The Bible says that if My people, who are called by My Name, will humble themselves and ask forgiveness of their sins, I will hear from Heaven and heal their land.
We stopped going to Church during the Clinton years when the Church, hijacked by the Republican Congress, relentlessly persecuted the sinner – while ignoring their own sins. I could not be a part of such blatant and arrogant hypocrisy! Over the years we have steered away from Conservative Christians as if they were the plague, lest we ourselves became contaminated with their hate and self righteousness. We stopped identifying ourselves as Evangelical Christians because other Evangelicals immediately assumed that we were like them, and non Christians were so turned off that we were ineffective witnesses of Jesus Christ in their lives.
The Church allowed Caesar to use it as a tool, and has much to answer for before God. It’s hands are dripping with blood because they supported this war. Yet we prayed faithfully that God would open the eyes of His people so that they could humble themselves and ask forgiveness for their sins. It seems that our prayers have been heard!

“The Bible says that if My people, who are called by My Name, will humble themselves and ask forgiveness of their sins, I will hear from Heaven and heal their land.”
If by land you mean the church, then you might be onto something because land is no longer land, it’s now the kingdom of God (the church).
I suggest you might want to reread you comment in light of this verse:
1 John 3:14 We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brothers. Whoever does not love abides in death. 15 Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. 16 By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us, and we ought to lay down our lives for the brothers.
It’s too bad that you let your hatred drive you from the church. I’m in a conservative church that barely mentions politics. Maybe you might want to find a church like that because you really should not be forsaking the assembly of the body:
Hebrews 10:23 Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful. 24 And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, 25 not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.
You demonstrate as much love of the sinner (Christian Republicans) as they exhibited to Clinton.

“It’s hands are dripping with blood because they supported this war”
“They” neither supported nor opposed the war. Individual Christians who are also citizens can hold any view they like and are free to vote their conscience. It’s not like churches were out there conducting book burnings or pro-war rallies or something.
Apparently your definition of “support” is “not condemn loudly from the pulpit”. Or “not hold die-ins on courthouse steps”. Oh, but that would be a political statement, wouldn’t it? So it’s OK for the church to be political as long as they support your opinion.
That being said, I do agree some extra-church groups like FOF, and some churches, blindly assume that “Christian” must also mean “conservative”

Michele, you mention that you attend a conservative church that rarely mentions politics. In the past I, like the first poster, attended a conservative evangelical church that focused many of its sermons on “cultural issues” (a code name for political issues) that invariably supported the Republican political position.
How does your church maintain a conservative theological position while not becoming a cheerleader for the Republicans, or for that matter, without becoming entangled in politics? What would you suggest that the more political churches do to correct their situations?

ZZ: “That being said, I do agree some extra-church groups like FOF, and some churches, blindly assume that “Christian” must also mean “conservative”"
Actually, ZZ, I think it also reaches the level of individual congregations. I know locally there are a number of churches where, from the leadership, the message is that Christian=Republican. They are careful enough to avoid any 501(c)3 entanglements, but the unspoken message is quite clear: Christians do not let other Christians vote Democratic.
And if you go back to the early phases of the war, back in the weeks leading up to the Iraq invasion and shortly thereafter, the message that I saw on the signs of many of our more conservative churches here in town focused more on supporting the President than supporting the troops. Any question about whether this was a just war or not were met with ridicule and suggestions that the questioner was not patriotic.
Your point about parachurch organizations such as FOF is well taken, but I think some of the responsibility for this shift towards religious nationalism has to be put at the church leaders’ doorsteps as well.

“How does your church maintain a conservative theological position while not becoming a cheerleader for the Republicans, or for that matter, without becoming entangled in politics? What would you suggest that the more political churches do to correct their situations?”
My pastor is a passionate advocate for life but he doesn’t bring politics into it. He focuses on what we can do about it (we support a crisis pregnancy center). He prayers for those who are fighting the war but doesn’t get into the politics of the war. He even did a sermon on the just war after we invaded Iraq but it also wasn’t political. He can speak on the issues without being an advocate for the Republicans because he talks about the issues from the Christian perspective and not from a political perspective.
I think he doesn’t get into advocating for Republicans because he understands that Democrats are Christians too and it divides the church — creating an us vs. them atmosphere. We do enough of that over theological issues, why bring in one more reason for schisms?

It ain’t done a lot of good for the Republicans either. It has forced the party to endorse positions, like on stem cell research, that are guaranteed vote losers. And the Evangelicals should have no illusions about how the Republican brains think of them. They are regarded as trailer trash, an evil they would love to figure out a way to get along without.
And they view Mad Dog Dobson as their equivalent of Jesse Jackson, a loon at best and a positive evil at worst.

