Comments on: A Hole in the Wall? http://deregnochristi.org/2007/03/21/a-hole-in-the-wall/ The Reign of Christ Tue, 06 Jan 2009 21:44:14 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: brentski76 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/03/21/a-hole-in-the-wall/#comment-442 brentski76 Sat, 24 Mar 2007 21:40:29 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/03/21/a-hole-in-the-wall/#comment-442 Hypothetically, let's say the founders made their (i.e., not our) allegiance to Christ specific. Would there then be no hole in the wall? Hypothetically, let’s say the founders made their (i.e., not our) allegiance to Christ specific. Would there then be no hole in the wall?

]]> By: W.H. Chellis http://deregnochristi.org/2007/03/21/a-hole-in-the-wall/#comment-440 W.H. Chellis Sat, 24 Mar 2007 19:43:24 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/03/21/a-hole-in-the-wall/#comment-440 Darryl, I agree with your with what you say of the American founders. Laodician is a fair criticism and reflects the Covenanter's problem with the American federal settlement. Yet, to note continuity with the French Revolution only affirms the danger of subverting Christendom. It seems to me that the West enjoys few choices. We either restore Christendom, convert to Islam, or burn at the hands of the red revolutionaries. Weaknesses of the Constitution aside, with Kirk I will declare the American War for Independence "a revolution not made but prevented." The Constitution, although silent about Christ, was an essentially conservative document (possibly in contrast to the Declaration of Independence). Yet, the founders made a mistake by not making our allegiance to Christ (in legal and constitutional continuity with the tradition of Western Christendom) specific. This mistake is the real "hole in the wall" that the Founding Father's left us. Darryl, I agree with your with what you say of the American founders. Laodician is a fair criticism and reflects the Covenanter’s problem with the American federal settlement. Yet, to note continuity with the French Revolution only affirms the danger of subverting Christendom. It seems to me that the West enjoys few choices. We either restore Christendom, convert to Islam, or burn at the hands of the red revolutionaries.

Weaknesses of the Constitution aside, with Kirk I will declare the American War for Independence “a revolution not made but prevented.” The Constitution, although silent about Christ, was an essentially conservative document (possibly in contrast to the Declaration of Independence).

Yet, the founders made a mistake by not making our allegiance to Christ (in legal and constitutional continuity with the tradition of Western Christendom) specific. This mistake is the real “hole in the wall” that the Founding Father’s left us.

]]> By: D Hart http://deregnochristi.org/2007/03/21/a-hole-in-the-wall/#comment-438 D Hart Sat, 24 Mar 2007 19:08:50 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/03/21/a-hole-in-the-wall/#comment-438 I do see a difference, Bill, between the French and American Revolutions, but it's not as obvious as folks like Kuyper and the Federalists argued. The Founding Fathers liked Christianity, but in St. John's terms they would have been fairly Laodician -- neither hot nor cold. I'm not sure that kind of lukewarmness is a model for Christian life. For political life it beats an anti-religious one. The problem is that Kuyper and other Protestants have defending the American founding as springing from Christian motivation. If so, can Christian motivation really be partial? I seem to recall that the Covenanters weren't so wild about a founding that left Christ as king out of the Constitution. I do see a difference, Bill, between the French and American Revolutions, but it’s not as obvious as folks like Kuyper and the Federalists argued. The Founding Fathers liked Christianity, but in St. John’s terms they would have been fairly Laodician — neither hot nor cold. I’m not sure that kind of lukewarmness is a model for Christian life. For political life it beats an anti-religious one. The problem is that Kuyper and other Protestants have defending the American founding as springing from Christian motivation. If so, can Christian motivation really be partial? I seem to recall that the Covenanters weren’t so wild about a founding that left Christ as king out of the Constitution.

]]> By: brentski76 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/03/21/a-hole-in-the-wall/#comment-432 brentski76 Sat, 24 Mar 2007 04:19:25 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/03/21/a-hole-in-the-wall/#comment-432 Perhaps. I'm interested to see what he says about practical implications, if indeed he touches this matter in the rest of the book. If I have any concerns about his argument, and the larger argument in general, it is that it tends to isolationism and political inactivity, neither of which I would advocate. Perhaps. I’m interested to see what he says about practical implications, if indeed he touches this matter in the rest of the book. If I have any concerns about his argument, and the larger argument in general, it is that it tends to isolationism and political inactivity, neither of which I would advocate.

]]> By: W.H. Chellis http://deregnochristi.org/2007/03/21/a-hole-in-the-wall/#comment-428 W.H. Chellis Fri, 23 Mar 2007 18:24:43 +0000 http://deregnochristi.org/2007/03/21/a-hole-in-the-wall/#comment-428 A further comment on chapter one. Darryl comes close to giving away his argument on page 10 where he writes, "This does not mean that Christianity has nothing to say. Clearly, certain notions about men and women being created in the image of God, or about the sinfulness of human nature, or even about legitimacy of personal property, have implications for politcs." (pg. 10). Here Hart has hedged his bet. Still, he fails to tell us the how and the who of making these implications relevent for politics. Are Christians allowed to advocate policies founded upon these implications? Hart correctly notes that when the rubber meets the road these implications might suggest various policy alternatives. This is an important warning against baptising our policy preferences but does it not suggest a role for Christianity in the public realm? A further comment on chapter one. Darryl comes close to giving away his argument on page 10 where he writes, “This does not mean that Christianity has nothing to say. Clearly, certain notions about men and women being created in the image of God, or about the sinfulness of human nature, or even about legitimacy of personal property, have implications for politcs.” (pg. 10).

Here Hart has hedged his bet. Still, he fails to tell us the how and the who of making these implications relevent for politics. Are Christians allowed to advocate policies founded upon these implications? Hart correctly notes that when the rubber meets the road these implications might suggest various policy alternatives. This is an important warning against baptising our policy preferences but does it not suggest a role for Christianity in the public realm?

]]>