Not Peace, But a Sword
February 1, 2013
Peter J. Leithart
President Obama is convinced that liberals have won the culture war, and he aims to leverage that victory to force a transformation of the Republican party. In a New Republic interview published earlier this week, he noted that attitudes are changing “in the country as a whole around LGBT issues and same-sex marriage” and that this poses a challenge to Republicans. Some Republicans will “embrace” the change, but “there’s a big chunk of their constituency that is going to be deeply opposed to that.”
Unity is the president’s preferred weapon to divide and conquer. As he stated in his inaugural address, “Now more than ever, we must do these things together, as one nation, and one people.” He co-opted the first words of the U.S. Constitution to give a constitutional seal of approval to his policy agenda. “We the people” have spoken, and it turns out We pretty much agree with the president on everything. We the People are certainly as enlightened as the president about a woman’s right to abortion and the rightness of gay marriage. The constitutional standing of those who think differently from We the People is fuzzy.
Good Republicans who conform to current trends are part of the one nation. Bad Republicans will find themselves out in the cold. Judged by Obama’s alliterative story of American equality (Seneca Falls, Selma, Stonewall), Bad Republicans might even be un-American.
Obama’s “Mission Accomplished” is premature. The abortion rate is at an almost forty-year low, and dozens of states have passed restrictions on abortion over the last two years. Gay marriage is gaining ground, but a majority of state constitutions prohibit same-sex marriage. But Obama’s assessment isn’t delusional. Norms have shifted, and the range of behavior that Americans are prepared to tolerate seems infinitely elastic. As much as he is able, Obama has been using the power of the presidency to entrench his progressive views. If his promotion of social liberalism splits the Republican party, well, he won’t shed any tears.
Obama appears confident he can enlist Good Republicans to help him purge the GOP. It’s a clever ploy, and I think it will work. Good Republicans already think that Bad Republicans lose elections, and they will be increasingly embarrassed by rambunctious Republicans who won’t stop talking about abortion, homosexuality, the vulgarity of popular culture, or women in combat. It’ll be only too easy to convince Good Republicans to nudge Bad Republicans to catch up with We the People or get out of the way.
The more subtle possibility is that Bad Republicans themselves will be drawn into the president’s purge. Everyone knows who that problematic “chunk” is: Bad Republicans are the remnants of the religious right, and the next four years are going to be uncomfortable ones for those of us who consider sodomy and abortion to be sinful. Nobody likes to be marginalized. No American likes to be branded as intolerant. Marginalization is especially galling to those on the religious right who so long ago rode the high places of the earth.
Christians, besides, have an instinct toward unity. We confess that God is love, and the second great commandment is to love our neighbors as ourselves. Love is not tolerance, but in our age Christians confuse the two as readily as anyone. Christian activists want to be peacemakers, to heal the breach, to fill the gap, to ease tensions. But in the current climate, the only way to do that is to move closer to what Obama claims is the mainstream of American culture.
My advice to Bad Republicans is: Let it come. If the price of regaining power is to abandon any semblance of Christian sexual morality, the price is too high. If the Republican party can’t bring itself to endorse a traditional understanding of marriage, let it split. If the Republican party can’t be bothered about the slaughter of the unborn, let it shatter into a million little pieces. Good Republicans will blame Bad Republicans for tearing the GOP to pieces. So be it.
One might hope for better. One might hope that shrewd and principled leadership from a courageous few would re-galvanize the Republican party on social issues. That might not provide a path to power, but it would turn the GOP into a genuine alternative to social liberalism. One hopes; anything can happen. I think it more likely that Obama will get his way and leave the Republican party in greater disarray than ever.
There is a time for peace, but in my judgment we’re not in such times. For the next four years, perhaps longer, social-issue Christians must recognize that smoothing differences is a temptation, and must learn to resist the temptation. Christians have to be willing to follow the example of Jesus, who came not to unify but to divide father from son, mother from daughter, brother from brother. Division was essential to the social renewal he came to accomplish, because those who followed him, torn from comfortable networks of kin and religion, formed the nucleus of a new kind of community. For Jesus, division was the means for achieving a new unity. Christians have to be willing to imitate the Prince of Peace who declared, “I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.”
Peter J. Leithart is on the pastoral staff of Trinity Reformed Church in Moscow, Idaho, and Senior Fellow of Theology and Literature at New St. Andrews College. His most recent book is Between Babel and Beast: America and Empires in Biblical Perspective (Wipf & Stock). His previous “On the Square” articles can be found here.