Actually, Charles, I pictured it more like the pretty, but easy girl. You court her when you need what she has, you pretend like she’s invited to the party, and pretend to listen to what she says, and that you’ll do what she wants.
Then when you get what you want (her votes), you dump her, ignore her until the next time you want something from her.
The reason it works is… she really thinks you care, makes excuses for the neglect, and comes trotting back the next time you crook a finger at her.
Kinda sad, actually.

Hi-
I’m new to your blog, but I find it fascinating. I am 58, lived through the 60′s, Viet Nam, and the “evangelicalizing” of the church. Believe it or not, in the 70′s, “evangelical” was equivalent to “liberal”! I remember when the big debate was whether Christians should even get involved in politics, since for decades they had taken the position that God would handle it all. When social issues began to take a frightening turn, many decided to be silent no more. Like the name or not, there was a moral majority, and it was heartening to see that many in our country still supported conservative values.
It is true that some have developed a shrill and unloving tone in defending their conservative postitions. But it is difficult to hold the ONLY perspective which is not afforded “tolerance”, the ultimate theme of this culture.
Today I am a member of an urban, small, conservative church because I believe in serving the poor and engaging in culture. Again, like the term or not, there are lots of “compassionate conservatives”. I love the 20- and 30-somethings in my church, but unfortunately, I feel discriminated against. I am in most ways in agreement with the Republican Party’s platform, even though I don’t like, respect, or listen to many Republicans. I cannot as a believer in Christ endorse most of the Democrats’ platform. I am amazed that this has become equated with religious nationalism.
I was interested in the concern over a school where evangelicals would send their kids. Although my children would not attend, I see nothing wrong with an institution of learning which espouses the beliefs of the parents paying for the education. Secular schools are no longer “non-religious”, they are “anti-religious”, and for some the constant attack on their beliefs and values, the ridicule and harrassment, aren’t worth it, and take too much energy away from trying to get good grades and a decent education. Even that is debatable, as the exhorbitant cost of an education becomes increasingly indefensible against the poor preparation received for an actual career, especially when compared with salary earned.
Why shouldn’t there be schools which teach from a conservative position? Secular institutions certainly teach from a liberal perspective. Do we actually believe Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and all the other early institutions didn’t have a particular world-view and unashamedly promoted it?

“The reason it works is… she really thinks you care, makes excuses for the neglect, and comes trotting back the next time you crook a finger at her.”
No, it’s more like the only other guy she can date is this hideous beast she doesn’t want to have anything to with. She’ll take what she can get from the Republicans cause she knows that the Democrats don’t have anything she needs.

Maybe she needs to go stag, and not think she needs a man to get what she wants, rather than being used.
She doesn’t get ANYTHING but contempt from the one she goes with.
But guess better contempt than being single?

And you’re assuming the ‘hideous beast’ wants her, or that they are the only two guys in town?

(Nice way to describe approximately half the citizenry, btw.)

“I’m new to your blog, but I find it fascinating.”
Welcome and thanks! I hope you continue reading and contributing to the conversation. I could use more conservatives commenting
“Today I am a member of an urban, small, conservative church because I believe in serving the poor and engaging in culture. Again, like the term or not, there are lots of “compassionate conservatives”. I love the 20- and 30-somethings in my church, but unfortunately, I feel discriminated against. I am in most ways in agreement with the Republican Party’s platform, even though I don’t like, respect, or listen to many Republicans. I cannot as a believer in Christ endorse most of the Democrats’ platform. I am amazed that this has become equated with religious nationalism.”
That is something I’ve been thinking a lot about lately. It seems like the issue of the oppressed has been popping up over and over again in different ways. The professor brought it up in class on Friday in regards to Ruth. Boaz is a picture of Israel doing its job by helping the widows who were the most victimized class in society and he exhorted us to think about the oppressed and marginalized in our society, the church is called to the same role as Israel in regard to providing help and justice for the poor and oppressed (providing relief through the diaconate).
As soon as this semester is over I was thinking about writing a post about it.
“Why shouldn’t there be schools which teach from a conservative position? Secular institutions certainly teach from a liberal perspective. Do we actually believe Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and all the other early institutions didn’t have a particular world-view and unashamedly promoted it?”
It’s not that parents are sending their kids to a Christian college that’s the issue, I send my kids to a Christian school so it’s not that. It’s more the agenda of the college. It’s tied into the Republican party and its graduates work as interns at the WH. It ties the church and the party together a little too tightly. I think that the church really needs to think about our agenda as Christians. What are we here to accomplish? I think that the church has lost its way in some respects.
BTW, I’m not interested in Christians leaving politics. I just think that we should take back our name from the Republicans and say that we are separate from them. I have no problem calling myself a Republican if everyone realizes that I’m a Republican because I support their agenda, not that they support mine (meaning they are not Christians in my eyes, they are politicians).
I recommend “God’s Harvard” to see what I’m talking about. It’s a pretty fair treatment of the issues.

