200 US theologians (many of them evangelical) warned that ‘a theology of war emanating from the highest circles of government is also seeping into our churches’. We must stand shoulder to shoulder with these theologians, too, to ensure that as Christians, we collude with no doctrine, dressed in Christian terms, which is at odds with the spirit of the Sermon on the Mount.

Anti-Americanism is not a Christian response. Neither is claiming that God is on the side of one party or another, as Jim Wallis of the Sojourners Network is at pains to remind us. Instead, Christians the world over must seek to provide a radical presence for good, to demonstrate hope in the gospel of Christ at a time when many people sense fear.

It’s a high, but achievable calling. Bush has polarised opinion in the US, among Christians, and across the world. Yet as Wallis wrote this week, ‘the religious community could help a divided nation find common ground by moving to a higher ground. We should hold ourselves and both political parties accountable to the challenge of the biblical prophet Micah - to “do justice, love kindness and walk humbly with your God”.’

Bush might be back. But it’s not end of the world, is it?

Brian Draper

additional resources

Read Jim Wallis's full article 'Progressive faith did not lose this election' at www.sojo.net.

'"Moral values" tops voters' concern' - but what does it mean? Read more at Christianity Today.

The current edition of Third Way magazine has some excellent comment from Paul Vallely and Charles Strohmer on the Bush phenomenon (written prior to the election).

'Whether we are saddened or elated by the prospect of another four years, now is not the time for depression or gloating...' Read more about what the Christian Burderhof Community have to say about the election result at www.bruderhof.com.

'It would be a stretch to say the efforts of Christians alone elected Mr Bush and pushed America into some kind of unenlightened moral absolutism.' Read the optimistic view, 'Life did not end on Tueday', at www.timesonline.co.uk.

'17 reasons not to slit your wrists' at www.michaelmoore.com.

Read George Soros on the election at www.georgesoros.com.

"Their beliefs are bonkers, but they are at the heart of power'. Read George Monbiot on the influence of the Religious Right at www.guardian.co.uk.

'America is a nation with a mission, and that mission comes from our most basic beliefs.' Read George Bush's most recent State of the Union Address.

'Bush ready to wreck ozone layer treaty' - read concerns about the Montreal Protocol at www.commondreams.org.

Read what the Guardian had to say in 2001 about the imminent dismantling of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

Three Nobel laureates discuss the undermining of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty by the Nuclear Posture Review of 2003, at www.clw.org.

US Abortion statistics.

Really!
Posted by  Anonymous on Fri, 05/11/2004 - 11:05pm.
Brian,
I noticed you had a link at the bottom of your article to Michael Moore's website. Really! Do you hold Michael Moore as an icon of truth and Biblical values? He has been exposed as a bumbling idiot here in the States and the people were not swayed by his nonsense. Yet you seem to hold him up as an bearer of 'progressive Biblical truth'. What Bible are you reading?
Sheldon Lorenson
Bumbling idiots
Posted by  Brian Draper on Sat, 06/11/2004 - 12:14am.
I also had a link to George Bush's State of the Union address. Fair's fair...

Two things, briefly. You might like to revisit LICC's not uncritical CWC review of Fahrenheit 9/11, by Nick Spencer.

Second, we don't, of course, hold Moore up as a bearer of 'progressive Biblical truth'. All of our links are posted to help with wider reading on the subject, if you so wish. (We believe that sometimes it's even helpful to read an opinion you disagree with.) But I'm guessing you probably knew that all along!
Brian, here's a good word
Posted by  Anonymous on Wed, 17/11/2004 - 6:22pm.
Brian, here's a good word from an American Progressive! Enjoy.


The Threat at Home
Europe and Radical Islam

article on www.breakpoint.org

(copy of article was removed from this post and replaced with a link - Site Admin)
unsure about the breakpoint article
Posted by  Ross Kendall on Thu, 18/11/2004 - 6:00pm.
To be honest I find it a little suprising. While I would agree that there are a number of very important issues that are of concern in Europe, this is no reason for Europeans to refrain from engaging in discussion about the US election (which is also an important issue that effects them, and people everywhere).

