Tag Archives: Politics

News

Does Mark Driscoll know anything about economics, politics and foreign policy?

45 Comments

UPDATE: Welcome visitors from Peter Lumpkins. Thanks for the link, Peter.

I find this article on religion and politics by shallow, trendy metrosexual pop star pastor Mark Driscoll to be extremely disturbing.

Excerpt:

People are longing for Jesus, and tragically left voting for mere presidential candidates. For those whose candidate wins today there will be some months of groundless euphoric faith in that candidate and the atoning salvation that their kingdom will bring. But, in time, their supporters will see that no matter who wins the presidency, they are mere mortals prone to sin, folly, and self-interest just like all the other sons of Adam and daughters of Eve. To help extend naïve false hope as long as possible, a great enemy will be named and demonized as the one who is hindering all of the progress to atone for our sins and usher in our kingdom. If the Democrats win it will be the rich, and if the Republicans win it will be the terrorists. This diversionary trick is as old as Eve who blamed her sin on Satan rather than repenting. The lie is that it’s always someone else’s fault and we’re always the victim of sinners and never the sinner. Speaking of repentance, sadly, no matter who wins there will be no call to personal repentance of our own personal sins which contributes to cultural suffering and decline such as our pride, gluttony, covetousness, greed, indebtedness, self-righteousness, perversion, and laziness.

And, in four years we’ll do it all again and pretend that this time things will be different. Four years after that, we’ll do it yet again. And, we’ll continue driving around this cul de sac until Jesus returns, sets up his throne, and puts an end to folly once and for all.

From this regrettable post, I understand that Mark Driscoll thinks that Christians should not try to assess which party best promotes policies that will promote liberty and goodness in the world. And that they should not take seriously their duty to vote, and to convince others to inform themselves and vote. Instead, I understand that he thinks that it doesn’t really matter who wins. Democrats, Republicans – who cares?

What does it mean when someone says that it doesn’t matter who wins elections?

  • It means that the pro-life and pro-abortion positions are equivalent
  • It means that traditional marriage and same-sex marriage are equivalent
  • It means that intact families and single-mother families are equivalent
  • It means that Iran and Israel are equally threatening to world peace
  • It means that North Korea and the United States are equally free
  • It means that Zimbabwe and Canada are equally prosperous
  • It means that sex education and abstinence education are equivalent
  • It means that public schools and homeschooling are equivalent
  • It means that it doesn’t matter whether Darwinism is taught as dogma or taught critically in schools
  • It means that it doesn’t matter whether there is another terrorist attack and millions of Americans are killed
  • It means that it doesn’t matter whether people have jobs or enough money left over after taxes
  • It means that it doesn’t matter whether tax dollars go to fund abortion, ESCR, IVF or sex changes
  • It means that it doesn’t matter whether religious liberty is limited by repressive fascist policies
  • It means that it doesn’t matter whether Iran nukes Israel back to the stone age
  • It means that it doesn’t matter whether poor children have the choice to go to a better school
  • It means that it doesn’t matter whether people die while waiting in line for health care
  • and so on…

Back in the days of slavery, it wouldn’t have mattered to such a person whether the slavers or the abolitionists won the election.

Avoid Mark Driscoll at all costs on these political and economic issues – stick with Wayne Grudem on politics/economics. Grudem actually knows about how reality functions. He studies the Bible and then he studies how the world actually works. Unlike Driscoll. Driscoll needs to spend less time on his hair and clothes, and more time reading actual books on economics, social policy and military affairs.

Here is my previous article about how Mark Driscoll minimizes women’s responsibility for their own poor choices.

News

How should Christians reconcile their faith with politics?

16 Comments

My favorite book on Christianity and politics is “Politics According to the Bible“, by Wayne Grudem. Dr. Grudem’s B.A. is from Harvard University and his Ph.D is from Cambridge University, and he is probably the best theologian today. (Except for his horrible Calvinism, but I try to ignore that)

Here’s a book review of Politics According to the Bible from Justin Taylor of Between Two Worlds.

Grudem’s positions are usually conservative:

I support political positions in this book that would be called more “conservative” than “liberal.” That is because of my conclusions about the Bible’s teaching on the role of government and a biblical worldview (see chaps. 3 and 4). It is important to understand that I see these positions as flowing out of the Bible’s teachings rather than positions that I hold prior to, or independently of, those biblical teachings. And I do not hesitate to criticize Republican policies where I differ with them (for instance, in the endorsement of runaway government spending and the continual expansion of the federal government even under conservative Republican presidents). My primary purpose in the book is not to be liberal or conservative, or Democratic or Republican, but to explain a biblical worldview and a biblical perspective on issues of politics, law, and government. (p. 13)

And he recommends that Christians get involved in politics thoughtfully and persuasively:

The “significant influence” view says that Christians should seek to influence civil government according to God’s moral standards and God’s purposes for government as revealed in the Bible (when rightly understood). But while Christians exercise this influence, they must simultaneously insist on protecting freedom of religion for all citizens. In addition, “significant influence” does not mean angry, belligerent, intolerant, judgmental, red-faced, and hate-filled influence, but rather winsome, kind, thoughtful, loving, persuasive influence that is suitable to each circumstance and that always protects the other person’s right to disagree, but that is also uncompromising about the truthfulness and moral goodness of the teachings of God’s Word. (p. 55)

You can find lots of wonderful lectures by Wayne Grudem on politics here. It’s practical Christianity. Christianity… for MEN!

Sometimes I get very annoyed with church… but I never get tired of listening to these lectures every week.

Related posts

News

Democrats get TWICE the amount of foreign contributions as Republicans

4 Comments

Obama has been complaining lately about Republicans receiving foreign money! Scary, I know.

The Hill explains who really gets the most money from foreign donors. (H/T Gateway Pundit)

Excerpt:

Democratic leaders in the House and Senate criticizing GOP groups for allegedly funneling foreign money into campaign ads have seen their party raise more than $1 million from political action committees affiliated with foreign companies.

House and Senate Democrats have received approximately $1.02 million this cycle from such PACs, according to an analysis compiled for The Hill by the Center for Responsive Politics. House and Senate GOP leaders have taken almost $510,000 from PACs on the same list.

[…]“Barack Obama criticized the Supreme Court and his adversaries over the bogus charge of foreign money tainting elections – while leaders in his own party had taken more than a million dollars from the foreign cookie jar,” said Jonathan Collegio, a spokesman for American Crossroads, the political group at the center of the controversy.

“The hypocrisy here is just stunning,” he said.

Now is it illegal to get donations from “foreign donors”? No – the money comes from American employees of foreign corporations. But Obama is a hypocrite for making it sound so scary and ominous when his party collects twice as much as the party he is vilifying.