“Conservative, n. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others.”
From Ambrose Bierce’s Devil’s Dictionary. As quoted in Ralph C. Wood, Contending for the Faith, p. 30.
Hannan is a member of Parliament serving since the ripe old of 28, graduated with a double first from Oxford, and is willing to stand up in the halls of power.
Three minutes of his brilliance:
How does Redeemer respond to the difficulties of being a church in a place that is skeptical of religion?
You know the new book by Robert Putnam? It’s called American Grace. Putnam is a Harvard guy—he wrote Bowling Alone. He’s written a book, and it’s trying to be a snapshot of where America is on religion. It’s quite an interesting book. But the one thing he made a pretty interesting case for is, he said that in the end of the ’60s, the mainline liberal churches got very politically involved with liberal politics. They identified with liberal politics. And that put them way out of step with the mainstream. And there was actually a real reaction against it, and people left the mainline. It just turned them off.
But he’s made the case that in the ’80s and ’90s the evangelical church did the same thing, except with conservative politics. Because it identified so strongly with conservative politics, that also put them somewhat out of step with the mainstream. The mushy middle is kind of moderate about politics, really.
And as a result there’s been a backlash against evangelicals. And I think that’s true. Because I’ve been here during that time. And I would say that as a fairly orthodox believer, that I’ve seen in a place like New York, because of the identification of orthodox Christianity with conservative politics, there’s actually more antipathy here than there was 20 years ago. There’s more fear. Part of the reason why Redeemer has done well is because we’ve always said, “We’re about Christianity, not politics. And we know that your Christian faith is going to affect your political views. We know that—we’re not saying that won’t happen. But we also don’t think that your Gospel faith necessarily throws you into one party or the other. ” And because we’ve had that stance, it’s one of the reasons I think we haven’t had a backlash here.
The rest of the article can be found here:
I IMAGINE MANY READING MY TAGLINE WILL THINK I HAVE LOST MY MIND. PREVIOUS EVIDENCE ALREADY POINTED TO THAT POSSIBILITY, BUT I DIGRESS…
NO, I DO NOT THINK OBAMACARE IS AWESOME BECAUSE NO ONE CAN KNOW FOR SURE HOW IT WILL EXACTLY WORK. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO MAKE DEFINITIVE STATEMENTS ABOUT FUTURE REALITIES BECAUSE EVENTS BY DEFINITION OF BEING IN THE FUTURE REMAIN UNKNOWN. AS OS GUINNESS ONCE TOLD ME, “FUTURISTS MAKE BAD HISTORIANS.”
WHAT I WANT TO DO IS TEST OUR COLLECTIVE ABILITY TO APPLY CHARITY TO THE PRESIDENT’S MOTIVE BEHIND HEALTHCARE FOR ALL AMERICANS.
HERE IS MY QUESTION: WHAT WOULD IT TAKE TO MAKE YOU A BIT (EVEN A TAD OR SMIDGE WILL DO) MORE WILLING TO CUT THE PRESIDENT SOME SLACK AS TO HIS MOTIVE IN WANTING TO PUSH THROUGH NEW HEALTHCARE LEGISLATION?
I HAVE MY OWN THOUGHTS, BUT WILL WAIT TO FIRST HEAR FROM YOU.
I am very glad for a whole bunch of reasons to be living in America. And I am in awe of those brave soldiers who continue to serve us well…many making low incomes and receiving rather faint (if even that) praise.
But let’s remember that America, even at its best, is not the same as the kingdom of God. All of us Christians need to maintain a “prophetic distance” from America in order to not only be honoring to the only rightful King, but to serve our country in ways she desperately needs.