De Regno Christi

Posted in Conservatism | 15 Comments

15 Responses

1. on July 26, 2006 at 10:15 pm | Reply Katsu

   Bill,

   Could you give me your brief
   comment?

   I had thought that Pat Buchanan
   was just another quasi-GOP
   sort.

   Katsunori

   
   
2. on July 27, 2006 at 4:46 pm | Reply MarkPele

   I have a really hard time sorting this out. Some of the sources say that Israel is decimating the Christians. Some say that Hezbollah is purposefully firing missiles from areas friendly to Israel. Some say that Israel is trying to destroy everyone and take over. Some say that Hezbollah and Lebanon are puppets of Syria and Iran. Some say that Lebanon is “united” and some say that Israel is well on its way to inciting a Lebanese civil way. Some say that Hezbollah was just expecting a normal prisoner exchange and got full-scale war, because Israel was really just waiting for an excuse to invade and destabilize Lebanon. The Christians all around are saying that we need to defend the “root of our tree” Israel and that this is the beginning of Armaggedon. I’ve basically given up understanding who’s right and who’s wrong.

   
   
3. on July 27, 2006 at 6:47 pm | Reply Joe

   Pat is a Republican but he is right more often than most of his partisans, as he is in this case.

   
   
4. on July 27, 2006 at 10:37 pm | Reply Katsu

   I know that the fairly older generation in our denomination (RPCNA)are irenic toward the Bush
   administration for its stance,
   say, on marital morality as well
   as on “the human right” of unborn
   children.

   So far so good.

   But, I need to scratch my head when it comes to other areas;
   that Mr. Bush seems always non-accusing toward our PM Koizumi
   (of Japan, who wants to make
   Shintoism our state religion),
   his use of four-letter word at
   the recent summit at St. Petersburg, and its administration’s “The State of Israel is always right” presupposition, if you will.

   
   
5. on July 28, 2006 at 7:56 am | Reply brian

   Buchanan has distanced himself from the GOP these days (please see the American Conservative). He is an America First isolationist (and he always has been) with a niche somewhere among the Paleo-cons, traditionalists, and libertarians.

   
   
6. on July 28, 2006 at 9:24 am | Reply W.H. Chellis

   Hi Katsunori,

   Buchanan is one of the few public figures, backed by a number of smallish magazines, publishers, and writers who represent an authentic American conservative tradition. This is to be distinguished from George Bush and his band of Woodrow Wilson-ite world conquistadors.

   In the 1990′s Buchanan ran for President and leading the traditional right in a insurgance against Bush the Elder and his mid eastern adventures and general imperialism. The real father of American conservatism, Russell Kirk, co-chaired Buchanan’s campaign in 1992. Buchanan ran again in 1996 but lost his stride when evangelical christians in South Carolina prefered the quasi-conservatism of Bob Dole. In 2000 Buchanan ran on the Reform Party ticket.

   At any rate, although I do not always agree with Buchanan, I am glad for his stand against Bush’s quasi-messianic imperialism and the evangelical world’s pre-mill obsession with Israel.

   That an older generation of RP’s seem to highly regard Bush-ism confuses me. Of course, the history of the RP Church in America shows an unconfortable tendency to support the military conquests (from 1812- the two Iraq War’s) of our leaders. To play the role of amature Pschologist, I believe that it was a product of a general concern to prove our patriotism in the face of our former practice of political dissent.

   Or it could be the generally warm and fuzzy feeling we have about neo-evangelical political theolgy. This may be the influence of neo-calvinism (surely a cousin to neo-conservatism?) by way of WORLD magazine? Or it may be the influence of our membership in the National Association of Evangelicals.

   What ever it is, if George Bush represents the RP doctrine of Christ’s Kingship (which he does not) I would be tempted to start voting for Quakers.

   
   
7. on July 29, 2006 at 10:10 am | Reply Joe

   Katsu,

   If you are correct that the older generation of RPCNA is fond of President Bush I am sorry to hear that. His policies are immoral and pro-death.

   Brian, it is inaccurate to say that Buchanan has recently distanced himself from the GOP. After joining the Reform Party and running as their presidential candidate he has rejoined the Republican Party and endorsed George W. Bush in 2004. You can find that in the archives of The American Conservative. I usually agree with Buchanan on the issues. My beef with him is that having supported Bush is partly to blame for the very problems he criticizes.

   
   
8. on July 29, 2006 at 11:33 am | Reply John

   A distorted eschatological view of end times in general and with regard to Israel in particular has overwhelmed the evangelical community of the west. As long as the likes of Billy Graham have easy access to the White House we will continue this insanity for generations to come. I would recommend every professing Christian to read “The Bible and the Future” by Anthony Hoekema.

   
   
9. on July 29, 2006 at 11:34 am | Reply Katsu

   Bill,

   Thanks for your briefing on American political climate
   today.

   Joe,

   As I do not want to violate
   the 5th commandment nor the
   9th, I ought to have said
   “there seems to me a general propencity” to prefer GOP in
   the older generation, as is
   often the case in other conservative Reformed and Presbyterian denominations
   as well.

   That, of course, does not mean
   I would prefer liberalism so-
   called, while I believe that
   “concervative vs. liberal”
   dichotomy is sometimes misleading.

   The bottom-line is Christ’s
   Mediatorial Kingship over
   the church as well as over
   the nations.

   Pro Rege,
   Katsu

   
   
10. on July 29, 2006 at 11:50 am | Reply Anonymous

    I grew up in the Reformed Presbyterian Church, and both sets of grandparents were Covenanters. I have to say that I find this website deeply disturbing in its propagation of a very narrow and, dare I say, distorted view of Scripture. The view of religion and politics is chilling to say the least. One yearns for the good, ole days when the RP church stood for a generous orthodoxy, rather than a narrow, rigid,us v. them, and chilly orthodoxy.