Just as one person's actions effect others, so the actions of one country effect other countries. I would contend that the US is accountable to the rest of the world (as are other countries), in this big global village.

One example of a concern is Bush's stance on Kyoto. (As an Australian, I am also critical of the Australian goverment position on this). reuters news article on global warming
There are many interpretation
Posted by  Anonymous on Fri, 12/11/2004 - 12:20pm.
There are many interpretations of God's Word, Sheldon. Many focus on being born again, while others view their religious journey as a series of born again experiences throughout that journey to better know and understand God. Michael Moore gave us an alternative viewpoint and as Christians we are called to study other views and reflect on those views and how they may challenge our concept of God and, with hope, provide a new understanding and a deeper wareness of God's message to love, to care for the disenfranchised members of our community, and to reach out to others. To think that Michael Moore is a bumbling idiot without another perspective on politics and confuse it with somehow being ant-Christian is simplistic. Some understand their are unknowns and the world is not black and white and our response should be a commitment to Christ's message of love, acceptance and peace. Simplistic thinking and a faith not challenged is a faith of milk and not meat. Our journey requires us to be challenged by Christ's doctrine and not feel that once "born again" study, reflection and the teaching of Jesus social doctrine ceases. There are two views of the person of Christ and one must remember the bible is a history of a peoples faith, not a history book about a people with faith.

Michale Moore is not the enemy. When he speaks of corporate power at the expense of the poor, whether he states it or not, it is biblical call to justice. Rightousness by the fundamentlistic thinking is dangerous, and your reponse proves it.
Feeling positive?
Posted by  Ross Kendall on Fri, 05/11/2004 - 3:40pm.
I must admit feeling slightly depressed about the election results, not because of the so-called 'moral issues', but because of what it might mean for international issues such as Iraq and the 'war on terror' etc.

Today's Daily Dig email from Bruderhof reminded me that my response should not be so much about feeling something, but about obedience in following Christ regardless.

"Whether we are saddened or elated by the prospect of another four years, now is not the time for depression or gloating. Jesus called on his followers to be peacemakers, and told them that they would be called the sons of God..."
dailydig.bruderhof.org/us/TodaysDig.htm?archive=dd1039

I still feel a bit depressed though, and a bit helpless.
As an American reading Draper
Posted by  Anonymous on Fri, 05/11/2004 - 5:40pm.
As an American reading Draper's article in LICC I found myself recoiling in anger. Yes, we need to make sure our views are in accord with Scripture and especially the Sermon on the Mount when it involves the issues of war and peace. But what about Romans 13 Mr. Draper? And how has Britian done in the culture wars? How much infuence does the Evangelical Church have in Britian? It is still there isn't it? When we hear that Islam is growing faster in Britian than any other religion, you forfeit your right to critique the US on
holding to Biblical values. The world can hate the US if it desires. Still, we will continue to spread the Gospel worldwide as no other nation on earth! Much of the anti-US mania, I fear, comes from the same source as light hating darkness(John 3). Viva George Bush!

Sheldon Lorenson
Ashland, WI 54806
Why do you equate spreading t
Posted by  Anonymous on Fri, 05/11/2004 - 8:39pm.
Why do you equate spreading the Gospel with patriotic zeal? Are you saying there are lesser and greater Christians? Are you saying US Christians are more righteous than British Christians? How do you know this?

