Observations on the opposing political views of Frank Dowse and Hypocrisy.
Buckley attempted to fuse different groups within conservatism (Christians, paleos, libertarians etc…) but ended up sacrificing limited government for big as a necessary evil to thwart communism. His intentions were noble but now the greatest threat to our dreams is an internal one, the area he compromised, big government, the means by which he had hoped to thwart the external threat.
In his effort to fuse these various groups he failed to construct a vision to unite them and conserve the ideals of our Framers and the historic Christian faith, while purging some of the greatest advocates for principled and limited government (Hayek, Rothbard, Sobran).
What if there was a fusion of faith and principle, a bright line, that didn’t involve compromising the things we hold dear? What if the Christian worldview of Frank Drowse and the liberalism of Hypocrisy could find common ground? Could there be hope for a new beginning?
Frank and HQ have different worldviews. One acknowledges Christ as Author and Creator. The other denies such.
The question is can the two coexist without either having to compromise their distinctives? I believe the answer is “yes.”
I think the believer must acknowledge we live in a pluralistic nation and Christ doesn’t have a covenant with the U.S. (Christian theology posits Christ covevants with individuals, not nations, by faith). Believers must also acknowledge that though we are called to be a light to the world our kingdom is not advanced by the sword (same sex marriage, foreign intervention).
The Church advances by Word and Spirit. As a believer I advance my biblical views by loving my neighbor not by aligning with the forces of government.
To Frank I say believers must give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and God what is God’s. If we don’t get our categories correct we become guilty of things that HQ and history point to. We become guilty of committing evil that good may result. We know that our noble intentions don’t sanctify our behavior.
Frank and HQ agree all men are created equal. As such both should agree that a just law does not allow an individual to encroach upon his neighbor. All men having a natural right to self-govern until “the swinging of their fists reaches their neighbor’s nose.” This law principle applies to government involvement in marriage and foreign intervention.
HQ sees in nature what Frank sees divinely revealed in scripture. The two views should not be in conflict as both are sides of the same coin. The believer sees God not only as Creator but as Author of natural law.
If this is true it should make no difference to HQ or Frank how the other desires to exercise his God given freedom and pursue happiness. As long as one doesn’t encroach on the pursuits of the other. It should make no difference to HQ whom Frank wishes to posit as the basis for his belief, Christ or Batman.
If all men are equals, HQ should enjoy equal protection under the law to pursue happiness and exercise his inalienable rights without the Church using coercion to enforce a moral code in areas where rights are not being encroached. A failure to properly discern the jurisdiction of the church (man’s soul/self government) from the jurisdiction of the state (external government between individuals) results in an ungodly fusion, Christian tyranny and bigger government.
Why would believers who cannot consistently live by God’s law expect their neighbor who rejects their Lord to do so? Was the Mosaic Law effective in reforming the character of Israel?
If two individuals with seemingly opposite beliefs about truth can begin to contemplate a common ground for their law system, i.e. “the laws of nature and Nature’s God”, they could be the start of something rare and exceptional. They could become something our world desperately needs, peacemakers.
Frank would be consistent with Christian theology and HQ would be free from the church imposing it’s will by means Christ does not authorize.
I’m thinking that unbelievers may be more receptive to the gospel if believers depended more on love and good works rather than the state to reform their neighbor.
If we can find a common basis for agreement on “the rules of the game” we have hope for peace in our lifetime and an end to so many areas of our lives being politicized.
Hopeful in La Mesa.
Comments 10
These may help.
http://www.julianbakery.com/paleo-protein-bars/
Author
Teacher is proud. Wonderful example of fusion. Go to the head of the class.
Eric,
With one possible exception, I agree 100% with your post. Although I certainly do not care where Frank gets the inspiration for his ideas and the way he lives, I might if he were an elected official. I obviously accept that faith is a major factor in how many of our elected officials choose to do what they do, but it can’t be the justifying reason. In other words, if we go to war in the Middle East, I would not be happy to hear our President (whoever that is) say we are fighting because of what was written in Revelations.
“I would not be happy to hear our President (whoever that is) say we are fighting because of what was written in Revelations.”
Why? Our constitution is clear that Presidents can’t start wars, only prosecute them. Moreover, if tne phrase “seeing Gog and Magog in the Middle East” frightens you, call your Representative and Senator.
I thought it was ridiculous when Nancy Pelosi tried to justify abortion by referencing the catechism of the Catholic Church so I spoke up. (I was right)
American Christians are not your enemy, unconstitutional government is. That’s kind of the point of this post, isn’t it?
Brian,
Let me rephrase:
“I would not be happy to hear my Congressman (whoever that is) say we are fighting because of what was written in Revelations.”
And just to be clear, American Christians are certainly not my enemy, nor are American Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs or Atheists and I have just as much of an issue with a liberal elected official using their religion as the justification for a public policy decision as I would with a conservative elected official doing so.
HQ-
Book of Revelation…not “Revelations…” (not being pedantic, just wanted to ensure you aren’t mocked like Trump with his “two Corinthians” theological faux pax..
The President just submitted a $4T budget. A significant aspect of that focuses on “Man-made Climate Change”. The religious faith one needs to believe climate change is “man-made” is actually greater than believing Christ was resurrected after 3 days. There are more historical referenced eyewitnesses to His resurrection than current scientists that agree on man-made global climate change (there are hundreds that refute it outright). This is probably why Christ and the Bible continue to influence and inspire billions…Al Gore…not so much.
Do you have issue with billions being spent on the religious-like belief of man-made global warming? If so, why is it Christians cannot express there same beliefs fiscally regarding Pro-life positions?
FF,
Thanks for the correction. In contrast to Mr. Trump, I have readily admitted that I am no Biblical scholar.
As for your most recent point, all I can do is ask if you have similar reservations about the truthfulness of evolution or that the earth revolves around the sun.
Both of those are irrefutably true…man-made climate change…not so much, My Friend.
Just based on the evidence alone, I gotta go with the divinity of Christ over Man-Made Climate Change…40 years ago it was global cooling…then it was warming…I can’t keep up.
Quick question- If you (admittedly) don’t know much about the Bible, how can you refute the divinity of Christ and the precepts of Biblical truth?
Perhaps for another post.
FF,
“Both of those are irrefutably true”
It wasn’t that long ago that many a religious person would have disagreed with that comment too.
In answer to your question, you once again misstate my position. I have no desire to refute the divinity of Christ or Biblical truth. I honestly don’t know whether Christ was/is divine and we will never be able to prove it one way or another – that is a matter of faith.
Now, a question for you – I was raised in a religion that doesn’t believe in the divinity of Christ. Are you saying that my religion is less worthy than yours?
HQ- I am not saying your religion is less worthy than mine.
For Christians, both the Old Testament and the New Testament make it unmistakable what God says about the role Christ plays in Scripture, salvation, redemption, life-everlasting and the commitment it takes for an eternal relationship with God the Father…not me.
Christians “witness” to the involvement and journey they have experienced from a relationship with Christ. No Christian would/should tell anyone what they must think about God. That is different from one stating what God says in Scripture. For Christians, it is the word of the Almighty. Not something as a believer one want’s to ignore, because the consequences of defying or ignoring God are explicit.
Only you can determine the worthiness of your religious faith.. I can only attest that my faith in Christ is real.