Wow is Mike Huckabee doing good! The latest national poll places him at 1 point behind America’s Mayor! He is now leading in Iowa and gaining ground in New Hampshire.
O.K. he is lovable and genuine… GWB is also… but do you trust evangelical compassionate conservatism? Do we really want big government do-good-er-ism plaguing us with national smoking bans and Divinely inspired exhortations toward weight-loss? Are we really well served by a tender hearted approach to the illegal immigration problem? Do we need another quasi-dispensational crusader in the Middle East? Questions that must be considered before I jump on the bandwagon.
[...] Now that Huckabee is gaining momentum, he is a serious consideration. Today I read a post at De Regno Christi by W. H. Chellis that asked some of important questions about Huckabee: Wow is Mike Huckabee doing [...]
[...] W.H. Chellis added an interesting post on How About Huckabee?Here’s a small excerpt [...]
[...] Original post by De Regno Christi [...]
I’m with you. Bandwagons are way over-rated.
Speaking of bandwagons…and questions and answers and Huckabee and being “well served,” I have a question of my own: what does it say that he actually answered the question during a glorified public interview (AKA, a “debate”) about “the literalness of the Bible”? While questions about what to do about Eduardo are relevant and interesting, it would be even more so to me to have immediately followed his on-the-fly interpretation of Matthew 18:9 with, “I would be interested to know why did you felt compelled to answer that phenomenally irrelevant question.” Oops, that was a statement that implies a question that implies something more. Do bandwagons have even have designated sections for questions like that?
Right on. Also, do we want another former governor of Arkansas in the White House?
Why are Christians asking cynical questions about Christians like Huckabee? It’s O.K. to ask about Huckabee’s position regarding immigration – but I detect a cynical attitude towards “Christian compassionate conservatism†with the emphasis on “Christianâ€.
We’re not electing a Pastor but a President. I like Huckabee because his Christian worldview informs his immigration policy, his healthcare positions and his convictions regarding the sanctity of life. As Huckabee says “My faith is my life, it defines me. My faith doesn’t influence my decisions, it drives themâ€. Does this scare you?
I am not cynical in the least about the Huckabear. I really like the guy and think highly of his integrity. Nor does the fact that Huckabee’s faith drives his policy views scare me. I think his faith should be thus operative.
My concern is that evangelicals have not often thought deeply about what conservatism means. The current Modern Age symposium would be a good place to start. My questions may have had a rough edge but they are serious questions none-the-less and they must be answered. We do not need more big government conservatism and certainly not another “messianic” presidency.
Well, it’s “compassionate conservatism” that’s started and backed an undeclared, pre-emptive war in a country that we’re now trying to build a secular liberal-democracy in. Who knows what’s happened and happening to the many Christians in that country–impoverished, refugeed, dead?
So what does Huckabee want to do with the military?
He wants to “win” the “war” in Iraq, and double the defense budget. Look out.
How do you at once avoid a messianic presidency and believe that “faith drives my decisionsâ€? If one man has said as much about faith and turned out big government (neo) conservatism, complete with NCLB and (a failed) faith-based initiatives program and an even more failed war (AKA “spread America all over the world” program with “axis of evil” language), what makes anyone think another can walk and chew gum at the same time?
Isn’t the Christian life one characterized by the nomenclature of “response†rather than “drive†(I know he denies it to make a point, but even “influence†for that matter)? I wonder what Huckabee would say if asked, “Do you live the Gospel�
If faith is so reliable to “inform policy,†why hasn’t Huckabee (or other self-appointed experts) figured out that the problem with Roe wasn’t that it fell to the former on the “may she/mayn’t she†question but that it completely ignored the better question of “who gets to decide� With a track record like that, I’d rather have my faith apprehend the Person and work of Christ alone, since that is all it seems good for.
Steve- by have a chastened view of the role of faith in the public sphere. I would not vote for a candidate who would not humble Himself before the Almighty and recognize that he rules under, and is responsible to, a greater King.