“Maybe she needs to go stag, and not think she needs a man to get what she wants, rather than being used.
She doesn’t get ANYTHING but contempt from the one she goes with.
But guess better contempt than being single?”
She’s actually getting what she wants because she now has four judges on the supreme court and only needs one more then she has her majority goal met. Plus she got a nice little tax cut which made her very happy
“And you’re assuming the ‘hideous beast’ wants her”
Where have you been? The hideous beast has been out their courting her all over the place. Haven’t you seen all the religion forums that the Democrats have been going to?
“Nice way to describe approximately half the citizenry”
Actually just two of them And those in the Senate and the House. I wouldn’t tar the local politicians with the same brush (except in my state and CA).

“Why shouldn’t there be schools which teach from a conservative position? Secular institutions certainly teach from a liberal perspective.”
Personally, I’d be much happier if our public schools taught math from a math perspective, reading from a reading perspective, science from a science perspective, and social studies from a social studies perspective. It would be good, for once, to leave liberal and conservative at the door of the school and focus on the subjects rather than the spin.

They haven’t been necessarily courting ‘evangelicals’, so much as noting that just because you aren’t evangelical doesn’t mean you aren’t religious.
And I wouldn’t call anyone a ‘hideous beast’, much less a whole party. Including the Republicans. I don’t agree with the policies, but I don’t think they’re horrid people for espousing them.
So, I’m a Democrat. Am I one of those hideous beasts?
As for four of those justices, most of the rest, including the most liberal, were appointed by Republican presidents as well.
Seems even there the record is pretty spotty.

And are you saying tax cuts are a RELIGIOUS issue?

What do you suppose would be the worst that would happen in this nation if the evangelical Christians decided to abstain from supporting the Republicans in this next election? Do you believe that anything would happen that God could not handle, correct, or protect us from?
It seems to me that the Republicans are very much like the abusing husband, convincing the wife there is nowhere else to go, nobody who would help her, and that deep down he really does love her (at least every election cycle).
If the Republicans know that the evangelicals will never leave nor forsake them, why should they NOT take them for granted?

Go on my blog! It talks about this sorta stuff!
http://www.myplacetovent-tracy.blogspot.com

“And are you saying tax cuts are a RELIGIOUS issue?”
For me they are, I believe it’s wrong for the government to overtax its citizens. It’s stealing. I believe in supporting the government and pay every penny that’s required (render to Caesar what is Caesar’s ) but I believe it’s excessive.

Odd, since if anyone was ‘overtaxed’ by a most UNrepresentative government, it was Judea and Rome, and Jesus still said what he did.
You honestly, therefore, think that those who don’t espouse your position on taxation levels are endorsing sin?

“If the Republicans know that the evangelicals will never leave nor forsake them, why should they NOT take them for granted?”
You could say the same thing about the blacks, union and the feminist vote in regards to the Democrats, can’t you? But we got what we wanted under Bush. That’s my point. We got judges and no stem cell research. I can find no fault with Bush in regards the issue of life. BTW, we got more from Bush than the unions have gotten from the Democrats (remember NAFTA?).
“What do you suppose would be the worst that would happen in this nation if the evangelical Christians decided to abstain from supporting the Republicans in this next election? Do you believe that anything would happen that God could not handle, correct, or protect us from?”
That God is sovereign and in control of whoever wins is a given. It doesn’t even have to enter into the process because you know whoever won, it was God’s will that they are there.
My consideration is threefold: abortion, defense and taxes (and spending but that doesn’t seem like something the Republicans care about any more — though McCain is anti-earmarks so that’s a start). Who will get me federalist judges? McCain. Who do I trust to fight the war on terror? No one but McCain comes the closest. Who has promised not to raise my taxes? McCain.
So if there is a candidate who meets my three issues, why wouldn’t I vote for him. It would be stupid to not vote for anyone and then let the Democrat wins even though they don’t support any of my issues. Why in the world would I do something idiotic like that?

You also got Kennedy, Souter, O’Connor, and Stevens under Republican presidents. (And in case anyone thinks it was an anomaly, all under different ones. Ford, Reagan and GHW Bush).
Again, spotty record, there.

