I am a Republican with more questions than I have answers. As a televisions talk show host, I know of several media personalities who spread hate about Clinton because it helped to up their ratings. Then voted for him in both elections. In private they talk about their audience as if they are imbeciles. This to me seems like a very risky process. It is my feeling that these people do a vast amount of harm. I have not yet come to the conclusion that Republican leaders are right about Democrats being without leadership, courage, or backbone. That they are cattle ready for the packing house. I say, we had better remember that that was the thinking that got the Democrats into trouble. They misjudged us the young Republicans. Two weeks ago I attended a meeting where people were being told not to worry, that the Democrats were mostly broke minorities, and that we were going to see to it that they stayed that way. My questions is, how do you do that, and is it a good idea to do it. That kind of thinking takes me back to a dark, dark time for not only America, but for the world. Clinton as a person was a disappointment, but I have been a disappointment in the same areas. Bush has a train load of mistakes, is it going to help us if the Democrats turn his cold sore into Aids? Will that make us stronger as a country. I have no right to ask Democrats to give Bush a chance after the way we treated Clinton, but I am doing just that. Thank you! vanquish.com

-- Anonymous, April 10, 2001

Answers

I love it!!! The last post of CGWhite is what has convinced me not to waste as much time on this forum.

He blasts Republicans for, in essence, painting Democrats with broad brush strokes....and then.....he turns around and uses a roller brush to paint Republicans. What a hoot!!!

CG....just for the record....and don't expect a discourse on this.....I for one am a committed Christian, church leader, and Bible college teacher who thinks that the Democrats are flat wrong about gun control, economics (including their refusal to admit that the properity of the 90's was the result of Reaganomics), and for the most part....everything. (And here is the scary part for folks like you CG....there are A LOT of us out here.)

I did, however, recently find one thing to finally agree with the Democrats on.....I believe the tax break should be more front loaded.

-- Anonymous, April 10, 2001

Ronald Reagan more evil than Clinton??

Boy....now I REALLY have heard everything.

-- Anonymous, April 10, 2001

At least from my perspective Dr. Jon.....you're preaching to the choir!!!

-- Anonymous, April 11, 2001

Dr. Jon....I personally want to go on record and let you know that I'm personally hurt by the attack against you that questions, in essence, your credibility. Since my wife and I homeschool....I could go on "ad infinitim".....about the hypocrisy of education and educational instituions. Let me give you one example. Many accredited schools turn their noses up at "non traditional" educational institutions....and yet....many accredited schools will accept a certain amount of credits from, often times, not accredited institutions. Question....if these credits are good enough for part of the learning experience.....why are they not good enough for the whole learning experience?? It is a rather archaic method of looking at education to suggest that learning can only take place in the confines of a designated college campus. CG's attitude demonstates the hypocrisy and arrogance of much that is called "higher learning" today.

And just for the record.....ATS accredits many schools who do not even accept the first 11 chapters of Genesis as history. ATS proves....NOTHING!!!

But Dr. Jon....take it in stride....for I feel CG showed his true colors. When a man has to resort to such ad hominems.....it becomes obvious that his arguments are weak.

Please accept my apology for such actions. I have ALWAYS found your post to not only be well thought out....but scholarly...and most certainly....noteworthy of a gentleman.

Matt Hartford....great job. You have always had a brilliant mind.

E. Lee....I'm disappointed to say the least....and confused. Disappointed on how you were willing to allow somone who has been with us as long as Dr. Jon has to be personally attacked. That is certainly not like you.

Secondly.....can you really tell us that you would maintain a pacifist attitude as you watched your wife be raped??

Pacifism only works in a world that is a utopia. Romans 13 makes it clear that govt. was put in place because the world is not a utopia. Evil abounds....and it is the responsibility of govt. to keep evil in check by punishing it and protecting those that do good. Is that not the essence of the military?? Did WWII not occur to bring an end to evil and to protect that good citizens of the world?? And in so doing....did this not fit the description of govt. in Romans 13??

When the soldier came to John the Baptist and asked what he needed to do to show forth fruits of repentance.....John said absolutely nothing about dropping out of the military in order to be a true follower of Christ. In fact....was he not told to be content with his wages???

When Cornelius, the first Gentile became a Christian in Acts 10.....there is absolutely nothing said about his need to drop out of his military position.

We are ulimate citizens of a heavenly kingdom....that is true. But we are also citizens of this world. In the prayer of John 17....Jesus even said to the Father..."I'm not asking that you take them out of this world."

One thing continues to amaze me on this forum....and it has amazed me since the day I stepped on here almost two years ago. It is we conservatives who are often called closed minded....mean spirited....and needing more of the spirit of Christ.

And yet what do we in actuality observe?? We observe the "open minded" and dare I say the word..."liberals".....ready to write off anyone who doesn't agree with them....accuse them of not having the mind of Christ....not having the spirit....and in essence....are headed straight for hell (that is...if they still believe in hell).

Matt Hartford preached a wonderful sermon when he was my youth minister on the topic of intolerance. It sure has applied to this forum over the years.....for what I have observed.....is that no one is more intolerant....than a liberal.

-- Anonymous, April 11, 2001

Brother Lee.....

First off....why people say they have a hard time getting along with you is beyond me. Be that what it may....thank you for your well thought out response.

Now....that being said...I completely understand your struggle.....especially someone as yourself who has seen first hand the ugliness of war.

I NEVER SUGGESTED NOR WOULD I.....that the answers are easy. I simply offer other considerations.

I served in the military....and while never being in combat....on two occassions I was on "high alert"....which meant at any moment I could be put in harm's way. Though not to the degree of someone that has actually experienced combat....I have experiened the fear and apprehension....and the flooding of questions that faces someone about to go into combat.

Anyway.....I just wanted you to know....I understand your struggle.