-ES
Indiana, United States
ES, no I don't equate
Posted by  Anonymous on Tue, 09/11/2004 - 11:43pm.
ES, no I don't equate spreading the Gospel with patriotic zeal. Seems the reason Paul told Timothy to pray for those in authority over us is so that we might live in peace and... it is in the context of peace that the Gospel is able to be preached and proclaimed.
I have been in 22 different countries of the world. Lived in the West Indies, South Africa, India and the US. I'm an American who loves his country(although fully realizing it's shortcomings)freedom, and the privilege to share the Gospel freely. I have seen firsthand what Americans have given in the form of schools, hospitals, orphages, churches, clinics etc to the human community. My opinion remains that no country on earth has been as generous with its material possessions as has the USA! Patriotic zeal is not a 'fruit of the Spirit'. But neither is uninformed malice. I wonder if the Prince of Darkness has any part in stirring up hatred toward the nation spreading the Light of Christ more than any other? I wonder.
Sheldon
Uninformed malice
Posted by  Anonymous on Wed, 10/11/2004 - 11:44pm.
As far as I can see it, Brian Draper's piece was not 'uniformed malice'. He touches on some important issues which affect the whole world - not just the United States. Kyoto and the nuclear non-proliferation treaty to name but two... The rest of the world has a right to hold the US president to account (especially Christians, especially if he acts in the name of God), because his actions affect the rest of the world.

There are plenty of people who believe that Bush is more of a threat to God's creation than bin Laden or Saddam could ever be. These are not mad people, or ignorant people, nor people driven by uniformed malice.

There is little doubt that the world is a more dangerous place since the US and the UK illegally and pre-emptively invaded Iraq. And we have George Bush and the neo-cons to thank for that. And the Project for the New American Century, with its emphasis on 'total war' and its insistence on America's dominance of the world in the 21st century.

Sometimes it feels more like the 'uninformed malice' comes from the Republicans in the US. Strange, as they are the ones who hold the reins of power!
In agreement...
Posted by  Anonymous on Fri, 05/11/2004 - 11:07pm.
I find myself in agreement with one of Sheldon's points here. Surely in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus is addressing individuals not nation states. As an individual I do not have the right to seek revenge, but I do expect my government to pursue and deal justly with those who seek to destroy it and harm its people.

In saying that, it would be nice for Christians in America to seek politicians who combine a strong stance on moral issues with genuine concern for the poor and marginalised in the US and across the world.

Also, I would imagine that if Islam is the fastest growing religion in The UK it's on the basis of birth-rate and immigration rather than conversion.

Berkeley Young, Colchester.
Romans 13
Posted by  Brian Draper on Sat, 06/11/2004 - 12:17am.
Good question about Romans 13. George Washington presumably wrestled long and hard with the same text...
One Lesson from the 2004 Elections
Posted by  Kansas on Fri, 05/11/2004 - 7:45pm.
One thing I learned from these elections was to identify exactly what idol worship is. We heard about a lucky hat, a lucky buckeye, a lucky lunch counter spot, even a lucky Bible. The resources on these items are listed on the blog at http://repentance.lifewithchrist.org
Sheldon - feel the fear man -
Posted by  rikev33 on Sat, 06/11/2004 - 7:21pm.
Sheldon - feel the fear man - then have a go at facing it. 2 legs good, 4 legs bad does not always equate (i.e. turban, robes, praying towards mecca, and reading the koran does not equate with terrorist from the dark ages - conversely Bible believing, 'morally' squeaky clean, theologically correct, white people, do not automatically qualify as 'good people' ready to bring the truth to the barbarian)...figure it out...
I find Sheldon Lorenson's co
Posted by  markspark747 on Sat, 06/11/2004 - 8:27pm.
I find Sheldon Lorenson's comments very scary. From the view from this side of the Atlantic, Bush's election to 4 more years in office could potentially do more damage to the Christian message worldwide than any number of liberals and athiest's. The equation of US foreign policy with Christ is something all of us outside the US should be actively seeking to confront and condemn. If the majority of US Christians are like Sheldon Lorension then it will be up to Christians the rest of the world to highlight the relationship between Bush and US big corporations and business interests who are backing him. It is also important to remember that Christains in Africa, Asia and China are denied a say in the debate about Bush and the Christian faith because they often do not have access to the same means of communication as the West. I would like to hear their voice in understanding these issues.
More a question really
Posted by  Richard Ford on Mon, 08/11/2004 - 9:52pm.
I'm struggling. I think I can see a large degree of folly, both diplomatically and militarily within Bush's war in Iraq, but I haven't quite seen a Christian response to the challenge of terrorism in the global village. I mean, I may be being unfair, but it does seem to be a theology for the militarily squeamish that is emerging, as if we've completely bought into the European illusion of peace purely through dialogue and diplomacy. I know we've had a serious go at the "just war" thing, but it now feels like reading a set of soccer rules while watching a rugby match - it isn't making much sense. Then again, I'm not very bright. Could someone point me somewhere useful on this ?
Richard, if you would like to
Posted by  Anonymous on Tue, 09/11/2004 - 3:42pm.
Richard, if you would like to read some articles of genuine Contemporary Christianity I recommend Chuck Colson. He's excellent.
You will find him at www.breakpoint.org Here's a sample