RESOURCES
“Barack Obama is Not Pleased: The president on his enemies, the media, and the future of football,” New Republic,
“Inaugural Address by President Barack Obama”
“Surprise! The abortion rate just hit an all-time low,” Wonkblog
“Abortion Surveillance: United States, 2005,” CDC
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
2.1.2013 | 5:41am
David Huston says:
First off, President Obama's platitudinous profession of being a "Christian," is as vacuous a notion existentially to his ideological agenda in politics, as former President Bill Clinton's classic statement, "but I never inhaled," or, "I didn't inhale," when asked if he'd ever smoked marijuana!
And secondly, genuine Christian politicians of the Republican "religious right," possessing the spiritual "eyes to see, and ears to hear," should've seen the proverbial "handwriting on-the-wall" (Daniel 5) at the outset of this country's Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, NC., last year, as the Democratic Party literally enshrined the sins of (Romans 1) as part of their political "platform," which necessarily included the continuing practice of legalized genocide against an entire unprotected "class" of its own citizens; who then also, after encountering a tumultuous outcry from theistically-minded "we the people" - mesmerizingly, and no doubt gratuitously - did finally "insert" the name of "God" into their desired political agenda, for eradicating any sense of absolute moral standards in this United States of America. Whew? (See the sobering context surrounding Isaiah 5:20.)
Mr. Leithart's distilling of the inextricable relationship between the moral-and-the-political, is wise counsel indeed for those who understand quite penetratingly, that the present invisible realities of the "Kingdom of Heaven" operating here on planet earth, are not confined to, nor dictated by, what takes place in the mind-numbing politicized public policy initiatives of the current Democratic Party, and its so-called "Christian" president - legislating "their" idea of morality - as seen by Leithart's insightful usage of Jesus' (Matthew 10:34-36) definition, which lay at the very heart of His "first" advent (in the flesh) to His own created planet, and specially-created people, some 2,000 years ago.
In this PC "tolerant" environment of moral relativism, and its precise corollary of inclusive "intolerance," perhaps politically-motivated genuine Christian's trying to live out their lives faithfully and obediently (as "salt and light" ) in their respective communities, just might finally realize, that some day "...The kingdom of this world [will] have become the Kingdom of our Lord, and of His Christ [Messiah], and He shall reign forever and ever!" (Revelation 11:15) "God bless America!" Come again?
And secondly, genuine Christian politicians of the Republican "religious right," possessing the spiritual "eyes to see, and ears to hear," should've seen the proverbial "handwriting on-the-wall" (Daniel 5) at the outset of this country's Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, NC., last year, as the Democratic Party literally enshrined the sins of (Romans 1) as part of their political "platform," which necessarily included the continuing practice of legalized genocide against an entire unprotected "class" of its own citizens; who then also, after encountering a tumultuous outcry from theistically-minded "we the people" - mesmerizingly, and no doubt gratuitously - did finally "insert" the name of "God" into their desired political agenda, for eradicating any sense of absolute moral standards in this United States of America. Whew? (See the sobering context surrounding Isaiah 5:20.)
Mr. Leithart's distilling of the inextricable relationship between the moral-and-the-political, is wise counsel indeed for those who understand quite penetratingly, that the present invisible realities of the "Kingdom of Heaven" operating here on planet earth, are not confined to, nor dictated by, what takes place in the mind-numbing politicized public policy initiatives of the current Democratic Party, and its so-called "Christian" president - legislating "their" idea of morality - as seen by Leithart's insightful usage of Jesus' (Matthew 10:34-36) definition, which lay at the very heart of His "first" advent (in the flesh) to His own created planet, and specially-created people, some 2,000 years ago.
In this PC "tolerant" environment of moral relativism, and its precise corollary of inclusive "intolerance," perhaps politically-motivated genuine Christian's trying to live out their lives faithfully and obediently (as "salt and light" ) in their respective communities, just might finally realize, that some day "...The kingdom of this world [will] have become the Kingdom of our Lord, and of His Christ [Messiah], and He shall reign forever and ever!" (Revelation 11:15) "God bless America!" Come again?
2.1.2013 | 7:04am
A Reader says:
Pastor Peter Leithart, like the "well-instructed scribe" today "brings forth things new and old" and thereby demonstrates the timeless applicability of Scriptural teachings.
He provides analysis of the current (new) American dilemma affecting faithful Catholics, Protestants, and orthodox Jews.
He explains the right (old) path that must not be abandoned if we are to remain God's faithful. He does not attempt to soften the historically verifiable fact that the cost of faithfulness will be high.
He provides analysis of the current (new) American dilemma affecting faithful Catholics, Protestants, and orthodox Jews.
He explains the right (old) path that must not be abandoned if we are to remain God's faithful. He does not attempt to soften the historically verifiable fact that the cost of faithfulness will be high.
2.1.2013 | 7:22am
Michael PS says:
An ill-advised focus on the sinfulness of sodomy merely distracts attention from the public policy objections to same-sex marriage.