Yours in Christ,

-- Anonymous, April 12, 2001

Bob, I'm not against political participation per se, but I think your statement is a good demonstration that our hope really can't focus on politics or government. There may be important contributions made in that area by Christians, but our great efforts should be to bring the gospel into people's lives. Just a thought. Randal
Head in the Clouds
Positive poetry to encourage you

-- Anonymous, April 10, 2001

We cannot place our trust in politics. Both parties have moral gems and immoral idiots in them. And while the GOP has it right on abortion and homosexuality, the Democrats are more in line with the New Testament on economics and gun control and health care.

I think all followers of Jesus ought to be Independents.

Ultimately Jesus is our hope.

-- Anonymous, April 10, 2001

Bob wrote:

"Two weeks ago I attended a meeting where people were being told not to worry, that the Democrats were mostly broke minorities, and that we were going to see to it that they stayed that way."

That is what I hate about the Republican party. No one who embodies the spirit quoted above loves Jesus, and the spirit quoted above is the life-blood of trickle-down economics.

-- Anonymous, April 10, 2001

CG,

I think it would be wise to examine what God did when He set up a government. When He established Israel as a nation, he set them up as a republic (rule by law, or The Law), private ownership of property, free market (especially the gold standard), and an armed citizenry. Also, the demoncrats, oops, democrats, would be appalled at the welfare system of the New Testament- if a man does not work neither let him eat. Right on Danny.

-- Anonymous, April 10, 2001

You guys are wrong. Ronald Reagan was far more immoral than Clinton. He made the poor poorer and the rich richer. His social evil makes Clinton's personal evil pale in comparison.

It disturbs me that anyone who names the name of Christ has such hatred of the poor. Anyone who would give such thousands of dollars back to the wealthy but opposes a higher minimum wage is no Christian. Capitalism is inherently predatory. It is economic Darwinism. (Survival of the fittest and who cares about the rest?) The prophets taught that God favors the poor. But many Republicans want to do them in.

And about gun control...the Republican view incurrs God's damnation!!! Followers of Jesus have no need to be armed. We trust God's sovereignty and never retaliate, as Jesus taught.

This is Holy Week. Jesus allowed his life to be taken rather than to defend himself and NO FOLLOWER OF JESUS EVER PRACTICES SELF- DEFENSE...we follow his example.

The views expressed by Danny and Matt are diametrically oppposed to the Lord Jesus Christ. In fact--no one who loves the Lord can hold such views except in ignorance, because they contradict the scripture:

(Rom 12:17-19 NRSV) Do not repay anyone evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all. {18} If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. {19} Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave room for the wrath of God; for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord."

(1 Pet 3:9 NRSV) Do not repay evil for evil or abuse for abuse; but, on the contrary, repay with a blessing. It is for this that you were called--that you might inherit a blessing.

(Mat 5:39 NRSV) But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also;

(Mat 26:52 NRSV) all who take the sword will perish by the sword.

-- Anonymous, April 10, 2001

The words of Danny Gabbard:

(And here is the scary part for folks like you CG....there are A LOT of us out here.)

My response:

I am not scared at all. Disappointed but not scared. As a rule, I would surmise that the armed are more afraid than the unarmed.

I would add that I am a member of neither party. I was disappointed in Clinton because he ran as a moderate but governed as a liberal. But so far, Bush, who ran as a moderate, is governing as a conservative. He is as dishonest as Clinton.

One final thought, and I will have said all I care to...It is absolute hogwash that the policies of the 80s created the wealth of the 90s--or at least that is not true except for the wealthy who got more wealthy. The gap between rich and poor widened because of Reagan. The top got tubfulls and all that ever got to the bottom was a trickle. Of course that was the idea...Those who have have a vested interest in keeping it from the have nots. Those who do not believe me should move to Appalachia.

Look at Leviticus 25. The redistribution of wealth was God's idea.

-- Anonymous, April 10, 2001

Danny says:

Ronald Reagan more evil than Clinton?? Boy....now I REALLY have heard everything.

CG says:

That is funny. Clinton sc---s Monica and he is evil. Reagan sc---s the poor millions and he is good.

-- Anonymous, April 11, 2001

I wwould refer those who think Reaganomics were just to the following:

http://www.esa-online.org/network/resources/pdfs/jesday.pdf

Ron Sider writes:

In the United States, over 35,000,000 people live in poverty in the richest society in human history. Their income actually dropped from 1974 to 1996. That is true both in comparison to the well-to-do majority and also in absolute terms. From 1974 to 1996, the bottom 20 percent lost 10 percent in real income (i.e., after taking inflation into account). The top 20 percent gained 39 percent, and the top 5 percent gained 65 percent.

How can we in good conscious think this is accedptable?

-- Anonymous, April 11, 2001

Who is Ron Sider? What is the criteria that he makes these conclusions on? This "poor" versus "wealthy" thing was, I thought, laid to rest a loong time ago. The statistics and numbers are skewed for a particular slant. Fact: the "poor" in America own homes, automobiles, and VCRs. That is a fact. There are no "poor" in America, except maybe Appalachia (which is a national tragedy, I will admit). If you want to see poor, go to a third world country (which I have). I've been to a country where the per capita income was $2000 a year. People literally live in plywood houses made from scrounged materials.

It is not "un-Christian" to expect that people work for a living. Nor is it "un-Christian" to think that self-defense against a physical evil and violence is ok. Normally, your posts are very very good, but I think your pro-poverty bias (from extreme liberalism) has biased your opinion. Your comment on "social evil" cemented my veiws on this. It is a greater social evil to KEEP people in a certain economic strata in order to KEEP THE STATUS QUO. That is what the Democrats and social welfare folks are doing.