It's Not Payback Time
Christians and Politics as Unusual- Church Colson

article on www.breakpoint.org

(copy of article was removed from this post and replaced with a link - Site Admin)
War on Terror
Posted by  MiguelM on Fri, 12/11/2004 - 4:40pm.
   I too have struggled with the war on terror. I had strong misgivings about the invasion of Afghanistan, even though I want Osama Bin Laden brought to justice, especially since I lost a good friend on 9/11. Still, I couldn't help thinking about how many innocent people would lose their lives in the invasion. But I don't struggle with the war in Iraq. Nothing I've seen has convinced me that it's part of the war on terror, or that it is about justice. Our president used my friend's death as an excuse to invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. This offends me to the very core of my soul. The longer we occupy Iraq, the more innocent civilians we will kill, and the more Iraqis will grow to hate us. The war is taking lives and spreading hatred on both sides. It's especially disturbing when I see the hatred inside our own borders. As I witness hatred for our Muslims brothers rising in our country, it reminds me of how important it is to reach out to the Muslim community. We Christians have much in common with Muslims. We both pray to the god of Abraham -- Arab Christians also pray to Allah -- and Islam holds Jesus in great esteem -- The Koran begins with the story of Jesus -- So I know that a dialog between us will do much to heal the wounds of war and terror.
   So I feel so much anguish when I read that Christians voted for Bush for his "moral values," when I voted against him for precisely that reason. I don't question his sincerity when he dedicates Christian prisons, but hubris is an especially dangerous quality in a man so powerful. Waging war is the farthest we can go from respecting the sanctity of life.
Belatedly, I must comment abo
Posted by  Julia Thompson on Sat, 16/04/2005 - 2:54am.
Belatedly, I must comment about why I, as an Amerian could NOT vote for either Bush or Kerry. To vote for either would have caused me to violate core Christian beliefs. Ironically, many who were/are pro the Iraqi War are "violently" (ironic) anti-abortion, and many who are pro-choice (really pro-abortion) are anti-war (all wars.)
The inconsistency screams.
Also, as Miguel says, we should reach out to Muslims. But, let's not be blinded either by "radical Islam's" intent for the West. The modus operandi in Africa by Islamic missionaries has been to go in and support the brotherhood of Jews, Muslims, and Christians until a majority is reached.... Then has come repression as in Sudan.
The Saudi attack on the U.S. did not just happen. (I worked in that community and heard things long before the planes flew into the Towers and the Pentagon, and when they did, I wanted to tell many people, "I told you so." I didn't have to, because many came back to me and said, "You were right."

The U.S. has had basically several waves of Muslims...those escaping repression themselves such as the Kurds; Afghans fleeing the former Soviets; Iranians fleeing after the Shah fell. These are not the radicals in our midst nor are all Saudis. But, in the 1980s, malls in Northern Va were so filled with Saudis that many began to ask, "Is this a Trojan Horse?" Such voices sounded shrill, paranoid, and bigoted until....After 9/11 many left.