No-one will deny that the state has a clear interest in the filiation of children being clear, certain and incontestable. It is central to its concern for the upbringing and welfare of the child, for protecting rights and enforcing obligations between family members and to the orderly succession to property. To date, no better, simpler, less intrusive means than marriage have been found for ensuring, as far as possible, that the legal, biological and social realities of paternity coincide. Civil marriage achieves this through the rule that the child conceived or born during the marriage has the husband for father. This rule, which can have no application to a same-sex couple is what distinguishes marriage from unregulated cohabitation and form civil unions between same-sex or opposite-sex couples.
Rather, the argument should focus on the rights of the child to a father and a mother and, to be logically consistent, it must also address the issues of adoption, assisted reproduction and surrogate gestation. A society that allows human gametes to be treated as articles of commerce or tolerates a market in babies, bespoke or prêt-à-porter cannot consistently object to same-sex marriage.
No-one will deny that the state has a clear interest in the filiation of children being clear, certain and incontestable. It is central to its concern for the upbringing and welfare of the child, for protecting rights and enforcing obligations between family members and to the orderly succession to property. To date, no better, simpler, less intrusive means than marriage have been found for ensuring, as far as possible, that the legal, biological and social realities of paternity coincide. Civil marriage achieves this through the rule that the child conceived or born during the marriage has the husband for father. This rule, which can have no application to a same-sex couple is what distinguishes marriage from unregulated cohabitation and form civil unions between same-sex or opposite-sex couples.
Rather, the argument should focus on the rights of the child to a father and a mother and, to be logically consistent, it must also address the issues of adoption, assisted reproduction and surrogate gestation. A society that allows human gametes to be treated as articles of commerce or tolerates a market in babies, bespoke or prêt-à-porter cannot consistently object to same-sex marriage.
2.1.2013 | 8:41am
maineman says:
Rick highlights the problem. To state the truth, for example that there is no global warming (Global temperatures have not increased in 17 years.), violates the party line and is now seen as a reflection of stupidity by those who consider themselves superior.
The essential "stupidity" is, of course, Christianity and the truths conveyed by Christian morality. Obama said this clearly with his famous "cling to their Bibles" comment before his first coronation.
The distortions of liberalism have, indeed, permeated the culture to the degree that we are now really no more advanced than the ancient Romans in what we do and tolerate. Anyone with a clear vision sees that there is nothing to be done but to pray for souls, try not to participate in building the tower of destruction, and begin the process of rebuilding Christendom, now, during, and after the collapse of the secular order of things.
The essential "stupidity" is, of course, Christianity and the truths conveyed by Christian morality. Obama said this clearly with his famous "cling to their Bibles" comment before his first coronation.
The distortions of liberalism have, indeed, permeated the culture to the degree that we are now really no more advanced than the ancient Romans in what we do and tolerate. Anyone with a clear vision sees that there is nothing to be done but to pray for souls, try not to participate in building the tower of destruction, and begin the process of rebuilding Christendom, now, during, and after the collapse of the secular order of things.
2.1.2013 | 11:05am
cathchr says:
These words from Peter should be taken to heart by all who are Christians first and Republicans, Conservatives, or even Americans thereafter.
Rick commenting above refers to soul-searching in the GOP, but I take Peter to be calling for soul searching among professing believers. We must be prepared to walk away if need be in defense of innocent life, the sanctity of marriage and family life, religious freedom; in short anything wherein a compromise of the Faith is demanded as a condition of "sitting at the table" of public and political life; at least in so far as the "elite" of our nation demand it to be. Ultimately the Good Lord will provide and will also judge nations and peoples who reject Him.
Rick commenting above refers to soul-searching in the GOP, but I take Peter to be calling for soul searching among professing believers. We must be prepared to walk away if need be in defense of innocent life, the sanctity of marriage and family life, religious freedom; in short anything wherein a compromise of the Faith is demanded as a condition of "sitting at the table" of public and political life; at least in so far as the "elite" of our nation demand it to be. Ultimately the Good Lord will provide and will also judge nations and peoples who reject Him.
2.1.2013 | 11:10am
Lucky Jack says:
I think Rick's comments above highlight the tendency in the Republican party to leave their wounded on the battlefields of politics. The party showed a startling readiness to disown candidates Akin and Mourdock after their ill-framed arguments against institutionalized killing of the unborn. We joined with the media in labeling them medieval and calling for them (at least in the case of Akin) to leave the race.
The fact that there seem to be more voters in this country supporting the liberal left presently does not mean that their ideas are somehow superior. We must therefore not abandon the field or our wounded on it. To do so is to ignore the cultural mandate.
