PDA

View Full Version : Must Evangelicals Be Conservatives?




Truth Warrior
01-05-2009, 07:24 AM
Must Evangelicals Be Conservatives?


by Laurence M. Vance (http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/mailto:lmvance@juno.com)

Because I am a conservative evangelical, but not an evangelical conservative, I was intrigued by the title of a new book I saw recently on display in the book exhibit hall at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature:How to Be Evangelical without Being Conservative (http://www.amazon.com/How-Evangelical-without-Being-Conservative/dp/0310283388/lewrockwell/) (Zondervan, 2008). Did the author mean conservative in the theological sense or the political sense? Since one of my primary interests is the intersection of religion with politics and economics, I could almost hear the book begging for a review. I was both pleasantly surprised and tremendously disappointed.

It turns out that the author (Roger Olson, a professor of theology at George W. Truett Theological Seminary of Baylor University) means conservative in both the theological and political senses. Therefore, because I am a conservative evangelical, I reject his theological proposals. However, this does not mean that because I am not an evangelical conservative that I accept all of his political proposals.

How to Be Evangelical without Being Conservative contains twelve chapters, only three of which concern conservatism in the political sense. In two of these three chapters, Olson makes some very good points, but in the third – the chapter that deals with political economy – he is not just bad, he is horrible.

In chapter three, "Celebrating America without Nationalism," Olson correctly recognizes two things:

Especially since World War II evangelical Christians in America have tended to become increasingly nationalistic.

There is probably no more patriotic slice of the American population than evangelical Christians.
He faults Christians for failing "to observe the difference between love of country and slavish agreement with or obedience to the state and government." He maintains that "Conservative Christians also miss the boat when they elevate America to the status of a near idol by engaging in worship that blends God and country as if the two are inextricably linked together." I like his suggestion that "American flags should be removed from Christian worship spaces so that nobody confuses the worship of God with veneration of nation."

In chapter seven, "Transforming Culture without Domination," Olson distances himself from the Religious Right:

Unlike affiliates of the Religious Right I do not see any New Testament mandate for Christians to engage in political activism to control the behavior of unbelievers so that it conforms to specifically Christian ethics. Where in the New Testament does Jesus or any apostle even suggest that Christians should get out and try to transform the cultures they live in by taking control of governments to legislate Christian beliefs and values? Did the earliest Christians go around the Roman empire posting the Ten Commandments in public places? Did they run for political office or seek political appointment primarily to take over the culture for Christ? Of course not – and nobody argues that they did. So why do many conservative evangelicals today do such things while claiming to be New Testament Christians? And do all New Testament Christians do such things?
I might add that it is inconceivable that the early Christians allowed their churches to function as recruiting centers for the Roman army. Olson shows great biblical insight in this chapter. It’s too bad he completely departs from this in the following chapter.

In chapter eight, "Redistributing Wealth without Socialism," Olson preaches the gospel of social-welfare through government intervention and redistribution of wealth. From start to finish, this is a horrible chapter – even worse than the worst theological chapter. Reading this chapter is like reading Sojourners or a book by Jim Wallis. Olson believes that "evangelical Christianity need not be tied to the free market, free enterprise system and especially not to laissez-faire capitalism (government’s ‘hands off’ approach to the economy)." Not only does he maintain that the Bible "nowhere mentions capitalism" (true if one is only looking for the term itself), but also "anything associated with it." This is all nonsense, of course. For a biblical defense of "laissez-faire capitalism" see my lecture "The Myth of the Just Price (http://mises.org/story/2918)."

Olson chooses his words carefully. He doesn’t advocate socialism per se (the public ownership of the means of production), but believes that "some modified form of democratic capitalism works best." Olson is trying to take a middle-of-the-road approach, but as Ludwig von Mises (http://mises.org/midroad.asp) addressed the University Club in New York in 1950, such a policy always leads to socialism. As Mises explains in his magnum opus, Human Action (http://www.mises.org/store/Human-Action-The-Scholars-Edition-P119C0.aspx?AFID=14):

All varieties of interference with the market phenomena not only fail to achieve the ends aimed at by their authors and supporters, but bring about a state of affairs which – from the point of view of their authors’ and advocates’ valuations – is less desirable than the previous state of affairs which they were designed to alter. If one wants to correct their manifest unsuitableness and preposterousness by supplementing the first acts of intervention with more and more of such acts, one must go farther and farther until the market economy has been entirely destroyed and socialism has been substituted for it.
Even worse than Olson’s notion that "capitalism unchecked by strong government regulation of businesses to prevent monopolies and other abuses tends toward injustice" is his solution: "One of the government’s functions should be to redistribute wealth to balance the inequities that tend to appear in any capitalist system." Olson asks: "How should wealth be redistributed without socialism?" But before one has time to yell: "It can’t," he answers his own question: "By means of a highly graduated income tax combined with government entitlement programs focused on job training and placement, free day care for children of the working poor, and universal health coverage for every American."