Anyone who had been President then probably would have reacted like Bush. Going into Iraq was perhaps pushing the envelope, and I am not excusing the lies about weapons of mass distruction although they WERE there at a former period of time. The French and the Russians, though they came across as being on high moral ground in opposing this war, were really gun runners of a trade embargo imposed by the U.N., not the U.S.

Some here compare Bush's actions to the man who has a fight with his wife and goes into the office and takes out his anger on the secretary out of frustration because he just can't make things right at home.

Interestingly, though, as I tell Pacifist friends -- and I am 99% a pacifist -- "Your right to dissent and be a conscientious objecter exists because of the defense umbrella."

Most people don't think that far and don't want to look in the mirror at their own indiscrepancies. Even the dear old Amish couldn't be the Amish without military protection. All of our salaries, likewise, even for those of us who think we are "pure" if we don't work for the military are in reality the by-product of defense dollars. The stablity of our socities wouldn't exist without the threat of force MOST nations give implicity when they simply support a military structure.

I find it interesting, too, to hear Christian speakers speaking in places where they don't rely solely on the security of Christ but have bodyguards and even sniper in some non-Western lands standing watch.

Julia Thompson
Maps and cartograms of the 2004 US presidential election results
Posted by  Ross Kendall on Tue, 09/11/2004 - 10:33am.
I found this quite interesting, maps showing the breakdown of support for Republicans and Democrats in the USA

http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/election/

here is an alternate map
http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/

Although I'm not sure what this means - if anything.
Last week on a website (BBC o
Posted by  Nicola Sweet on Tue, 09/11/2004 - 1:09pm.
Last week on a website (BBC or CNN, can't remember now) there were lists of quotes by Americans and one of them was 'The reason I vote Kerry: Abortion'. This really struck me. Although neither Bush or Kerry is perfect, it just got me thinking about God's view. God will honour those who uphold His truth and seek to bring biblical values to everyday life. I'm not saying Bush is really good at this, or that Kerry isn't, but I wasn't surprised when Bush won because he consistantly defies the direction the world is going in, and has been going in since the fall, by upholding this part of God's truth; that abortion is wrong.

I've never really been particularly politically-minded, but it's been hard to escape recently. I may be wrong in my limited view and comments above, but this election has given me a glimpse of how it's God who puts people in power, and whether you voted one way or the other, throughout the old testament especially, it's God who appoints and God who has a plan bigger than us - the people of November 2004. It gives me faith in my own life at least. That God has a plan, even if I don't understand or like the people He brings in and out of my life. His work will be done in me because I'm His child and seek him out.

What has God been saying to you over the last few weeks/months? A 6-lettered statement caused me to come to a place where I was encouraged by God and had peace about my situation today. I praise God for that revelation. I know I miss more of these moments because my focus isn't always right. I hope God shows you today just how involved He is and how He can, and is, speaking to you through the simple things.
American Opinions
Posted by  Ross Kendall on Tue, 09/11/2004 - 3:42pm.
Below is a link to someone's weblog post about the election.

How You Could Have Had My Vote - and open letter to the Democratic Party

It is easy to demonise the 'other', and I must admit I had been starting to form generalised opinions about the election. I found the above article (and comments) helpful.