The fact that there seem to be more voters in this country supporting the liberal left presently does not mean that their ideas are somehow superior. We must therefore not abandon the field or our wounded on it. To do so is to ignore the cultural mandate.
2.1.2013 | 12:40pm
Artaban7 says:
I'm reminded of and encouraged by three things when we talk of the Culture War:
1) Biblically we're told to preach the truth in and out of season.
2) Societally accepted sins (homosexuality, etc.) are like fads--they have no enduring power. Even the longest lasting of them fall victim to their own consequences sooner or later (albeit they may be generations, as was the case with slavery).
3) Gandhi once said, "First they ignore you, then they mock you, then you win. "
1) Biblically we're told to preach the truth in and out of season.
2) Societally accepted sins (homosexuality, etc.) are like fads--they have no enduring power. Even the longest lasting of them fall victim to their own consequences sooner or later (albeit they may be generations, as was the case with slavery).
3) Gandhi once said, "First they ignore you, then they mock you, then you win. "
2.1.2013 | 1:52pm
Jim T. says:
"Love is not tolerance, but in our age Christians confuse the two as readily as anyone."
I found the above quote to be the most salient sentence in the article. Does any true follower of Christ doubt for a moment that our Lord was filled with love for the adulteress as he told her to "go and sin no more"? Indeed, His love for her remained unconditional as He issued His unqualified rejection of her sinful activity.
Christ was, and remains, the living embodiment of "compassion without compromise"; we Christians would do well to follow His example as we exercise our Constitutional rights, engage in the national dialogue on important issues, and participate in the political process. Unfortunately, all too often we exhibit the human failing of sinking to the same level of mean-spirited rhetoric as our ideological opponents. Ultimately, our collective ability to influence society is a function of our willingness to hate the sin--while still loving the sinner.
I found the above quote to be the most salient sentence in the article. Does any true follower of Christ doubt for a moment that our Lord was filled with love for the adulteress as he told her to "go and sin no more"? Indeed, His love for her remained unconditional as He issued His unqualified rejection of her sinful activity.
Christ was, and remains, the living embodiment of "compassion without compromise"; we Christians would do well to follow His example as we exercise our Constitutional rights, engage in the national dialogue on important issues, and participate in the political process. Unfortunately, all too often we exhibit the human failing of sinking to the same level of mean-spirited rhetoric as our ideological opponents. Ultimately, our collective ability to influence society is a function of our willingness to hate the sin--while still loving the sinner.
2.1.2013 | 3:07pm
Pastor Spomer says:
I would have thought that most would wince at, "Ein Rich, Ein Volk!" Whatever the language.
2.1.2013 | 4:12pm
Jack Bradley says:
Thank you, Peter, for this clarion call to keeping first things first!
2.1.2013 | 4:53pm
Greg Goebel says:
This is one of the tough times when you partly agree with the author's opinion, but you can see what might be made of that opinion. What I see is that there millions of Christian conservatives who think being anti-immigrant is Christian, or being "pro-gun" is somehow a biblical value. There are many areas in which the conservative right really does need to revisit its core, humane values. I think there are millions of conservatives who want to strengthen the prolife and promarriage stands, while reconsidering other areas, such as the harsh anti-immigrant language. I also think we lose elections because so much of the conservative platform is based on fear. Lets move toward love as the ground, and go from there.
So I agree with Dr L, but I can see how quickly some of my conservative friends will use this as an excuse to keep being angry and fearful, and blame it all on Obama.
So I agree with Dr L, but I can see how quickly some of my conservative friends will use this as an excuse to keep being angry and fearful, and blame it all on Obama.
2.1.2013 | 5:46pm
Fr. J says:
Rick, the press deliberately misquoted and misconstrued what pro-life people said. One of the problems with the last election was that the Democrats controlled the media almost completely. They are a propaganda outlet who have no compunction about lying or distortion. How can you get the message out when there is almost no venue open?
2.1.2013 | 6:18pm
Rick says:
@Pastor Spomer: "I would have thought that most would wince at, "Ein Rich, Ein Volk!"
Is it possible you are referring here to "Eine Richtung, ein Volk!" meaning, "One direction, one people!" This would be a good, concise slogan for the fascist or Nietschean philosophy of a society with purity of culture (ethnically cleansed, if necessary) and leadership by an unchallenged dictator.
Is it possible you are referring here to "Eine Richtung, ein Volk!" meaning, "One direction, one people!" This would be a good, concise slogan for the fascist or Nietschean philosophy of a society with purity of culture (ethnically cleansed, if necessary) and leadership by an unchallenged dictator.
2.1.2013 | 6:28pm
Rick says:
@maineman: "To state the truth, for example that there is no global warming (Global temperatures have not increased in 17 years.), violates the party line and is now seen as a reflection of stupidity by those who consider themselves superior."