You have to think about this (and I have said it before): If our welfare/war on poverty system was doing what is was supposed to, there would be NO "poor" in America today. Everyone in the welfare system would be unemployed, doing something else. But what has happened is that the welfare system created a monster, with only one goal: self-perpetuation.

I suggest you follow the columns of Dr. Walter Williams. This isn't a challenge, but a suggestion. He isn't a Christian, as far as I know, but he does have the facts of the social welfare system, and poverty, straight. Oh, and by the way, he is a minority himself (black). So its not a rich white man's opinion. Dr. Williams has done his homework, and does his best to expose how there is a segment of American society who are making a fortune from blacks and other minorities by having them think they are a 'repressed' and 'helpless' class.

-- Anonymous, April 11, 2001

This will be my final post to this forum. For the most part, I have enjoyed my participation in it. I have very much enjoyed Michael Demastus and Lee Saffold.

I want to apologize for any offense I have caused. No one has bothered to respond to the Biblical case I have made for non-violence. Jon Dewey is wrong, as I have demonstrated in the scriptures quoted above, self-defense is never acceptable for a Christian. The NT leaves absolutely no room for it. Danny Gabbard has chosen not to respond to the legitimate Biblical case I made for m y position. I do not know why.

As far as Jon Dewey is concerned, I want to draw a contrast between he and myself. He should be ashamed to call himself “Dr.” His degree is from a diploma mill. I have a doctorate which I earned on campus from a school accredited by the Association of Theological Schools. I would advise anyone out there to question the academic credentials of anyone who is not a graduate of an ATS-accredited school. (www.ats.edu) This is not meant as an attack on Mr. Dewey, but as a statement of academic legitimacy.

I have been hanging out with the wrong crowd. Ron Sider is president of EVANGELICALS FOR SOCIAL ACTION. This group advocates an evangelical message of salvation with an agressive agenda for social justice. That combination, I believe, brings more glory to Jesus Christ than any other. But it threatens those who have their heads in conservative sand. I have threatened no one, but I have sure been shot at. I have attacked no one in this group, but sadly I have been attacked. Farewell.

Auf Weidersehen!

-- Anonymous, April 11, 2001

CG,

I do not know how you get the redistribution of wealth out of Leviticus 25. God is speaking of redemption by family members to KEEP the land in the SAME family. In Lev 25 God wanted the poor to work. Socialists today, which I assume is your position, want the blanket redistribution of wealth regardless if work is being done. I hope you are not striving for the communist ideal of a "worker's paradise" where everyone is treated equally regardless of the amount of work they put in. I have been to Russia and have seen the "paradise". It breeds apathy, mediocrity, and laziness because people have no incentive for excellence.

By the way, if a free market is Social Darwinism, then God is to blame. He established the fact that an economy if to be free. He established Israel with a free market economy. Many of the great men of Faith were extremely wealthy (Abraham, Job and many others). I guess they must have been evil.

The Bible commands us to take care of the poor. However it is NOT the government's job to make sure it happens. The job of Government is to allow us to lead a quiet and tranquil life according to I Tim. 2. They are also there to punish evildoers according to Romans 13. If I took money out of someones pocket without their approval to help someone else, what would that be? Stealing. Why is it different if the government does it? Giving in the N.T. is voluntary, not compulsory. If I, as an evangelist, took money out of someone's wallet against their will that would also be stealing. It is no different if the government does it.

As far as arming ourselves, what if a Christian was a member of the government who was charged BY GOD to use the sword to punish evildoers? Would that be immoral? Then why would it be immoral to defend ourselves since our constitution recognizes the right of the citizenry to arm themselves to protect our freedom? The only way to have a free country is to have an armed country. Why did Jesus Command His disciples to sell their robes and buy a sword in Luke 22:36 if not to defend themselves? He was not commanding them to sin was He?

To the last point, Clinton was responsible for vetoing a ban on partial birth abortion where a baby is delivered up to their head and a sharp object is thrust into the skull and their brains sucked out. He slod our nation out to the Chinese, gave up our Canal, feminized the military, "normalized" homosexuality, as well as disgraced the office by the Lewinsky scandal as well as pardongate. I guess Reagan was a truly evil man by not confiscating the money that people worked for and giving it to those who did not.

-- Anonymous, April 11, 2001

Brother White:

I am indeed sorry that this was your last post in this forum. I sincerely hope and pray to God that you would reconsider that decision. I also hope that though you are not posting that you will be checking in so that you will see my response to your words.

I apologize to you for not having responded to your excellent case that you have made for Christian “nonviolence”. I have been busy lately and have only responded to a few things in two other threads. But let me say to you that I am fully convinced that the Christian must be careful about involvement in politics. We are citizens of God’s kingdom and our only loyalty should be to Christ our King.

I also believe very much that A Christian should not be found fighting for the kingdoms of this world in carnal warfare. I suppose that one of the reasons that I did not get into this discussion is because we have had this discussion once before at length and felt that it would be nothing more than repetitive for me to join in.

I served in the military service and had many difficult choices to make as a Christian. I will not go into them now but because of those things I studied this subject again in the light of God’s word. And have reached conclusions very much similar to the ones you express concerning nonviolence.

I have, however, never liked President Clinton for the obvious reasons that anyone who loves the truth would not like a deliberate liar. But I am not married to any political party. My allegiance is to Christ and those who are in Christ should never allow allegiance to a political party to cause discord among them. I also believe that we should always champion the cause of the poor. For the poor hear the gospel gladly. For they are generally stripped of the pride which is the most common obstacle to one’s reception of the truth. Yet, I am not convinced that political activism is the best way to help the poor. Sometime, if you will write to me via e-mail we can talk of what I consider to be the very best way to help those in need and the examples given in the word of God are our only acceptable guide in these things.

