Observations on the opposing political views of Frank Dowse and Hypocrisy.
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.