This is a scientific problem that has been regrettably politicized. It has no bearing on who is superior or inferior. Santorum isn't stupid, he's just being politically correct. I, for one, wouldn't want to try to tell the folks from my church whose house was just destroyed by a tornado in January that they shouldn't believe in climate change.
This is a scientific problem that has been regrettably politicized. It has no bearing on who is superior or inferior. Santorum isn't stupid, he's just being politically correct. I, for one, wouldn't want to try to tell the folks from my church whose house was just destroyed by a tornado in January that they shouldn't believe in climate change.
2.1.2013 | 6:49pm
patricksarsfield says:
Michael PS is right. Getting into the "sinfulness" of homosexual sex is a forensic cul-de-sac.
The proper interest of the state in marriage is the relationship among the members of a family: husband, wife and progeny. Because a wife bears progeny, the state needs to ensure her support. That led to marital support laws and laws on the marital portion of an intestate estate, as well as the adultery laws. Likewise, once the state decided to allow divorce, support laws had to encompass the requirement for support after the termination of the marital relationship. Alimony obligations are often explicitly tied to the period of time that the couple's issue remain minors and the wife (the usual custodial parent) presumably needs to care for the issue. Because progeny require support throughout their infancy, the state had to find ways to ensure their support. Thus, the support and intestate succession law provisions regarding children, as well as the presumption of legitimacy conferred on children born out of the wife during the course of the marriage. Because the husband is entitled not to have to support someone else's progeny born out of the wife, the adultery laws have discouraged extra-marital sex by the wife.
The state's interest in marriage is directly related to the product of the fertility of the male-female act of sexual congress, and not to some vague notion of "committed love." Heterosexual congress ensures the continuation of the race. Homosexual congress, by contrast, leads to NO children. The state therefore does not have the same interest in regulating fruitless homosexual congress that it does in regulating heterosexual congress. It is that simple.
The proper interest of the state in marriage is the relationship among the members of a family: husband, wife and progeny. Because a wife bears progeny, the state needs to ensure her support. That led to marital support laws and laws on the marital portion of an intestate estate, as well as the adultery laws. Likewise, once the state decided to allow divorce, support laws had to encompass the requirement for support after the termination of the marital relationship. Alimony obligations are often explicitly tied to the period of time that the couple's issue remain minors and the wife (the usual custodial parent) presumably needs to care for the issue. Because progeny require support throughout their infancy, the state had to find ways to ensure their support. Thus, the support and intestate succession law provisions regarding children, as well as the presumption of legitimacy conferred on children born out of the wife during the course of the marriage. Because the husband is entitled not to have to support someone else's progeny born out of the wife, the adultery laws have discouraged extra-marital sex by the wife.
The state's interest in marriage is directly related to the product of the fertility of the male-female act of sexual congress, and not to some vague notion of "committed love." Heterosexual congress ensures the continuation of the race. Homosexual congress, by contrast, leads to NO children. The state therefore does not have the same interest in regulating fruitless homosexual congress that it does in regulating heterosexual congress. It is that simple.
2.1.2013 | 10:11pm
lzzrdgrrl says:
yeah...... but alimony obligations and the abuse of same are causing young men to eschew the marriage bond and even anything that is presently termed a 'long-term relationship'. Marriage is a super-raw deal for men these days. This is what they are telling us in any number of conservative blogs you can think of, and have been doing so for a number of years.......
2.1.2013 | 10:33pm
William says:
This article sums up exactly why the Republican party lost. It's Obama versus Christians, this notion is laughable and it makes a complex issue far too simplistic. It marginalizes the very diverse group of people who voted for him. I didn't vote for Obama, but I couldn't and wouldn't vote for anyone representing the current Republican party. I am a Christian, but I believe the whole bible and not just the parts that are most suitable for me.
2.1.2013 | 11:23pm
Rich Gall says:
Dr. Leithart, I appreciate where you come from. And I have an abundance of friends in the political trenches of Christian political conservatism. But there is no call to more, no call to sacrifice which cultural conservatism has called homosexuals. If they are truly to abandon their sexual preference, what calling are they given? As conservatives we have not given something worth abandoning their sexual existence to strive for. All they are left with is a "thou shall not" but no "thou shall . . ."
As I look at Rome, they have put closeted homosexuals in the pulpit, with responsibilities for young men, fragile in the faith. To what sacrifice should we Protestants call homosexual believers? And what meaning will it give them?
I worry that we have abandoned any call for sacrifice as a tool of power. Instead we pursue lobbying and votes and money to influence. I feel this abandons the Christian message of sacrifice for our Brothers and Sisters and in so doing we abandon the Gospel in our message.