I am not sure that Christians should not ever have a gun because there are other legitimate uses of such besides a weapon to kill our fellowmen. But I am most assuredly convinced that no Christian should be eager to use guns as a weapon to take the lives of their brothers as Cain killed his brother Abel. I am convinced that we should have more faith in God’s ability to protect us.

I appreciate your comments in this forum and ask that you please reconsider your decision concerning the finality of your last post. Sometimes we do get attacked in this forum and sometimes level- headedness and patience and a quite wise spirit does not prevail. But if anyone could contribute to such a spirit among us it would be you, at least that is the impression that you have consistently made upon me. I sincerely hope that you will return and allow us to continue to benefit from your educational attainments and your love for Christ our Lord.

Your Brother,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, April 11, 2001

Hmmm. If I didn't know better, that did sound like a personal attack to me. But, the jab at my "credentials" was a good sidestep.

And, for the record, accreditation with ATS doesn't mean anything either. ATS is not one of the six primary accreditation agencies acknowledged by the U.S. Department of Education. But, since the subject came up, no, I did not get my degree form a "diploma mill." It is pretty obvious the writer knows little about Bethany Theological Seminary.

This, however, is Bethany's credentials for anyone interested (from their web site, www.bethanybc.edu/accreditation.htm):

Creditable Recognition Bethany is aware that students seeking a school from which to earn their degrees want a college or seminary that is creditable. With professors who hold earned accredited doctoral degrees serving as chairpersons over each of Bethany's Theology Tracks, the School has developed one of the finest and most unique distance educational programs available. Some of Bethany's students have transferred to other accredited institutions of higher learning where they have studied for advanced degrees. Others have been licensed by their state for Christian counseling. We have had some students accepted as chaplains; others have been promoted in their church ranks, while others are holding teaching positions.

Bethany is:

1. Licensed and approved by the Alabama State Board of Education to operate as a degree granting institution.

2. Incorporated under the laws of the State of Alabama and is recognized by the U.S. Department of Internal Revenue Service as a non-profit religious institution.

3. Approved by the Veteran Administration for veterans who attend on- site classes.

4. Approved by the U.S. Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization service to issue the I-20 Forms for foreign students.

5. Approved (college division) by the Evangelical Training Association, formerly know as ETTA, to award the ETA certificates. 6. Is listed in the Walston's Guide to Earning Religious Degrees Non- Traditionally (Second Edition)

7. A member of the United States Distance Learning Association (this is not an accrediting association). To learn more about the USDLA, you may access their web site at http://www.usdla.org.

So there. Boy, I get tired of this credentials baloney. I am actually very angered by Mr. White's statements; that was a very cheap shot.

-- Anonymous, April 11, 2001

E. Lee,

Politics is simply applied religion. The question is, "Which religion are we going to apply?" Name one area of that politics tries to deal with that is not answered by the Scripture? II Peter 1:3 states that "seeing His divine power has granted us everything pertaining to LIFE and godliness, throught he true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excelence." Politics is a huge part of LIFE.

Danny is absolutely correct about what was told to those in military service.

We must trust in the sovereignty of God, HOWEVER, that does not allow us to check out when it comes to our responsibility. I am a steward of the family, money, time, talents etc. that God has given me. I will do everything in my power to protect them from harm, including giving myself up for them.

What changed from the O.T. to the N.T. that made defending oneself wrong? If it was inherently wrong in the NT it must have been wrong in the OT. Was life less sovereign then than it is now? Were they less than people? Then why did God condone the Israelites to kill them? Was Abraham justified for delivering his family from the five kings?

One major problem with this country is that Christians are not involved with politics. We are not supposed to speak specifically about politics because we are a "non-profit" orginization or we risk losing our status. We somehow have bought the line that there actually is a separation between church and state so we do not mix our politics and Christianity. That is why some people in the church of Christ actually voted for Clinton. How could Christian vote for a baby-killer? We need to be educated on what it means to be a good citizen. Danny is right. We are first and foremost citizens of Heaven. However we are still citizens of the country we live in. Paul used his citizenship as a Roman to his advantage more than once. We need to as well. We need to be actively involved in the political arena. Yet we must always understand, politics will never save us, only Christ will. However, this does not excuse our inactivity.

-- Anonymous, April 12, 2001

Brother Danny:

I am happy, as always to see your responses in the forum. I have always considered them strong and helpful to the cause of Christ. And I continue to see them in that way.

You have said:

“E. Lee....I'm disappointed to say the least....and confused.”

Brother Danny, this comment surely got my attention. For, as you know, I have always been moved to step back and reconsider anything that I have said which causes you to question it. And I will do the same in this matter. For if one with your proven love for truth is disappointed with what I have said I will always pause to take another look. I appreciate very much your correction and instruction and regret that I have in any way disappointed one who knows the truth and loves it as you do. Thus I will examine my words and see if they need to be corrected. And I am sure that you know that if I determine that they were correct and truthful that though I would still regret having disappointed you I would hold on to what I am convinced to be the truth. And I am certain that you would not expect me to do anything less.

Then you say:

“Disappointed on how you were willing to allow somone who has been with us as long as Dr. Jon has to be personally attacked. That is certainly not like you.”

You are correct in noticing that I had nothing to say about the words spoken by Brother White in reference to Dr. Jon’s educational credentials which I fully agree with you was a “personal attack” instead of a response to the arguments. But I was writing a few brief comments during a break at work and really did not take the time to notice it in my comments. Dr. Jon and I apparently posted simultaneously. I also could not respond accurately to these things since I am not an academic and know very little of these things. And I also felt that this comment by Brother White was “not like him” either. In fact, this is the only time I have read anything from him that was surely a personal attack and it did surprise me. But we are all human and in the mist of a heated argument when we perceive that we are being attacked personally it is indeed natural and human to respond in kind. I do consider his attack on Dr. Jon as a genuine conflict with his usual manner and stand ready to easily forgive it. But it does show another thing. It shows that he has the natural instinct and propensity to “self-defense” that he condemns as being unchristian does it not? Thus we have good reason to believe that what he says concerning “turning the other cheek” is easier to speak of in theory than it is to practice in fact, does it not?