    
    
11. on July 29, 2006 at 12:18 pm | Reply Joe

    John,

    I definitely agree with you about Israel.

    Katsu,

    I hope you are wrong about most Reformed supporting President Bush. That is not the case with most Reformed I know, but somebody obviously voted him into office twice.

    We must diligently distance ourselves from the mindset of of political conservatism, as it is, ironically, our greatest threat. Outwardly it can easily masquerade as a kindred spirit, even as a brother. But it can effectively disarm us by sublty diluting the principles which are essential to our movement. Or it may unexpectedly turn hostile when the Gospel is applied to political action. While we share many “conservative values,” our purpose is anything but conservative. We are not conservative, neo-conservative, paleo-conservative, ultraconservative, or even religious conservative. We are Christian progressives! We have our own principles and our own optimistic, comprehensive, and scriptural based vision to reform, restore, and rebuild America. The breadth of our vision and the magnitude of our mission call for offense not defense, action not reaction, and reformation rather than preservation.

    
    
12. on July 30, 2006 at 7:27 pm | Reply MarkPele

    Hi anonymous, I also grew up in the RP Church, and National Covenanting and the Mediatorial Kingship of Christ have always been denominational distinctives.

    Since this is a site for debate and discussion, I ask you to provide some evidence for the allegations you have made rather than bold assertions without any real hint as to what exactly you find troublesome.

    
    
13. on July 30, 2006 at 8:46 pm | Reply Katsu

    Joe,

    Thanks for correcting me on
    my somewhat too generalized
    a view.

    And yet, I need to know who
    are those reading and supporting the political viewpoints presented in “WORLD” magazine, which seems to be pro-GOP?

    Meanwhile, for a Reformed Christian in Japan, it is interesting to see Reformed
    Heritage Books in Grand Rapids
    carry some books that seem to
    promote American patriotism,
    while their group is known
    for their high view on Reformed
    (and Puritan) peity.

    Mr. Anonymous,

    I am a first generation Christian
    in my whole clan, and got converted
    by the power and grace of the LORD
    through a band of street evangelists in Japan.

    So, I do not share so-called
    “Blue Blood” ethnically.

    You cherish “ole days of RP”.

    But we need to know that there
    were what we would call today nominal Christians even in the Covenanting church in Scotland. (For the early Covenanters,
    “personal faith in Christ” was
    not so much stressed.)

    We also need to know that America’s RPC could have ended up
    being just another liberal presbyterian church (as happened to some Scottish Seceder remnants), had it not been for people like J.G. Vos.

    There is no impeccable denomination, while our Head
    and the Great Shepherd is.

    For Christ’s Crown & Covenant,
    Katsu
    (Kobe, Japan)

    
    
14. on August 1, 2006 at 10:12 am | Reply TCopeland

    Where to begin on the Buchanan piece? His factual errors and overheated rhetoric make this a less-than-useful piece in understanding the war in Lebanon.

    His opening paragraph suggests “capitulation on the Bush Doctrine” and “suspension of the democracy crusade” as failures of the Bush Administration, blithely ignoring the fact that Korea already had nuclear weapons and Iran has been developing them for some time. And never mind that militants already controlled Iran. Free elections do not guarantee democracy.

    Buchanan also cannot seem to decide who is in charge in Lebanon, the Islamic militants who “exploited free elections to advance to power” (aka Hezbollah) or a pro-American government…

    “Subcontracting U.S. policy out to Tel Aviv” is a fun rhetorical flourish but rather imprecise by way of analysis.

    He suggests that Olmert and the IDF had “pre-planned” the attack on Lebanon. Of course the IDF would have had warplans available for such a necessity; the U.S. certainly has warplans for nuking N. Korea, China, and Iran, which we hope to never use. I have read convincing arguments recently that Olmert, as the first Israeli leader with no military experience, may have decided it was time to show his strength and stand up to Hezbollah and Hamas, which have repeatedly captured Israelis and demanded prisoner exchanges. Domestic politics, rather than a desire to destroy, may have been part of the decision.

    Terrorists worldwide have learned that hiding their assets in civilian locations is a surefire guarantee to generate deaths and bad publicity for the Western power who attacks them. Hezbollah has shamelessly used civilians — and even the UN observation post recently bombed — as cover throughout Lebanon. They should be condemned for intentionally putting civilians in harm’s way. Their own rockets intentionally target Israeli civilians (including some Arab Christians who died in one rocket attack); this is not true of the Israelis, who are using laser-guided bombs.

    It is curious that when Russia responded to Chechen terrorism in the 1990′s with a full-scale invasion, targeting civilian areas, denying outside observers and relief organizations, reducing cities to rubble, driving thousands out as refugees, and assassinating opposition leaders, there was very little international condemnation. Russia (probably the former KGB) recently assassinated the remaining Chechen rebel leader, to no world comment. Those who were silent on Chechnya have suddenly found their voice on Lebanon.

    I am not wholly defending Israel’s actions or US policy in the Middle East, but I find Buchanan’s piece far from enlightening. It is entertainment for a market niche, not useful political analysis.

    
    
15. on August 1, 2006 at 11:47 am | Reply W.H. Chellis

    Hi Tom,

    Is it fair to expect a Ph.D. disertation out of an op-ed column?

    You did not deal with the central question, what should be the Christian response?

    As we think about it, might I also suggest this interesting interview with Srdja Trifkovic.
    http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/cgi-bin/newsviews.cgi/The%20Middle%20East/Lebanon_Deja_Vu_All.html?seemore=y