With love,
Rich
As I look at Rome, they have put closeted homosexuals in the pulpit, with responsibilities for young men, fragile in the faith. To what sacrifice should we Protestants call homosexual believers? And what meaning will it give them?
I worry that we have abandoned any call for sacrifice as a tool of power. Instead we pursue lobbying and votes and money to influence. I feel this abandons the Christian message of sacrifice for our Brothers and Sisters and in so doing we abandon the Gospel in our message.
With love,
Rich
2.2.2013 | 1:26am
Rick says:
Pastor Spomer:
Nope...I didn't have it right. I did a little research and discovered what you were talking about. The complete statement is "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer!" ("One people, one empire, one leader!") It was one of the Nazis' favorite slogans, and it still falls in line with mono-ethnic, anti-immigrant, and dictatorial values.
Nope...I didn't have it right. I did a little research and discovered what you were talking about. The complete statement is "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer!" ("One people, one empire, one leader!") It was one of the Nazis' favorite slogans, and it still falls in line with mono-ethnic, anti-immigrant, and dictatorial values.
2.2.2013 | 6:20am
Katie says:
Thanks. I've been hoping someone would say that we shouldn't give up. No matter what the cost. And yes it is hard to be out of sync with others and the great 'we' of the nation and Hollywood and the media and the Universities. In England we catholics were beginning to feel at home as 'normal' people. That cannot be so for much longer. I've a feeling that faithful protestants felt the same in America. And as with the recent HHS 'concession' gratitude will be expected despite the fact that the mandate shouldn't have happened in the first place.
2.2.2013 | 8:49am
harry says:
"If the price of regaining power is to abandon any semblance of Christian sexual morality, the price is too high."
Christians will adhere to Christian morality even if doing so prevents them from ever obtaining worldly power. They have their eyes on the world to come.
"If the Republican party can’t bring itself to endorse a traditional understanding of marriage, let it split. If the Republican party can’t be bothered about the slaughter of the unborn, let it shatter into a million little pieces. Good Republicans will blame Bad Republicans for tearing the GOP to pieces. So be it."
Yes and thank you so very much for saying so. The Whig party's refusal to wholeheartedly come down hard on the side of human dignity regarding the human rights issue of that era resulted in their demise. No doubt there were many pundits explaining how the anti-slavery Whigs were "Bad Whigs" who caused them to lose many votes to the Democrats. (Yes, the party of "legal" slavery is now the party of "legal" child killing.) Following the advice of such pundits caused them to lose much more than votes to the Democrats; they lost their very existence as a political party.
It is nearly impossible to get a third party going, unless the time is right for one, as was the case when the Republican party began and quickly replaced the Whig party, which people realized didn't really stand for anything all that important.
The time is just right once again. I am thinking along the lines of a party that stands for the common man like the Democrat party of the fifties, yet is supportive of traditional morality rather than being aggressively hostile to it as the Democrat party of today has become. At this point there is nothing to lose from starting a party focused on human dignity and the common good – and everything to gain. What shall we call it? ;o)
Christians will adhere to Christian morality even if doing so prevents them from ever obtaining worldly power. They have their eyes on the world to come.
"If the Republican party can’t bring itself to endorse a traditional understanding of marriage, let it split. If the Republican party can’t be bothered about the slaughter of the unborn, let it shatter into a million little pieces. Good Republicans will blame Bad Republicans for tearing the GOP to pieces. So be it."
Yes and thank you so very much for saying so. The Whig party's refusal to wholeheartedly come down hard on the side of human dignity regarding the human rights issue of that era resulted in their demise. No doubt there were many pundits explaining how the anti-slavery Whigs were "Bad Whigs" who caused them to lose many votes to the Democrats. (Yes, the party of "legal" slavery is now the party of "legal" child killing.) Following the advice of such pundits caused them to lose much more than votes to the Democrats; they lost their very existence as a political party.
It is nearly impossible to get a third party going, unless the time is right for one, as was the case when the Republican party began and quickly replaced the Whig party, which people realized didn't really stand for anything all that important.
The time is just right once again. I am thinking along the lines of a party that stands for the common man like the Democrat party of the fifties, yet is supportive of traditional morality rather than being aggressively hostile to it as the Democrat party of today has become. At this point there is nothing to lose from starting a party focused on human dignity and the common good – and everything to gain. What shall we call it? ;o)
2.2.2013 | 8:57am
David Cassidy says:
Might it not be the case, taking Dr Leithart's wise words to heart, that the 'division' has to begin in house? Might it not be true that the complete lack of any internal discipline within the wider Church muffles - and perhaps renders utterly mute - any voice the Church might have on the issues raised? What is the abortion rate among Evangelicals and Catholics? What about divorce? Marriage was redefined a generation ago with no-fault divorce; do church courts support such an approach? "There are Church Courts?", one replies in astonishment. Yes, engage the million tiny pieces outcome, but be prepared for shards in the Church. Mute Pastors have to become Prophetic again.