Elsewhere he advocates further redistribution through education, direct aid to children, and "other forms of welfare."

Olson rejects the arguments of those who think "redistribution of wealth should be strictly voluntary." He singles out for special criticism Marvin Olasky, the editor of World magazine and author of The Tragedy of American Compassion (http://www.amazon.com/Tragedy-American-Compassion-Marvin-Olasky/dp/1433501104/lewrockwell/) and Renewing American Compassion (http://www.amazon.com/Renewing-American-Compassion-Ordinary-Citizens/dp/0895264145/lewrockwell/). (Olson wrongly refers to Olasky’s latter book as Renewing of American Compassion.) What really galls Olson is that private, non-profit welfare programs might limit their help "to people of a certain race, ethnicity, gender, sexual preference, or religion." I don’t think this would happen, but so what if it did. We must remember that a free society includes the freedom to discriminate. The society advocated by Olson is not based on freedom at all; it is based on Marx’s Communist Manifesto, which states that one of the conditions necessary for the transition from a capitalist to a communist society, is "a heavy progressive or graduated income tax."

Olson believes that government entitlement programs financed by a highly graduated income tax are "not unreasonable or unchristian policies." In fact: "They accord well with Scripture’s overt concern for the poor and oppressed." "Redistribution of wealth is biblical," says Olson. Christians should not feel bad about espousing government theft of resources because "no biblical or rational conflict confronts the evangelical Christian who wants to advocate for the poor, including government-sponsored redistribution of wealth, in spite of all the fussing and fuming of some conservative evangelicals who consider such policies socialistic."

But what about the commandment: "Thou shalt not steal" (Exodus 20:15)? Olson doesn’t apply this to the government because "the idea that taxes are a form of government theft comes from the philosophy of secular thinkers like Robert Nozick of Harvard University."

Olson’s conclusion is inescapable: stealing is okay if the government does it. This is just like concluding that killing in an aggressive war is not murder if the government says to do it. This thought reminds me of what is missing in his book.

What is missing in How to Be Evangelical without Being Conservative is a chapter on "Supporting Defense without Militarism." This book would have been the perfect place to present the evangelical case against Bush’s war of aggression and for a sane U.S. foreign policy. Instead, we have things from non-evangelicals that are not as effective like the recent petition (http://www.theshofar.org/?page_id=126)"calling for the National Association of Evangelicals (http://www.nae.net/) to a public declaration of repentance and commitment to restoration":

The last eight years of leadership in the American political realm has been guided by an administration that early in its inception was lauded as Christian. It is an undisputed fact that not only did the evangelical community play a huge role in elected George Bush to office, but many, including the Washington Times Bill Sammon proclaimed him the Evangelical President. Yet as the years passed, the lies and deceptions surfaced and the hallelujahs and amen’s have silently died down as the evangelical community slowly crept away distancing itself from the monster it helped create. Rather than admit self-deception, or worse, complicity it seems organizations such as the National Association of Evangelicals have chose to ignore the human rights abuses, stolen liberties, constitutional breaches and crimes the Bush Administration have committed. If this organization is truly representative of the Christian community why have they refused the partial responsibility they shoulder by supporting such atrocities?

In light of the recently released Senate Armed Services Committee report implicating members of the Bush cabinet in war crimes it seems public rebuke and repentance is in order. Just as we cannot in good conscience turn away from the facts that the American war machine has been kidnapping foreign nationals and holding them in secret prisons, waging illegal wars based on deception and misinformation, engaging in torture, human rights abuses, war profiteering and a multitude of other unchristian practices neither can we let the leaders of the Evangelical communities ignore their responsibility in putting this machination in action through aggressive political support. While we acknowledge that the NAE condemned the use of torture, this small acknowledgment did little to reverse the damage done to the testimony of Jesus Christ and the integrity of the American Church.

It is therefore this 21st day of Dec 2008 declared that those who are represented by the evangelical view of the Christian faith demand a day of public fasting, prayer and repentance be decided by the National Association of Evangelicals for the failure to be the voice of conscience to the Government whom they so vehemently supported and resolve to a plan of action to correct the injustices committed by the Bush administration while under the guise of being ruled by Christian principals and law. Let us truly become a light set upon a hill.
Olson would have accomplished much more with his book had he included something like this in place of his attack on capitalism.