If we disagree with someone else's view, as Christians it is important that we treat them with love and respect (even if such respect is not returned).
i do not feel it is my place
Posted by  nickymoses on Wed, 10/11/2004 - 7:36pm.
i do not feel it is my place to judge our leaders but simply to say what i think are their failures and successes of which bush has had both.i am neither antibush or pro kerry, just disappointed there were no brearhs of fresh air standing for president. i would like to see christian leaders rise up who do not rely on spin and rhetoric and expemsive election campaigns which use money which would be better spent elsewhere. but i guess i'm just a dreamer. bush's failures: 1 not trying to curb the american gun culture,2 not trying to stop the widening gulf between rich and poor americans, 3 not challenging the u.s. constitution which prohibits the teaching of christianity in schools, 4 his enviromental policy. his successes: 1 standing up for what he believes is right, even thugh he may be and it will cause some controversy, 2: in doing this causing non- christians in the west to consider and dicuss the faith, 3 being an anti abortinist( though i do believe he should put measures in place to help such women who are faced with such agonizing decisions which may not be clear cut) these are just my opinions and iam willing to learn more from this discussion.personally i would nominate hilary clinton for president she has displayed much dignity, mercy and forgiveness. she is highly intelligent and works well as a team. then again i don't know much about her, but i'm sure someone will enlighten me. by the way my mum who is an agnostic pensioner with no access to a computer believes all christian politcal leaders are warmongerers. not sure what to say to her.
This is my second attemt to r
Posted by  markspark747 on Sat, 13/11/2004 - 11:40am.
This is my second attemt to reply.
One of the things which has always bothered me and with this US election result has come to the surface is the relationship between the Church and the State. The New Testament standards for the Church are those of non-violence, kindness etc. These are not the attributes of nation states. Despite the fact that countries might say they abide by christian ideals, they cannot really do this because in part their abilty to exist relies on the use of military force. This contrasts strongly to early Church history when it is evident that they adopted non-agression in the face of violence. Miltary force and the Church only became mixed when the Roman emperor converted and decided to use the Cross as a miltary as well as a religious symbol. 1500 years of war in Europe show that rulers are unable to remain true to the New Testament and govern at the same time.
Hey, Mark is there a 'just war' theory?
Posted by  Anonymous on Tue, 16/11/2004 - 11:09pm.
Hey, Mark is there a 'just war' theory? Ever study that one? Try studying the writings of that English gentleman, John Stott.
Feedback
Posted by  Brian Draper on Mon, 29/11/2004 - 4:12pm.
This response from Steve Walsh in the US, who challenged me to 'show some true tolerance and publish my article in response to yours'. With pleasure, Steve...

Dear Mr. Draper,

As an avid reader and supporter of LICC, I’m very disappointed in your article. Instead of asking what your Christian American readers thought about “our” election, you instead promoted your unbiblical biases.

Amazing lack of sensitivity, you know. I’m also a professional businessman who seeks to put God’s Kingdom principles first in the marketplace I live in. Doesn’t LICC exist to help and support the likes of us?

But you show more faith in un-named “scientists” and “200 US theologians”, as if this is supposed to impress your readers, especially when you say, almost as an afterthought…”(many of them evangelical)”. Evangelical about what? Bad science and false theology? How about we evangelize using the true gospel (which most scientists hate) based on a literal interpretation of the Holy Bible (which most theologians undermine)…as you well know…especially in the UK, where I’ve spent time.

First, Kyoto is based on bad science…from scientists who are often evolutionists and base their “atheistic faith” on no evidence, while throwing out the scientific method. For one example:

“The Associated Press (AP) reported on January 6 that a chimpanzee "performed about as well as an average (Japanese) preschool child" on similar numerical tests. The female chimp can apparently "remember the correct sequence of 5 random numbers," according to researchers at Kyoto University in Japan.

We expect that evolutionists will use this study to bolster their claim of a close evolutionary relationship between humans and chimps. But how closely related are we to chimps, apes, monkeys, etc.? (True)…science shows that the DNA of chimps does not offer compelling biological evidence that they are closely related to humans.” Source: Answers in Genesis

Even more compelling is the real science from the well respected Heritage Foundation:

“One problem: Science stubbornly refuses to validate these claims. For instance, decades have passed since use of fossil fuels expanded to the point where they should’ve been able to affect temperatures in the troposphere—the area one to five miles above the earth’s surface where greenhouse gases are allegedly trapped.