2.2.2013 | 8:59am
Collin Brendemuehl says:
I guess the problem that I see is that the Rep. party is still the party of Barry Goldwater. These are pragmatists who are not theologically informed. Add to that the problem of Friedman's international capitalism (profit before nation) and we seem to have a party divided.
The left maintains its postmill eschatology (a better world through law) while the Reps have only concerns of function and the immediate. Conservatives have no real eschatology since the demise of postmill. Dispensationalists are either negative about the Kingdom of God or run a closed shop.
The left maintains its postmill eschatology (a better world through law) while the Reps have only concerns of function and the immediate. Conservatives have no real eschatology since the demise of postmill. Dispensationalists are either negative about the Kingdom of God or run a closed shop.
2.2.2013 | 9:50pm
Roan says:
I am very much a "social-issue Christian" first, a Republican Party supporter second, looking at America from faraway Japan, where tradition and common sense have far more influence than clearly articulated religious teachings or ideological fads. I have no idea what our (conservative) prime minister's view of same-sex marriage is, but I would wager a generous sum that if asked he would look puzzled and then dismiss the question as a prank. There are plenty of preening transvestites and self-stereotyping, effeminate male homosexuals on Japanese television, but they merely "entertain." Japan's happy-go-lucky mixture of animism and secularism is not, I hasten to say, unproblematic, but the relative sanity here, in contrast to America's alarming slide toward lunacy, points up the perils of a post-Christian society. I am reminded of what Mr. Beaver says in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe: "...when you meet anything that's going to be human and isn't yet, or used to be human once and isn't now, or ought to be human and isn't, you keep your eyes on it and feel for your hatchet." If America is a country that used to be Christian and isn't now, then it is or will be aggressively anti-Christian. Still in the guise of a Christian himself, Obama has dared to make his agenda clear to all but the willfully obtuse. This is no time for burying hatchets.
2.3.2013 | 4:18pm
P. Kenny says:
"Unity is the president’s preferred weapon to divide and conquer." I like that!
2.3.2013 | 6:32pm
Christiane says:
I look at the candidates that the Republican Party fielded for 2012. Who is responsible for that selection? Obama?
I look at the policies of Paul Ryan which the Republican Party embraced, which not even the conservative American Catholic Bishops could call 'moral'. I suppose Obama forced Ryan to put forth those policies?
I look at the remarks made by supposed shoo-ins Akin and Mourdock concerning women and abortion . . . and I imagine Obama put those words in their mouths?
Maybe the FIRST step for the recovery of a mature Republican Party that the people of this can can RESPECT (even if they disagree with it) would be for the members of said party to quit whining and quit blaming others (i.e., Obama) for their own ridiculous extremism.
It was stupidity that brought the Republican Party to this low ebb . . . it was accomplished on two fronts: arrogance and 'living in a media bubble (where 'facts' were made up and then actually believed as 'fact').
CHRISTIANS aligning with the Republican Party?
it didn't work out for either of them
I look at the policies of Paul Ryan which the Republican Party embraced, which not even the conservative American Catholic Bishops could call 'moral'. I suppose Obama forced Ryan to put forth those policies?
I look at the remarks made by supposed shoo-ins Akin and Mourdock concerning women and abortion . . . and I imagine Obama put those words in their mouths?
Maybe the FIRST step for the recovery of a mature Republican Party that the people of this can can RESPECT (even if they disagree with it) would be for the members of said party to quit whining and quit blaming others (i.e., Obama) for their own ridiculous extremism.
It was stupidity that brought the Republican Party to this low ebb . . . it was accomplished on two fronts: arrogance and 'living in a media bubble (where 'facts' were made up and then actually believed as 'fact').
CHRISTIANS aligning with the Republican Party?
it didn't work out for either of them
2.4.2013 | 1:56am
Rick says:
Christiane:
Very well put. I once heard an interview with Sen. Rand Paul of my state of Kentucky in which he stated he was a big fan of Ayn Rand. "I've read all her books!" he bragged. It sent a chill down my spine. He needs to read Whittaker Chambers' review of "Atlas Shrugged."
Very well put. I once heard an interview with Sen. Rand Paul of my state of Kentucky in which he stated he was a big fan of Ayn Rand. "I've read all her books!" he bragged. It sent a chill down my spine. He needs to read Whittaker Chambers' review of "Atlas Shrugged."
2.4.2013 | 6:57pm
John McCain in 2008 and Mitt Romney in 2012: "Good" Republicans.
