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

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 feared”? 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.”

“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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.