But those who have studied the troposphere, such as Sallie Baliunas, an astrophysicist who works with the Washington-based George C. Marshall Institute and other organizations, say the temperature in the 1- to 5-mile area above the earth’s surface has not increased. Last year, because of these findings and others that cast doubt on the notion that man’s use of fossil fuels causes the earth to warm dangerously, 17,000 scientists from around the nation signed a document expressing their doubts about this notion and the entire approach recommended in the Kyoto Accords.” See full article--- It's the Science, Stupid---below (1).

17,000 scientists! I have numbers too, Mr. Draper. But numbers are not the issue. What does the Bible say, what would Christ do? That’s what the Reformation brought us. You undermine this and you destroy the foundation for LICC and the faith for which Jude and I are contending.

Second, about those theologians you laud. Do you mean those folks who also are trying to integrate Darwinian (from the UK you know) evolution with the Bible in an unholy alliance? A few real, courageous Christians have fought this unbiblical trend, from Isaac Newton---one of the greatest scientists that ever lived, as acknowledged by Evolutionist scientists and Creation scientists…to James Ussher---the UK Anglican theologian, who through meticulous and extensive research put Genesis 1 creation at 4004 BC. You think Newton, who fully agreed with Ussher, and Ussher are crazy and of less repute that your 200 theologians, who attack “a theology of war”, while in reality promoting the leftist “anti-war” agenda…an agenda that went down in the US election?


Kerry and the peaceniks are not peaceful. They attacked the morale of “our” soldiers and your UK government who are on the front lines of the war on terror-based, Islamic Socialism (same ilk as National Socialism (NAZI), who helped them attack Israel after WWII and Israel’s independence.) This encouraging the enemy is actually defined as treason and Kerry and many of the Democrats should be impeached for it. And while doing so, we should include Kerry’s support for the enemy during the Vietnam War when US POWs were being tortured with Kerry’s impeachable words. This is what “many” US Christians believe, by the way, and what our leftist media admit helped Bush get re-elected…and I believe helped Winston Churchill get elected after being ungratefully tossed out after WWII, when he kept you folks from speaking German today and ruled by Socialists. But you woke up and put Churchill back in office. We in the US kept the man, the Christian leader, who helping to keep all of us from bowing down to terror-based, Islamic Socialism…with 80% of the soldier vote going for Bush…those with the most to lose.

See the video and flash on Kerry’s treason for yourself:

Video: http://www.christian-underground.com/stolenhonor.wmv

Flash: http://kerrylied.com/otherdocs/flash.htm

True theologians, not your 200, know better. Take Chuck Colson’s write up on “Just War”:

What is just war theory?

The Christian just war theory is a 1600-year-old attempt to answer the questions "When is it permissible to wage war" (jus in bello), and "What are the limitations on the ways we wage war?" (jus ad bellum).

Where did just war theory originate?

The first Christian thinker to write extensively about the subject was St. Augustine of Hippo (Who your 200 theologians should have read.). For Augustine, war was a logical extension of the act of governance. And governance itself was, as St. Paul wrote in Romans 13.1-7, ordained by God. See full article: A BreakPoint Fact Sheet, below (2).

I can’t expect you to know the US Presidential Oath of Office, so here it is…in support of just wars:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States."

So, should theologians dictate how we preserve, protect and defend? Certain ones, yes. Like Elijah, who demonstrated God’s power and killed the false prophets…the false teachers:

Now when all the people saw it, they fell on their faces; and they said, “The Lord, He is God! The Lord, He is God!” And Elijah said to them, “Seize the prophets of Baal! Do not let one of them escape!” So they seized them; and Elijah brought them down to the Brook Kishon and executed them there. 1 Kings 18

How many of your 200 theologians think Biblically…have a Biblical worldview? How many are members of the World Council of Churches…or support them? And what is the truth about them?