“Odd, since if anyone was ‘overtaxed’ by a most UNrepresentative government, it was Judea and Rome, and Jesus still said what he did.
You honestly, therefore, think that those who don’t espouse your position on taxation levels are endorsing sin?”
I’m sure they don’t view it that way.
Jesus wasn’t concerned with the oppressive government that Israel was under. They were an occupying nation. Israel wanted their Messiah to break them free from their oppression but he didn’t come to be a political Messiah, he came to be their Savior. His kingdom is not of this world.
To understand God’s view of what a righteous government looked like you need to go back to the Old Testament. He explained it to the nation of Israel in the Pentateuch. Now, I’m not saying that this is the model for America since it is not God’s nation but I am saying that if you want a view of what God considered a righteous nation, then the only place you can go in Scripture is the Old Testament.
BTW, this is the point of the post, isn’t it? How does a Christian view the government?

“You also got Kennedy, Souter, O’Connor, and Stevens under Republican presidents. (And in case anyone thinks it was an anomaly, all under different ones. Ford, Reagan and GHW Bush).
Again, spotty record, there. ”
Yeah, I hear but I got four of them now and I didn’t get any of them from the Democrats, did I?

You trust McCain to fight the war on terror? He just admitted that we’re at war in the Middle East over oil. (And yeah, I know he tried hard to spin it today but I heard what he said and so did everybody else who listened to his comments.) The real front in the war on terror is A) in Afghanistan/Pakistan, where Al Quaeda is based and from which our resources have been diverted because we need to control the oil in Iraq, and B) in winning hearts and minds in Islamic countries by digging wells, building schools that offer an alternative to the religious ones that indoctrinate kids, etc., and C) in making sure we are getting good intelligence by insuring that we have a President who will demand a much higher level of competence and will actually listen to what the intelligence agencies are telling him, instead of telling them to tell him what he wants to hear. Then there’s the domestic front, where millions (billions?) have been wasted funneling money to contractors who have friends in high places, while the ports(for just one example) are badly protected.
McCain is NOT the guy for this job. He hardly knows the difference between the Sunni and the Shiites. He thinks Iran is harboring Al Quaeda operatives. Give me a break! Let’s get somebody with some brains in the White House for a change, please, please, please. Obama `08!

If that’s not how you want the US to run, then bringing it up is pretty moot.
God’s view of righteous government didn’t include religious diversity, or a global economy. It also didn’t include modern communication, utilities or transportation, or a standing military.
So, which are you willing to cut in order to conform to their taxation levels?

McCain.. the guy who admitted just this year he STILL didn’t know the difference between Shi’ite and Sunnis?
Yep, he’s the go-to guy on this ‘War on Terror’.

“So, which are you willing to cut in order to conform to their taxation levels?”
This is an excellent question, and I’d appreciate hearing your take on it, Michele. What areas in the budget should be cut in order to meet your stated desire for lower taxes?

I have a feeling all social services. But as stated, despite impressions, that’s a very small portion of the national budget. Private business subsidies (otherwise known as ‘CORPORATE’ welfare comprise a much larger amount.)
Oh, and won’t hold my breath on McCain and ‘earmarks’, given that they went through the roof during the Republican tenure. He was ‘reduced’ to having to work with *gasp* Democratic leadership trying to get THAT passed as a Senator.

“You trust McCain to fight the war on terror?”
This is what I said:
“Who do I trust to fight the war on terror? No one but McCain comes the closest. ”
“McCain is NOT the guy for this job. He hardly knows the difference between the Sunni and the Shiites. He thinks Iran is harboring Al Quaeda operatives. Give me a break! Let’s get somebody with some brains in the White House for a change, please, please, please. Obama `08!”
And yet he will be infinitely better at fighting this war than the candidates you people are offering. I don’t agree with your characterization but I don’t really think it’s worth my effort to refute it and why should I? A majority think he would make a better Commander-in-chief than Hillary and Obama. The people get it even if you guys don’t.

Or there’s a difference in opinion. Maybe both of us ‘get it’, we’re just getting different THINGS.
I, for instance, don’t think you’re clueless. I don’t agree with you, but I wouldn’t say you don’t ‘get it’.

“That God is sovereign and in control of whoever wins is a given. It doesn’t even have to enter into the process because you know whoever won, it was God’s will that they are there.”
That is probably the most interesting statement in this thread.
Aren’t the voters in control of who wins? If God controls who wins then does he control their votes?

“If that’s not how you want the US to run, then bringing it up is pretty moot.
God’s view of righteous government didn’t include religious diversity, or a global economy. It also didn’t include modern communication, utilities or transportation, or a standing military.
So, which are you willing to cut in order to conform to their taxation levels? ”
You’re the one that brought it up when you brought up Jesus. See, you’re trying to divorce Jesus from his OT setting and then use him as an example of how we approach government. But I won’t follow your example. If you want to see how Jesus views government, you have to go to the OT because that’s where God laid out his view of government for Israel. That’s the closest we come to God’s view of government in the Scripture. Except for Rom. 13 where we can get the Christian view of government.