Then of course you bring up a very good point as follows:

“Secondly.....can you really tell us that you would maintain a pacifist attitude as you watched your wife be raped??”

Indeed, you are correct that I cannot tell you that I would maintain a consistent pacifist attitude if someone were raping my wife whom you know that I love dearly. In fact, with my military background and training I can almost say with certainty that I would probably kill the rapist without even thinking about it. And probably in the most brutal way know to man. It would surely not be a pretty sight. And you thus correctly show a severe inconstancy in what I believe the Bible teaches and what I am down deep in reality able or even WILLING to actually do. But does my inability to be consistent prove anything concerning what the Bible teaches. In other words, if the Bible did in fact teach that I should in all circumstances have a pacifist attitude would my human weakness and inability to consistently follow such a practice negate what the Bible teaches? I think not. However, I believe that I understand your objection. If something seems absurd to us on the surface then it is at least a good reason to doubt that God’s word would teach it at least in the form, which is illogical, and against all of our natural instincts. But there are some such things that appear initially to be illogical on the surface that turn out to be the very truth of God after further investigation. But, as I have said, your position concerning this matter is worthy of serious consideration and I will give it just that in the light of God’s eternal word. And I appreciate very much any help or suggestions that you can offer in relation to it.

Then you say: “Pacifism only works in a world that is a utopia.”

I think you are quite right about this and it may be that what you really mean is that it works in most cases but cannot be consistently applied in all circumstances. Does that mean that it should never be applied at all? I think not. But your point is indeed well taken and causes me to seriously question and review my position on the matter.

Then you say:

“ Romans 13 makes it clear that govt. was put in place because the world is not a utopia.”

While I agree with you that this might be one of God’s reasons for allowing human governments I am not sure that I show that Romans 13 makes it clear that such was the reason God put them in place.

“Evil abounds....and it is the responsibility of govt. to keep evil in check by punishing it and protecting those that do good. Is that not the essence of the military?? Did WWII not occur to bring an end to evil and to protect that good citizens of the world?? And in so doing....did this not fit the description of govt. in Romans 13??”

I understand what you say about the above and I have seen first hand the very evil of which you speak and cannot even now tell myself that I could sit idle and watch such evil prevail in this world. But, I do not see from Romans 13 that the Christian is to be a part of this earthly government, which bears not the sword in vain. But you do make me want to reconsider it and I promise to do just that and give you the results of my study. Is that fair enough?

Brother Danny, I have mentioned to you before that this subject has been a struggle for me especially following periods of intense combat and the shedding of blood. And the things that I have seen and done are hard for me to discuss and often difficult to think about. But those things placed in contrast with much of what I read in the New Testament are very difficult for me to reconcile and I hope that you can understand what I mean. Nevertheless, I will again rethink this matter for you have brought up some very good things to think about.

The think that bothers me most about this particular subject is that most who are dealing with it are only dealing with it in THEORY on both sides. But when you face it in reality, whether by being placed in a position where your “wife is being raped”. Or actually being a Christian in combat who has the blood of his fellow man running down his sleeve after having silently cut his throat and left him kicking on the ground until his life is gone both are not theory but are reality. I have never been face with someone raping my wife. But I have more than once actually faced the other. And the theories on either side of this issue are simply hard to deal with in practice. I hope that you can understand why I am able to appreciate the pacifist view. Though I know you are not one of them, many preachers decide these matters too easily on a purely academic level. And they offer the results to young men and women who must face the consequences of their academic results in real combat or real witnessing of their wife being raped and it is far from simple and clean and “academic’ for them. Though, I must admit that they are in the academic environment able to be more “objective” in their research.

But as I have said, I will give this subject yet another look though I must tell you that it is not easy for me. But that is ok. Some things are not easy and that is the way life it, isn’t it?

And of course I agree with you completely in the rest of your post.

I must get back to work.

I hold you in high regard Brother Danny as always,

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, April 12, 2001

This thread is starting to change a bit, but I think we are starting to see that our views are truly colored by our experiences as well as scripture. I can relate with most of you. At Fort Benning is a sign that says "For those who fought for it, freedom has a taste that those who haven't will never understand." (Not an exact quote, but close.) For the Christian who has fought for freedom, death also has a new meaning, and a "taste" if you will. Being a soldier taught me the awfulness of death, and what it really is, and really brought home exactly why people need a Saviour. Jesus' death on the cross isn't a concept to me; I understand its ugly reality because like E. Lee I have faced the death of soldiers and know the horribleness of death. I would not wish it on anyone. I fully understand (as best I can) the price Jesus paid so a hardneaded, rebellious person like myself could be reconciled to a holy God. Fear is a mild word when I think about what Jesus did. I actually tremble inside when I consider the concept.

However, I think our experiences are a little different than the average pacifist. I will never say a pacifistic person is wrong. I hold certain pacifistic views. But my views are constructed around a clear view of actual reality that only those that have been there can appreciate. A true story of something that happened to me in Hawaii will illustrate:

I was in a coffee shop outside of Schofield Barracks, drinking coffee. A young female college student very loudly started protesting the Air Force's decision to name a B-1 bomber that was stationed at Hickam AFB "The Spirit of Hawaii." The spirit of Hawaii, she claimed, was "aloha," the mystical experience of peace and love one feels on the islands. She tried to insist that aloha was the historical precedence of the islands. I thought about this for a few seconds, then confronted her with facts. The first is that historically, the islands were inhabited by feuding clans who seemed to thrive on continual inter-tribal warfare. These early Hawaiians did not practice "aloha" at all, but practiced human sacrifice. The image of a Hawaiian, in Hawaii, is that of the warrior. The fact that Hawaii was a kingdom at all has to do with the fact that one of the Hawaiian clan leaders was smart enough to purchase gunpowder weapons from the traders who started showing up. Hawaii's most famous battle, that of the Pali Lookout, was basically the first king forcing his enemy's army over a cliff into the ocean to their deaths (it was a massacre). So, I explained to her, the spirit of Hawaii historically was warfare and barbarism, not aloha. Needless to say, she got very upset, because she didn't want to hear facts.