But that is a far cry from moral crusading, do-good-er-ism, and confusing heaven and earth. My faith tells me it is so.
Methinks Huckabee is simply Rick Warren with a southern accent.
Bingo
Bill,
Really? Even one who did such humbling and yet had another view on, say, immigration, or something else you felt was both relevant and fully persuaded on? If current politics shows anything, it seems that all sides are vying for the God-vote, which is to say, even the Dems are behaving like Republicans in so doing…which means they all seem to say, “I am humbling myself before the Almighty and am responsible to a greater King.” Or do you mean that such a humbling’s validity is finally reckoned by what sort of policy he/she holds? Plus, Mitt has made numerous such claims, hasn’t he?
In theory it seems a far cry. I just think that in practice we have seen that such theories are always dependent upon sinners, sort of like how the Law is good until you give it to us.
How is wanting to “reverse Roe” not an expression of moral crusade or do-good-er-ism?
Steve, your I am more secular than the left thing is odd. Your question loses my point entirely. I am not an ideologue. In fact, I think most of the candidates running do- in some sense- understand that God is and that He is to be feared. If they did not, or would admit they did not, they would not stand much of a chance to be elected president in this country.
Yes, even Mitt.
In theory what seems a far cry? I do not know how you can accuse my position- rooted in real politic and the inherited legacy of Christendom- of abstraction and call your own anything less than an unknown, untried, ideology.
Governing according to the constitution, tradition, and the moral law is distinct from the higher law claims of moral crusaders and do-good-er-ism. I would suggest a subscription to Modern Age- or a trip to a nearby bookstore that might carry is current excellent edition. It is a symposium on Why I am a Conservative. It is priceless.
Well, I’m less “accusing†of anything and more asking some questions. Yes, I know you have the rooted weight of Christendom on your side, I am just asking some questions of it.
So, when you say you’d require the acknowledgment of God, do you perhaps really mean that you’d require that no one would deny God, since “most of candidates running do- in some sense- understand that God is and that He is to be fearedâ€? I mean, it seems like one would initiate that “one must humble himself before God†if he perceived that the lot had a fairly equal share of those who did and those who didn’t and not so much if he thought “most do.â€
“If they did not, or would admit they did not, they would not stand much of a chance to be elected president in this country.†I agree. But why do you think that is, and what do you think it might imply? I tend to think it points to a form of cultural Christianity and its reality says more about how nominal we are. It just seems like the more faith is “worn on the sleeve†the more disingenuous it tends to be.
What “seems a far cry†is the one-to-one correspondence between acknowledgement of God and moral crusading. Strictly speaking, I get what you mean. Yet I can’t help but wonder if it is somewhat naïve to believe the typical American statesman knows this difference given our own history; seems that if he did, he’d do so much less sleeve-adornment since, in practice, these things almost always do go together. Again, I wonder how any of those who have been comfortable parading their faith for votes would answer the question, “Do you live the Gospel?†My hunch, inasmuch as Darryl makes an apt comparison to Rev. Purpose, is that they’d say yes, which would seem to answer the question of intent to “morally crusade,†despite whatever protestations to the contrary due to the crassness of such a phrase. Would any of them be insightful enough to say, “No! I live in light of it� I mean, if we don’t want moral crusade and yet an acknowledgement of God, doesn’t that require a theological acumen beyond designating Jesus as one’s favorite philosopher? The last time that was uttered it was by one who morally crusaded. I wonder if the end of moral crusade might begin with a more muted faith?
Where we disagree is here: you think cultural christianity is a bad thing. I think that cult and culture are always intwined. It strikes me as the height of sectarian donatism to defend a “pure” gospel cut off from the corrupting influence of culture.
It strikes me that the union of cult and culture is so strong that it cannot be escaped even in our micro-churches. As covenanter culture dies… I suspect so will the RPCNA. As dutch culture has gone left… so has the CRC. What will remain of the OPC when the founders families have withered?
May God restore authentic Augustinianism