So, you’re not one of the ones who say Jesus superceded the OT and that whole system doesn’t have anything to do with what he was trying to institute?
(Don’t recall bringing up Jesus, specifically. But be that as it may..) You think that Jesus viewed the government through an OT lens, even though the Judea of his own time didn’t even run that way?
The OT had actually more than one version of government. From the sole God-appointed leader (Moses, Joshua), to an oligarchy (Judges), to strict hereditary monarchy (Saul, David, Solomon, et al.)
The NT references the monarchy most often (Like to see a Judges reference there).
Which OT government are YOU talking about?

And at no point do I recall such minutia in the OT or NT about how that government was funded, what the taxes were to be used for, how collected, what duties the government was or was not to perform on a practical level, etc.
Perhaps if you can point me to those verses…

Oh, and you STILL haven’t brought up what you want cut (and no, just saying ‘pork’ or ‘earmarks’ isn’t sufficient. Not to go to the levels you want, we need actual regular government departments and functions.)
So, highways? Or perhaps the standing military? They didn’t have THAT in the OT. (You recruited every time there was to be a war.) How about inspections of things like food, or medications? I’m sure they didn’t do that in the OT either.

“Aren’t the voters in control of who wins? If God controls who wins then does he control their votes?”
You’re right, it is the most interesting. It’s wise of you to figure that out Yes the voters are in control of their votes at the same time that God is. Human responsibility and God’s sovereignty coexisting. How is it possible? The question comes at the perfect time because that question was part of the material that I needed to read for my digest
From Bavinck who is writing about Augustine’s position on this topic:
“If God knows something in advance, it is certain to happen as a matter of necessity, or else the whole doctrine of foreknowledge would collapse. ‘If foreknowledge does not foreknow things that are certain to happen, it is nothing at all.’ He therefore states that the human will along with human nature and all its decisions, rather than being destroyed by God’s foreknowledge, is included in it and posited and maintained by it.”
pg. 198 God and Creation

Then what you’re actually positing isn’t that God is CONTROLLING who is in office, merely knows who is.
After all, that’s only about foreknowledge, not about controlling the outcome.

(Don’t recall bringing up Jesus, specifically. But be that as it may..) You think that Jesus viewed the government through an OT lens, even though the Judea of his own time didn’t even run that way?
That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying government wasn’t his issue. All I did was then tell you to go look at what God said about government if you wanted God’s opinion about an government.
BTW, here’s what you said:
“Odd, since if anyone was ‘overtaxed’ by a most UNrepresentative government, it was Judea and Rome, and Jesus still said what he did.”
“Which OT government are YOU talking about?”
I said Pentateuch but maybe you don’t understand the term? It means the first five books of the Bible. The civic laws are part of Exodus-Deuteronomy.

“Oh, and you STILL haven’t brought up what you want cut”
Maybe you should stop asking other questions then and tell the other commenters to stop asking questions and maybe I should stop studying for my final.
I will only answer this question if I can be queen and not have to work with Congress.
BTW, I won’t be able to answer it for awhile because life is interrupting blogging.

I’m going to have to break with Michelle a little bit here and say that I don’t think overall taxation levels are too high, at least on the federal level. The stuff we get from the government, military protection, fire and police protection, contract enforcement, food and drug regulation, a safety net for the truly destitute, is all expensive but it’s critical and has to be paid for.
I DO take issue with the skewed nature of the system that has the to 25% of wage earners paying for 85% of the cost. These are not just “rich people”, they’re hardworking doctors, engineers, small business owners, skilled tradespeople, etc. I’m not saying I want a flat tax, just something a little more fair.

“I will only answer this question if I can be queen and not have to work with Congress.”
I appreciate your frustration, Michele, but to be honest I have heard many conservatives say that they want taxes to be cut, and then fail to offer up any cuts to pay for those decreases in taxes.
This is where the rubber meets the road in conservative politics. The call for lower taxes is popular, but when programs must be cut to pay for them it seems that everyone wants someone else’s program cut.
I for one am quite willing to wait until you are finished with finals to discuss this issue. After all, this is just a blog. Your finals are part of preparing for your ministry, which I am certain is much more important to you and to God.
But I would very much like to delve into this deeper with you down the road. If we accept the premise that taxes are too high and should be cut, then how can we get to that point? What programs need to be cut? What specific waste and fraud should be eliminated? And to pick up on ZZ’s point, how could we structure the tax system to be fair, and should it reflect Christian principles in its structure (and if so, what Christian principles)?
Good luck with your finals. Get away from the blog and get your nose in the book. We’ll see you on the other side…with straight A’s!