Moral of the story? While what the Air Force did was tacky, the young woman's point was unfounded. Its ok to have convictions, even strong ones. But the reasons have to be reasonable. Those of us who at one time were able to cause the loss of human life understand the value of it in ways that those who never have never will (unless they face that circumstance). Our convictions are based on the factual reality that we have experienced, plus the understanding of the spiritual realities of life as explained in scripture. But lets have our convictions be ours, not someone else's (that was that girl's problem; she was regurgitating the standard radical UH party line. She knew I was military (the haircut showed) and she was attempting to get a rise out of me. She failed).

I don't knock anyone's views on the subject of pacifism. But other than personal conviction, I do not believe that an absolute doctrine can be constructed from scripture on the subject. And by that I mean ALL SCRIPTURE (Old and New Testaments). I do not think that building a doctrine just from the New Testament will provide the whole counsel of God on the subject. I can be proved wrong on this, but that is my opinion at present. Bottom line is that it is a personal conviction, and often is one that cannot be solidly answered until a person is in a position to have it tested.

-- Anonymous, April 12, 2001

Brother Matt:

You have said:

“Politics is simply applied religion.”

I am not sure that you are correct in this statement. But it may be that I do not understand just what you mean by it. I would like to see you make some attempt to give evidence from the scriptures to prove that your statement is the truth. I do not know of any passage in the word of God that would cause anyone to draw this conclusion, do you? Nor do I know of a single reputable dictionary that gives this definition of the meaning of the word “politics”, do you?

The definition of the word “politics” according to Webster is as follows:

“: pol·i·tics Pronunciation: 'pä-l&-"tiks Function: noun plural but singular or plural in construction Etymology: Greek politika, from neuter plural of politikos political Date: circa 1529 1 a : the art or science of government b : the art or science concerned with guiding or influencing governmental policy c : the art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a government 2 : political actions, practices, or policies 3 a : political affairs or business; especially : competition between competing interest groups or individuals for power and leadership (as in a government) b : political life especially as a principal activity or profession c : political activities characterized by artful and often dishonest practices 4 : the political opinions or sympathies of a person 5 a : the total complex of relations between people living in society b : relations or conduct in a particular area of experience especially as seen or dealt with from a political point of view ”

After reading that definition I cannot find anything in the definition of the meaning of the word that would cause anyone to draw the conclusion that “politics is simply applied religion”. I do not know how you reached such a conclusion but I am willing to read your efforts to justify it should you be willing to do so.

The scriptures do not teach that “politics is simply applied religion” and the word itself carries no such connotation in its meaning. It does appear that you have simply given your own convenient definition the word and proceeded forth to make an argument based upon it with the assumption that no one would even contemplate questioning your self imposed definition. If we are to use words so as to communicate with one another we cannot hope to prevent confusion when we abuse those words, now can we?

I look forward to hearing your explanation for I am certain that one with your obvious skill and ability will have a good one.

Your brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, April 13, 2001

E. Lee,

Thanks for the question.

When I made the statement I was speaking conceptually, not definitively. It would be the same as saying that "life is applied religion". What I mean by that is this: politics, as well as life, is simply an extension of your religious belief. The laws we have are based on a moral code. That moral code is based on a religion. Economic priciples are also based on religion. That is why God condemns lending money to brethren at high interest as well as inflation (which steal the labor of an individual Amos 8:4-6), etc.

Every slant of politics can be traced back to a religious viewpoint. That was all I meant by my statement. I tried to have the context of my post illustrate mt meaning.

Matt

-- Anonymous, April 13, 2001

Brother Matt:

I appreciate very much your kind and excellent response to my question. It was nothing short of what I expected to come from you. I believe that I now have a better understanding of what you intended to say. You have explained:

“When I made the statement I was speaking conceptually, not definitively.”

I can surely see that such was the case but I could not tell from the context of what you had said. The fault in that was surely mine.

Then you say:

“ It would be the same as saying that "life is applied religion".”

