To think we are losing the nation, we first have to assume that we had it to begin with. Did we? I don’t see it…..

There are some (revisionist Christian) historians who would argue that Christians “had it.” They are very funny. They idolize Stonewall Jackson with a straight face. Unfortunately, most of them are raising an unreasonable number of children, as well.

Frankly, I think politicians spend entirely too much time, money, and energy courting the Christian vote. We would be outraged, as Christians, if they spent as much money courting the atheist vote, or the Muslim vote, or the homosexual vote. It’s almost as if these politicians are running for the high office of the church and not of the land.

Well, and the other thing, Jerry, is that it contributes to the overall dumbing down of the electorate as regards real issues, and it’s gotten to the point that when a politician gives a nuanced, thoughtful, detailed answer on an issue, rather than a canned trademarked answer, the media and much of the electorate view that as a weakness. It happened in 2000, it happened in 2004, and it’s happening this year. I’m thinking of the abortion issue in particular right now, but there are these buzz phrases thrown around like “sanctity of life” and “reproductive freedom” (both sides) and rarely is the electorate called on to make informed decisions beyond “My candidate gives the dogwhistle answer to which I’m accustomed, and I don’t care whether or not his/her policies actually work.”

Scotty: I’ve been taking night classes at Rick Frueh’s school of short quips and profundity.

Me too! Is that you in the corner with the Fedora?

Jerry: Shall it be the Christianity of Rod Parsley or Jim Wallis or Jerry Falwell or Benny Hinn or Joel Osteen or Doug Pagitt or Brian McClaren or Jerry Hillyer or Rick Frueh or Ken Silva or Richard Abanes or Kirk Cameron or Ray Comfort?

I vote for Joel Osteen’s brand. He’ll go along with anything and his wife is hot and knows how to handle pesky lowlifes servant class people.

I know we live in a trite and cynical time. But if this were 1933 and I could something, yes politically, about Hitler or the Enabling Act, then I would. A failure to do otherwise is a kind of inconsistent fatalism.

Maybe fatalism…but in the long view is not God’s will going to prevail?

I know it may seem that I’m taking a laissez faire approach to my faith and my call as a Christian but I have often struggled with what role should I take in the political system.

To be quite frank I shudder every time I hear a politician say “I’m a Christian” or some variant there of. It just seems to smack in the face of “When you pray don’t…When you fast don’t…” I view my faith as a quiet, prayerful, personal experience that really doesn’t need to be broadcast or displayed to prove my faithfulness to the Gospel.

Does all that make sense?

Does that make sense my position? – Jerry

Yes, and I agree wholeheartedly.

Neil

My kingdom is not of this world. I don’t view it as acquiescence but rather submission to the life that Christ has called me to. Pray for the rulers and authorities don’t try to elect them because they fit your flavor of faith.

Yet it’s not like they are mutually exclusive… I too am a citizen of a greater Kingdom, and I try and act like it, live my life according to its standards, and promote and extend it… but that does not mean I cannot also participate in the lesser kingdom of this world in which I am also a citizen.

Neil