ZZ: “I DO take issue with the skewed nature of the system that has the to 25% of wage earners paying for 85% of the cost. These are not just “rich people”, they’re hardworking doctors, engineers, small business owners, skilled tradespeople, etc. I’m not saying I want a flat tax, just something a little more fair.”
Unless I miss my guess, the idea of a progressive tax system was that those who benefitted the most from our economic system should carry the biggest burden in supporting that system. It would be an application of the Biblical concept of “to whom much is given, much will be required.” (And we can argue whether or not it is an appropriate application.)
Let’s start with the basic premise of the progressive tax system. Do you accept the idea that those who benefit most, in an economic sense, under our system of government bear a greater responsibility for paying the costs of that system than those who benefit less?

“to whom much is given, much will be required”
Definitely. Even if there was a flat tax of 15%, a guy making $10K per year would pay $1500, and a guy making $100K would pay $15,000.
$15,000 > $1500, ergo, Biblical principle satisfied. QED.
UNFAIR would be to say “everybody pays the same amount regardless of income”

Then it was in response to your comment about rendering unto Caesar, so you were the one bringing up Jesus, actually. I responded. *chuckle*
But.. as RJ said, everyone wants to ‘cut taxes’, but nobody says what to cut.
As for the Pentateuch, that isn’t a government, that’s a group of laws. It doesn’t say how to set up a government. That happens later, in Judges.
The Pentateuch doesn’t talk about who is to run the government, how it is to be set up. What it covers, how it is to pay for it.
Again, I see NOTHING (and would need verses to back it up, but you can wait until after finals) about what the taxation level, if any, is supposed to be, who collects it and what it is to be used for anywhere between Genesis to Numbers.
Even did a search for the word ‘tax’, not in there at all, anywhere in the first five books.
Simply laws and judges over the laws.
Now, if that’s how you want the government to be run, you would leave us only the branch that, ironically, it seems conservatives like least. The Judiciary.
No legislators (all the laws are already written, so why bother?), no executive. No voting, no levying of taxes at all.
Works fine for a small group on the move, but even the Israelites didn’t stick with it once they settled down.
And the fact is, no ancient peoples had to deal with some of the things the fed takes care of. There were no corporations, no trans-national businesses. There were no standing armies, etc.
If you want to start cutting to the levels you seem to support, you’re going to sooner or later have to deal with the biggest line item in the budget.
Military spending.

“I’m going to have to break with Michelle a little bit here and say that I don’t think overall taxation levels are too high, at least on the federal level.”
Maybe that’s because you don’t live in a state with sales, income and property taxes. Or have to pay two tolls every day to go to school. Or all the hidden taxes like the phone and gas tax.

“As for the Pentateuch, that isn’t a government, that’s a group of laws. It doesn’t say how to set up a government. That happens later, in Judges.”
Yeah, it does in Deuteronomy. Moses tells them how they are to live in the land. In Exodus-Deuteronomy you get an understanding of the laws that would govern them. You have to read through it, you can’t just do a word search.
BTW, do you think that Jesus approved of the tax just because he said to give Caesar what was his? That he couldn’t have considered it burdensome or excessive? Or that there is no such thing as excessive taxing?

On the issue of theft. Cutting taxes without cutting spending strikes me as a form of theft. The shortfall must be made up by borrowing money, which is transferring taxes to people in the future, some of whom can not vote in the present. So I’d prefer to see balanced budgets as a part of all tax relief discussions.

I didn’t say there was no such thing, I’m saying that Jesus didn’t address taxation levels. Neither does Deuteronomy. I read the part on setting up the judges to ‘judge disputes’, btw. (The word search was strictly to try and find ‘taxes’ anywhere in the OT. I’ve read the books, thank you. Just confirming what I remembered, that I never saw the word anywhere in the OT.)
When it comes to what Moses said about living in the land, I saw a list of laws, customs and precepts. I never said they didn’t have those. Goodness knows the first 5 are FULL of laws and precepts.
I’m waiting for those verses on how, and who is to run the GOVERNMENT. Unless you are proposing that a modern government, even if everyone was on board religiously, could be run strictly as a panel of judges to handle lawbreakers, and that was all.
I saw nothing about taxes, spending taxes, about collecting taxes (even to say ‘taxes bad, don’t do it)). I know the legislative branch would be moot, given the idea was that the laws are already made, but there wasn’t even anything about an executive branch, or administrative duties regarding those little things even Libertarians think government should handle, like… oh, roads and such.
And I have a feeling that ZZ lives in a state with all those things, given that almost every state I know of has them. So… you’re objecting to STATE taxation? I thought Conservatives wanted the state to handle those things the Fed didn’t?
You didn’t think that would become free just because a more local and smaller branch of government was doing it? Every time the Fed makes cuts, guess how the stuff they cut is still done?
By the states.
So, State or Fed, it still comes to one thing. If you want to cut taxes, and you aren’t in favor of trillions of dollars of debt to foreign (and often hostile) nations, you have to cut back on spending.
So, which programs, remembering, again, that Social Services, entirely eliminated, wouldn’t be a drop in the bucket, are you planning on giving the ax?
Can, again, wait until after the finals, but if you’re going to talk about taxation levels, you’re going to have to talk about programs.