What you actually said was, ““Politics is simply applied religion.” If you were to say the same thing “conceptually” about “life” that you said about politics you would have said, “life is simply applied religion”. I believe that even conceptually we would know that life is much more than “simply applied religion”. And I believe that if we think conceptually about politics we would have to say that it is not “simply” anything for it is far from a subject that can be reduced to a “simple” single concept. I am not by any means doubting in its entirety all that you intended to say. In fact, I think I understand that you mean to say that when we participate in politics we are certainly applying our religion in doing so. I do not doubt that when we do anything in life we are either applying or denying our religion. But such as this can be said of anything that we do. For we are told concerning applying Christian principles to our lives, “And whatsoever ye do in word or deed do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the father by him”. (Col. 3:17). Thus it is true that we, as Christians, must in everything that we do and say do all “in the name of” or by the authority of Jesus Christ. This does not mean that everything that is done in life is the actual application of our religion. For there are some things that we cannot do without going against the authority of Christ. For example, if one were to say that all of Life is simply the application of religion, and then go out to commit fornication and come back and justify it by saying that fornication is a part of life and life is simply applied religion. We would all rightly conclude that he failed to show that such a practice is right and good and that all should follow his example now wouldn’t we? Thus, even if it were true “conceptually” and I am not convinced that it is, that “politics is simply applied religion” it would not necessarily follow that a Christian could participate in it as a part of the practice of the specific “Christian religion” now would it? If we practice anything in the Christian religion we must be able to do it in the name of Christ. And I am not yet convinced that you have shown us that the Christian can be involved in politics by the authority of Christ. In fact, there are some things done in the political practice that I am sure that you would agree that Christians cannot do for they are contrary to the teachings of Christ. Such as “lying” about the opposing party or candidate just to win an election which happens often. But I know you are not talking about the abuses of politics but rather the actual good and just uses of it. But I am sure that you can see why I cannot accept that it can therefore be simply reduced to the concept of “applying your religion”. Using the concept that you describe everything that we do in life can be called “applying or failing to apply” our religion depending upon whether the thing we are doing is in harmony with the teachings of our religion. Thus your argument that we should participate as Christians in politics on the grounds that conceptually it is “simply applied religion” fails to demonstrate that such a practice is in harmony with our religion. And that is what must be done before one can conclude that it is right and good for Christians to be active and aggressive in politics. For what we need as Christians is a thus saith the Lord for all that we do “in word and deed” so that we can do it in the “name of Christ”. And so far I have not seen anything that you have presented that indicates that Christians seek resolution of societal problems in the political arena. In fact, I am not yet convinced that such is even the mission of the church. But I do appreciate your efforts and if anyone can convince me it most likely would be you. But thus far I am not convinced.

Then you say:

“What I mean by that is this: politics, as well as life, is simply an extension of your religious belief.”

Well, I think that I can see what you mean but I am not sure that it is true that everything in politics or in life for that matter is “simply” and extension of my religion. For there are indeed in both Politics and life many things that are without doubt CONTRARY to my religious belief, is there not?

Then you say:

“ The laws we have are based on a moral code.”

I am not so sure that all of our current “laws” are truly based upon a moral code. If seems to me that the laws making abortion legal in this country are based on an extremely immoral “code”. And I am not convinced that all laws throughout the world are based upon a “moral code” either.

Then you say:

“That moral code is based on a religion.”

Well, if the moral code that you describe upon which ALL laws are based is the basis of our current laws legalizing abortion it is truly hard for me to imagine just how “moral” that religion is upon which such a code is based. But I do understand why you say that it finds a basis in religion though I am convinced that it is the religion of Satan that much political action and codes are based upon. And this may be what you are saying. You may be saying that we as Christians have it as a part of our mission to ensure that all laws and government throughout the world are based upon the moral code found in God’s word. Though if you are saying such I am not sure that it is true.

Then you say:

“Economic principles are also based on religion. That is why God condemns lending money to brethren at high interest as well as inflation (which steal the labor of an individual Amos 8:4-6), etc.”

No Just because we can use economics to harm our fellowman and God regulated such among his chosen people, the Hebrews, does necessarily prove that everything economic is “based upon religion”. Now, I cannot disagree with you that the Christian religion effects all of our life and everything that we do it in. But I do not agree that just because it touches our life that it necessarily follows that it is therefore right for us to do anything just because it is influenced by our religion. There is a very big difference, it seems to me, between all facets of life being influenced by religion and everything being “based” upon it. There are some things that our religion positively forbids us to practice or do that are things that are influenced by religion. In other words our religion influences us to avoid it. And politics could be one of those things. I am not saying that it necessarily is but I am saying that even if politics had some basis in religion it would not follow that we, as Christians, therefore must or should participate in it, now does it?

Then you say: “Every slant of politics can be traced back to a religious viewpoint.”

This may or may not be true but even if it were it would not indicate that Christians should be involved in it. Especially is this true if politics turned out to be from a religious viewpoint contrary to the Christian religion. Would that not be correct? What I mean is that if Christians must join political parties and support them when the majority of the “viewpoints” in those parties was anti Christian just because that party supports a specific agenda which has a few things on it that Christians support would it be right? Are we to shake hands with the devil to further the cause of Christ?

“That was all I meant by my statement.”

I think I understand what you meant. It seems that you were not trying to prove that Christians must be involved in politics but rather that since it is based upon a religious view point that it would be good if Christians worked to insure that the religious viewpoint that it is based upon is Christian. Is that a fair understanding of what you mean?

Then you say:

“I tried to have the context of my post illustrate mt meaning.”

I know that you did and I am not saying that you failed to illustrate your meaning quite well for every one else to see. I am sure that my failure to understand is based upon my poor ability to comprehend. I sincerely appreciate your efforts to explain it to me.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, April 13, 2001

E. Lee,

Your response was obviously well thought out as usual. I think that maybe you might have been reading a liitle too much into what I meant. Let me clarify and I think we would both agree.

When I said that "politics is simply applied religion" I was not stating that life, or politics was simple. What I was saying was that the roots of all life and political beliefs can be traced back to one's world view and in turn one's world view to one's basic beliefs about the world, God, man, truth, (called a noetic structure) etc. Every one of those basic beliefs is defined by one's religion (whether it be good or bad). A religion does not need to be organized as we see it today. For example, an individual might consider themself an atheist. Their religious belief might not be written down in the form of a creed yet they still have a religious belief structure that they interpret the world through. This structure also forms and shapes the application of their life.

Also, when I said that laws are based on moral code, I was not stating the rightness or wrongness of the moral code at all. The ones who fought so hard for the law that allows them to murder children in the womb did so on the basis of the moral (or as we see it, immoral) code which in turn stems from their view of man and God. Simply put, when all things are reduced to their lowest common denominator, we find an individual's religion.