”"WHAT IN THE WORLD IS THE WORLD COUNCIL OF CHURCHES?" This catchy question is also the title of a 1978 publication of the WCC. It is an obvious attempt to answer some of the vital questions and criticisms which are being raised by those who love Jesus Christ and who value our cherished American freedoms. However, far from answering such questions and complaints, a discerning reader will discover that the WCC actually confirms the charges of doctrinal deviations and political radicalism.
This leaflet is written to provide factual, up-to-date information regarding the World Council of Churches. We are concerned when we find so many true, Bible-believing Christians who still hold membership in denominations which are a part of the WCC. We also believe that others, both within and without the church, who believe in our free-enterprise system should be informed as to how ecumenical church leaders are seeking to replace capitalism with some form of socialism or communism under the false label of the Kingdom of God.” (And they fund terrorism.)

The Truth About The World Council Of Churches
Marion H. Reynolds, Jr.
Fundamental Evangelistic Association

What say you Mr. Draper? Your advice, without answers to my questions above, was that “We must stand shoulder to shoulder with these theologians…”. Really???!!! Now that’s blind faith. But blind, unwise faith, is against my religion (Proverbs 1:1-7). You say that “Anti-Americanism is not a Christian response.”, but that is exactly what I perceive what you are doing. You claim that “Bush has polarised opinion in the US” and I say, thankfully so. For Christ’s real words in the Sermon on the Mount---that you never quote from---were:

13“Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14“Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.

15“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16“You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17“Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18“A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19“Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20“Therefore by their fruits you will know them. Matthew 7

Mr. Draper, I’ve shown you a majority of scientist’s and theologian’s fruit. Will you agree with Christ or not? I fully agree that we hold Bush’s and Blair’s and every leader’s feet to God’s holy fire. But let’s do it based on the truth. I agree with Francis Schaeffer, who someone said that his description of “the "infinite-personal God" of Christianity and the Bible offers us (a) reference point, (a) foundation upon which to form ethics and morals, and a standard by which to judge our lives and our culture. Therefore, he urges us to live by the Christian ethic, to accept God's revelation, and to affirm the Bible's morals, values, and meaning. When we do, we offer a solution to the apathy and degradation in our society. And only then will Western culture have a future worth looking forward to.” Amen…and I sat under Schaeffer at L’Abri.

What now?

Research my points and please answer my questions. Check out http://www.reformation.net/ for The Coalition on Revival (COR)…a network of evangelical leaders from every major denominational and theological perspective who share a vision for and a commitment to worldwide revival, renewal, and reformation in Church and society. Then please clarify your article and tell the truth. Do your own homework, rightly dividing the word of truth (2 Timothy 2). Or just show some true tolerance and publish my article in response to yours.

“If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. 32“And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” John 8

Very sincerely yours

Steve Walsh
Thanks Brian and Steve. Thou
Posted by  Firefly on Sat, 15/04/2006 - 8:29pm.
Thanks Brian and Steve.
Though clearly disagreeing ideologically Brian and Steve have shown us that in free countries what unites the left and right is a commitment to toleration and open debate. Having considered the debate I feel that Brians views are more in line with the bible in spite of him not quoting it at as great a length, 'blessed are the peacemakers'. Also it is true that George W's foreign policy has been OTT. Compare it with George seniors handling of the Gulf war. He built a coalition of more than 20 countries and didn't go as far as to invade iraq. I think that perhaps Steve can't see the woods for the trees, this being an issue that is close to home for him. I think however that Brian is a little quick to assume that there won't be a case against Iran. The main problem with GW Bush's foreign policy is that it seems aggressive and self interested and he seems to be drawn to war like bees to honey. Issues like Iran need to be dealt with but young George seems to have a habit of seeing war as the only solution.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click 'Save settings' to activate your changes.

With love (and extra resources, group-work ideas and links...)
from
www.licc.org.uk/culture.