Michele: “BTW, do you think that Jesus approved of the tax just because he said to give Caesar what was his? That he couldn’t have considered it burdensome or excessive? Or that there is no such thing as excessive taxing?”
How did Jesus address the issue of the temple tax? Did he and Peter complain about how much it was, or did they trust God to provide what they needed? For that matter, did he claim the authority he had to avoid paying the tax, or did he submit to the authority of the human government?
If God can provide tax in the mouth of a fish, why should we folks who receive a regular paycheck worry about taxes? Is not God in control?

“Again, I see NOTHING (and would need verses to back it up, but you can wait until after finals) about what the taxation level, if any, is supposed to be, who collects it and what it is to be used for anywhere between Genesis to Numbers.”
However, there is a model for how the church is to behave, and it is offered in Acts. A brief passage, but one that gives an insight into how the Spirit led the early church to put money in its proper place.
Acts 4:32-35
Now the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of his possessions was his own, but instead they held everything in common. And with great power the apostles were giving testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was on all of them. For there was not a needy person among them, because all those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, and laid them at the apostles’ feet. This was then distributed to each person as anyone had a need.
Can you imagine how effective such a church would be in today’s materialistic society?

I think the issue is who to play the apostles.
The ‘sell what you have and lay it at the religious leaders’ feet’ some manage quite well.

we got more from Bush than the unions have gotten from the Democrats (remember NAFTA?).
Ah, the reason that bipartisan politics doesn’t work: because it gets thrown back in your face! Nice.

Human responsibility and God’s sovereignty coexisting. How is it possible?
This morning’s opening prayer expressed God’s sovereignty relative to human history:
Eternal Father, reaching from end to end of the universe, and ordering all things with your mighty arm; for you, time is the unfolding of truth that already is, the unveiling of beauty that is yet to be.
Your Son has saved us in history by rising from the dead, so that transcending time he might free us from death. …

One other thing, and this ought to give us pause, if you aren’t already aware of how American policies and economics are playing out in the mission territories:
I received an email this morning from my buddy from high school whose husband runs an orphanage in India. With the American dollar so weak and the price of rice and gas tripling in the past few months, they are in a bad way.
I hope we can all pray for these people and their efforts to feed, clothe and care for the youngest tsunami survivors.

Yeah, I know what they mean.
With the Recession cutting donations of both money and goods, and the current Administrations, both fed and state, cutting programs for the last 7 years or so, things aren’t any better Stateside.

“Ah, the reason that bipartisan politics doesn’t work: because it gets thrown back in your face! Nice.”
Hehe! But if you listen to the news or Clinton tell it, that was his triumph. So, let him live with it.

“I received an email this morning from my buddy from high school whose husband runs an orphanage in India. With the American dollar so weak and the price of rice and gas tripling in the past few months, they are in a bad way.”
“With the Recession cutting donations of both money and goods, and the current Administrations, both fed and state, cutting programs for the last 7 years or so, things aren’t any better Stateside.”
Gas prices too high? Blame Bush!
Rice prices too high? Blame Bush!
Congress always gets a pass even when they are to blame.
Now, the only one of those you can blame Bush for is the weak dollar. They could be doing more to strengthen it but haven’t.

I am a first-time reader of your blog, but this issue is important to me as I research this forthcoming “manifesto.”
I haven’t read the report yet, either, but I think we all need to be very careful and think and pray about our response to this document. It’s receiving an amazing amout of pre-issue publicity and will likely be leveraged by those with various agenda that may or may not be aligned with the Scriptures.
I, for one will ask the Holy Spirit to guide me as I consder this document and also try to seek out the motivies and background of those issuing the document. In my opinion, I need to consider the message sender as much as the message itself, in this case.
During this hot political season, I find it at least peculiar that the authors of the “manifesto” claim Christians have become too political and they decide to release the document at this particlar time, which is a political move in and of itself. So I’m going to procede with caution (“wise as serpents”).
Have a blessed day!
Dan Grubbs
Editor,
The Portico Dialogue

Doesn’t matter if it was Bush or Congress, Michele. Bush wants to blame a Congress that has been in office only a little over a year, Bush has been in office for 7. This IS his economy, at this point.
If he wants to take credit (and lord knows he did) when its good, he gets to take the hit when its bad. If he wants to credit his policies for the boom, he has to take the blame for the bust.
Gas and rice prices are a DIRECT result of some of the policies, particularly the foreign policies of Bush. Bad two choices. The Housing bust is part of the package that came with the rush to deregulation.
If he doesn’t want the ‘credit’ for the current economy, does that mean you’re willing to claim he had no credit for the early years better economy?
And what has happened to our own facilities is a direct result of certain policies and cuts directed and based on a particular political philosophy as well.