Also, their are things contrary in life and politics that are contrary to my religion, but I do not associate with those. If I were a politician I would not lie about the other party to get my point across. There is enough truth out there to do that! However, those things that are contrary to my reigious beliefs might not be contrary to others, hence they exist in the world today. Believe, I am not a relativist by any stretch of the imagination. I believe their are right and wrong political and life views. All I am saying is that all of these things can be boiled down to a religious belief, right or wrong.

From what I understood, you might have thought that I was stating that there was a good moral code that the people of the world use to make their laws. By no means do I assert that proposition because know that it would be razed to a pile of rubble.

As far as Christians being involved in politics, the Scripture speaks to everything the government tries to address. I do not believe politics will cure the social ills of our day, but I believe our culture is as bad as it is because the church has checked out of our culture including politics. George Washington stated in his farewell address that (I'm paraphrasing) our national morality and our political system could not be maintained without religion. I could get the exact quote if you want. Therefore, I believe that Christians should be responsible citizens in the countries where they live. Also, I do not believe a Christian should vote party line either. I did not vote for hardly anyone in the "party" I belong to. I think that is what is important.

I hope this might clarify a little more of what I meant.

God Bless.

Matt Hartford

-- Anonymous, April 14, 2001

Brother Matt:

I appreciate your clarifications and it does seem that we do agree. I am sure that you may have noticed in our recent election that I did my part in this forum to speak against Gore and others associated with Clinton. And I made my way to the polls and exerted my influence in the most powerful way possible to elect President Bush by casting my simple single vote for him. But that is basically the extent of my participation in politics. I will speak out against evil and take advantage of my rights as a citizen of a free country to hinder evil in this way.

Yet, I will not ever get involved in politics to the extent that I end up being consumed by it so that I have little or no time to preach the gospel of Christ. For that is our primary concern. The purpose of the gospel is not “social change” as I am sure you will agree. Though this is often a secondary beneficial result in this life it is not its purpose. We are to preach Christ in every place that men might be saved from their sins. (1 Cor. 1:18-25; Romans 1:16; Mark 16:15,16). I have often seen brethren become absorbed in politics and leading the church to “political action” and working for “social change” to the point that they were even willing to neglect the gospel and worse even modify it to bring about some political reforms. I am convinced by your words that you would agree with me that this is not a wise or scriptural course for Christians to take. And for us to go out and join with the sectarians working for social change while neglecting our responsibility to teach them the gospel of Christ and call them out of the Babylon of sectarianism is also unacceptable.

Let us not forget also that Christianity is not an “American” but rather is a Universal faith. It is a faith that can and must be preached and practiced in the entire world, including communist countries and dictatorships. And political participation in those areas might lead Christians to work for violent overthrow of governments. And in other cases serving in corrupt governments. I believe that you would agree with me that all Christians around the world should certainly exercise extreme caution when attempting to use their Christian influence to make life better in this world for their fellow man by seeking social change through political and military action. When they should be working to turn men away from sin to Christ as Lord and furthering always the cause of Christ and His Kingdom on earth which is the Church of Christ. And there is a big difference between taking advantage of any rights we might have as citizens of a particular country to further the spread of the gospel and the increase of the kingdom of God. And hindering the gospel by neglecting it or using it as a “tool of social change” or an excuse for political action or violent revolution which is surely contrary to its purpose.

Let us instead have the attitude described by the apostle Paul. “I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, [and] giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and [for] all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this [is] good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.” (I Timothy 2:1-4). Nero was, at the time Paul wrote these words by inspiration, the Ruler of the Roman Empire. Paul was imprisoned under this very ruler and was soon to be executed. This not only shows that prayers and intercessions should be made for “bad rulers” as well as good. It also shows that what we should seek from our rulers in prayers is that we might be able to lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. And there is not even the slightest implication from Paul that we should even ask God for the overthrow of these “bad rulers” but only that they not hinder our efforts to lead men to salvation in Christ through the gospel. And it is significant that Paul sought this result in Prayer rather than “political action”. There were no calls for “revolt” and prayers that God would give them the ability to overthrow evil rulers. And history shows how that through the preaching of the gospel, and the prayers and sufferings of the saints Rome ultimately fell of its own accord and Christianity triumphed over these rulers without ever taking any political action. The gospel changed the world without even intending to do so. For when men are translated out of the kingdom of darkness into the Kingdom of God’s dear son (Col. 1:13) they are no longer, in actuality, citizens of this world but citizens of the kingdom of God. And the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, political, or military. They are spiritual. Let us never be diverted from our true purpose as saints of God living in the world but not being of it. (Romans 12:1,2). And let us not forget that the ruler is God’s minister for our good. Even if the ruler himself is evil. (Romans 13).

I do understand and believe that you and I actually agree. Let us give our lives and energies to “reading, exhortation, and doctrine” and let us influence the King through our prayers and lead those who are lost to salvation in Christ regardless of the political climate of whatever country we reside. And whatever persecutions and sufferings we might face.

Christ is not an American savior only, as I am sure you agree, and he is not one who favors Republicans over Democrats or Democracy over Communism or vise versa. In Romans 13 we are told that the “powers that be” (whatever they are) are ordained of God. This included some very wicked governments. It included the wicked Roman government and it no doubt includes Communist governments and dictatorships as well. We are not told that God ordained only democratic governments. And the Christian must live under whatever government that rules over his country and remain faithful to Christ and preach the gospel of Christ and depend upon God for help in time of need. The heart of the king and those who are in power are in the Lord’s hands and he directs it as a watercourse wherever he wills. And in answer to our prayers he can and often will change the king. He is the savior of all men through his shed blood and this message of the gospel must be sent to all men in high and low places. Let no conflict over political matters divert us from our purpose of bringing to all men the saving gospel of Christ to a lost, hopeless and dying world.

Your Brother in Christ,

E. Lee Saffold

-- Anonymous, April 14, 2001