Mike Huckabee in 2008 and Rick Santorum in 2012: "Bad" Republicans.
I voted for the "Bad" Republicans in the GOP primaries. I voted for the "Good" Republicans in the November presidential elections. Always voted for the losers. Always thought that I'd rather lose the presidential election with a "bad" Republican than with a "Good" Republican. A "Good" Republican is a RINO as far as I can tell.
Oh well. God is sovereign. And God is always good.
Pax amidst division and hardship.
Mike Huckabee in 2008 and Rick Santorum in 2012: "Bad" Republicans.
I voted for the "Bad" Republicans in the GOP primaries. I voted for the "Good" Republicans in the November presidential elections. Always voted for the losers. Always thought that I'd rather lose the presidential election with a "bad" Republican than with a "Good" Republican. A "Good" Republican is a RINO as far as I can tell.
Oh well. God is sovereign. And God is always good.
Pax amidst division and hardship.
2.5.2013 | 4:49pm
Concerned Christian says:
Are the only two issues which Christian Americans are supposed to care about, gay marriage and abortion? Aren't we selling ourselves short? What about turning the other cheek? Aren't we supposed to stand against unjust wars of aggression in the Middle East and beyond? What about "whatever you have done unto the least of these you have done unto me?" Aren't we supposed to do what we can to support those that are discarded by society through healthcare? Aren't we supposed to be good stewards of the environment God created? It seems that there are plenty of other places for Christians to define themselves in the political sphere then two issues.
2.14.2013 | 9:56am
watchingtheweasels says:
As a first generation legal immigrant and naturalized citizen, the only 'anti-immigrant' sentiment I see expressed in American politics are the incessant calls for amnesty by white liberals that would make the illegal actions of those that snuck in to my adopted nation on par with the sacrifices we made.
4.11.2013 | 10:57am
Lucas Knisely says:
I feel like he dances on the line of equating the GOP with the church, or at least an arm of the church. When he invokes the "not peace but a sword" language, I can't help but think that Jesus was speaking about the coming division that would flow out of the Gospel, not political battles about marriage. Not to mention the division that came was a natural result of their belief, not something they sought after.
I'm not saying Christians should abandon all political fronts, especially abortion. But I think going at it with the mindset of "With my dividing sword in hand, I'm gonna be like Jesus" is a misuse of biblical mandate and imagery as well as a confusion about the effect the Gospel and Christians can and should have on culture. We are to be known for our love (Matt 22:36-40), compassion (James 1:27), and mercy (Luke 6:35-36). Not our political muscle, and especially not divisiveness. Hebrews 12:14 calls us to strive for peace with everyone, but I guess only until the political battle calls for the unsheathing of our swords. The author even says he doesn't think now is the time for peace.
Again, I'm not saying Christians and Republicans should abandon their principals and beliefs, giving over to the condescending and high handed pressure of Obama and his supporters. One obvious and natural out working of our faith is that we stand for and against certain things. But don't invoke Christ's imagery of division resulting from his death, resurrection, and subsequent spreading of the Gospel as your political call to arms. Too often Christians blur the line between political identity and our identity in Christ, and this feels like one of those times.
I'm not saying Christians should abandon all political fronts, especially abortion. But I think going at it with the mindset of "With my dividing sword in hand, I'm gonna be like Jesus" is a misuse of biblical mandate and imagery as well as a confusion about the effect the Gospel and Christians can and should have on culture. We are to be known for our love (Matt 22:36-40), compassion (James 1:27), and mercy (Luke 6:35-36). Not our political muscle, and especially not divisiveness. Hebrews 12:14 calls us to strive for peace with everyone, but I guess only until the political battle calls for the unsheathing of our swords. The author even says he doesn't think now is the time for peace.
Again, I'm not saying Christians and Republicans should abandon their principals and beliefs, giving over to the condescending and high handed pressure of Obama and his supporters. One obvious and natural out working of our faith is that we stand for and against certain things. But don't invoke Christ's imagery of division resulting from his death, resurrection, and subsequent spreading of the Gospel as your political call to arms. Too often Christians blur the line between political identity and our identity in Christ, and this feels like one of those times.
4.18.2013 | 1:44pm
CALucee says:
Equating anything to "Mission Accomplished" is folly.
That speech and attitude by GWBush approached criminal ignorance and arrogance. If that is your intention, you defeat yourself.
That speech and attitude by GWBush approached criminal ignorance and arrogance. If that is your intention, you defeat yourself.
Narrowing the Republican identity problem down to a choice of stiff-upper-lip adherence to traditional sexual morality on the one hand or surrender to a godless culture of pagan hedonism on the other overlooks the real problem they faced in the election: the loss of support from vast, primarily non-anglo nativist, segments of the population.