Of course, nonetheless about all of this, the question remains..
Is the subjects just discussed something that a religious GROUP (not individuals talking about their own individual opinions) should support or not support as the ‘this is the position that Christians take’?

“Is the subjects just discussed something that a religious GROUP (not individuals talking about their own individual opinions) should support or not support as the ‘this is the position that Christians take’?”
I think it sounds like a this is what we think the church should be doing kind of thing (isn’t that what a manifesto implies?)

Yes, Dan it should be interesting to see what they come up with.

This is why you are so wrong about Congress not being at fault for oil prices. It’s not Bush’s fault, it’s the Democrats in Congress (and Bill Clinton):
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2M4NzNkMDQ4YjZjZjFkZWE4YWJjODUzMDZiYTcyOWM=

I didn’t ask about the people writing the manifesto, though the manifesto seems to be talking more about not associating with partisan politics, not confusing religious and political positions, etc.
I’m asking what YOU think about this?
Secondly.. wow, are you doing the ‘If we could only drill ANWR and the Continental Shelf, oil prices would drop like a stone’ dance?
We’ll try this one AGAIN.
First, the combine totals (even by the most generous estimates) of amounts of oil in both areas combined will supply the US oil needs for less than 5 years.
Secondly, it will take 10 YEARS to get to the oil at ANWR.
Third, what Democrats supposedly want regarding reduced carbon emissions and the actual price at the pump are two separate issues. Unless you can prove their DESIRE has somehow mystically altered prices.
Higher prices may help to reduce usage, but even if they wanted higher prices TO reduce usage, that would have nothing to do with there BEING higher prices.
The most that whole article can say (and I saw nothing about Bill in it, just Nancy) was that the Democrats didn’t do anything to STOP the high prices. Not that they were responsible for them in the first place.
So, to recap…
Domestic drilling won’t do anything to reduce prices, since it can’t happen for YEARS, and there’s enough in both areas combined to barely accomodate our own needs for only a few years.
The Democrats, even by a NATIONAL REVIEW article (sorry, if you can call bias based merely on source, so can everyone else) aren’t responsible for the current prices, only that they haven’t done enough to prevent it.
Finally, ends and means are two separate issues, and the desire for something to happen isn’t sufficient to prove that it MADE that thing happen, even if they wanted that means (higher prices) in order to produce that end (lower emissions).

“Secondly, it will take 10 YEARS to get to the oil at ANWR.”
Um…and how long ago was Clinton in the WH?

8 years. If he’d done it, the oil would’ve been gotten to by now, yes.
And GONE.
Again, we use 20 MILLION barrles, just in the US, per DAY.
The full amount of oil in ANWR is enough to last our needs for less than ONE YEAR.
Ten years of building, billions of dollars to get to, infrastructure, pipelines, roads and derricks to get to ONE YEAR (actually, about 8 months) worth of oil.

Never let it be said that Christians don’t still believe in miracles. Michele thinks ANWR to be Hanukah for a new millennium.
Or maybe she has something against wilderness being left alone?

If Jim Wallis signed this thing, it has to be something good for secularism and Humanism and the Democrat party, and bad for Christians that believe the witness of Christ Jesus and the Apostles is important. ALL of the Apostles were Evangelicals and conservative Evangelicals at that. Evangel means: The Gospel. Without altering it for liberal political gains.

“Never let it be said that Christians don’t still believe in miracles. Michele thinks ANWR to be Hanukah for a new millennium.
Or maybe she has something against wilderness being left alone?”
meh and karen, it’s not just ANWR but the Gulf of Mexico and the west and east coast. We could have enough gas for much longer than 8 years. Do you people even have a clue how long we would have gas if we drilled everywhere the left has stopped us from drilling?

Pretty far off from the thread topic but since you guys keep discussing drilling I got curious. How much would we have?
So I Googled “gulf of mexico offshore oil drilling” you’ll see an item that back in 2006 the Republican House put off voting on a measure about it. So it’s not just the left that is hesitant about it.