Although I had high hopes for this book, I’m afraid I can only recommend the two chapters that relate to politics. Christians can be theologically conservative and yet at the same time reject the Republican Party, the Religious Right, and many aspects of the conservative movement. In How to Be Evangelical without Being Conservative, Roger Olson rightly rejects these things, but because he advocates socialism (while eschewing the term) and a watered-down, effeminate, politically-correct evangelicalism, the book on being evangelical without being conservative remains to be written.

January 5, 2009


Laurence M. Vance [send him mail (http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/mailto:lmvance@juno.com)] writes from Pensacola, FL. His latest book is a new and greatly expanded edition of Christianity and War and Other Essays Against the Warfare State (http://www.amazon.com/Christianity-Other-Essays-Against-Warfare/dp/0976344858/lewrockwell/). Visit his website (http://www.vancepublications.com/).


Copyright 2009 LewRockwell.com


Laurence M. Vance Archives (http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance-arch.html)



Back to LewRockwell.com Home Page (http://www.lewrockwell.com/)


http://images.clickability.com/pti/spacer.gif
Find this article at:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance159.html

Mitt Romneys sideburns
01-05-2009, 08:07 AM
Whenever I see a thread posted by Truth Warrior, Im just going to skip opening it and assume its yet another link to an article at Lew Rockwell's site.

TW has become nothing more than a barometer letting everyone know Lew has posted a new article.

Truth Warrior
01-05-2009, 08:18 AM
Whenever I see a thread posted by Truth Warrior, Im just going to skip opening it and assume its yet another link to an article at Lew Rockwell's site.

TW has become nothing more than a barometer letting everyone know Lew has posted a new article. Thank you, I'd really appreciate that. I thought you were already ignoring me ................... again. :rolleyes: What happened to change your "mind"? :p Not that I REALLY even care. BTW, I don't even open your threads either usually. And you aren't even on my ignore list. No one is.

Lew likes Ron. Ron likes Lew. I like Ron AND Lew. What's YOUR problem? :p

LibertyEagle
01-05-2009, 08:50 AM
Lew likes Ron. Ron likes Lew. I like Ron AND Lew. What's YOUR problem? :p

The JBS likes Ron. Ron likes the JBS. I like Ron and the JBS. What's YOUR problem? ;)

Truth Warrior
01-05-2009, 09:07 AM
http://www.reference.com/search?q=Contextomy

Truth Warrior
01-05-2009, 09:34 AM
Bump!

heavenlyboy34
01-05-2009, 09:38 AM
Thanks for the post, sensei.

~bumpity bump~ ;)

Truth Warrior
01-05-2009, 09:47 AM
Thanks for the post, sensei.

~bumpity bump~ ;) You're welcome. :) Thanks for THE ON TOPIC post, grasshoppa.

Bump, bump. ;)

LibertyEagle
01-05-2009, 10:39 AM
http://www.reference.com/search?q=Contextomy

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/obfuscation
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/skirt
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/duck
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evade

Truth Warrior
01-05-2009, 10:54 AM
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/obfuscation
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/skirt (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/<b>skirt</b>)
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/duck (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/<b>duck</b>)
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evade (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evade)

Thanks for the thread bump. May I have another?

Truth Warrior
01-05-2009, 11:57 AM
Thanks for the thread bump. May I have another? I guess not.

That's OK, I'LL DO IT. :rolleyes:

Bump!

Brassmouth
01-05-2009, 12:13 PM
I appreciate your article threads, TW, even though I've usually already read the articles before you link them. Although this article wasn't really worth linking to, IMO. ;)

heavenlyboy34
01-05-2009, 12:16 PM
I appreciate your article threads, TW, even though I've usually already read the articles before you link them. Although this article wasn't really worth linking to, IMO. ;)

It was ok, IMHO. ;)

Truth Warrior
01-05-2009, 12:19 PM
I appreciate your article threads, TW, even though I've usually already read the articles before you link them. Although this article wasn't really worth linking to, IMO. ;) Thanks for stopping by and for your opinion. ;) I like Vance. :) Hit a little too close to home for comfort, did it? ;)

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
01-05-2009, 12:48 PM
Must Evangelicals Be Conservatives?


by Laurence M. Vance (http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/mailto:lmvance@juno.com)

Because I am a conservative evangelical, but not an evangelical conservative, I was intrigued by the title of a new book I saw recently on display in the book exhibit hall at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature:How to Be Evangelical without Being Conservative (http://www.amazon.com/How-Evangelical-without-Being-Conservative/dp/0310283388/lewrockwell/) (Zondervan, 2008). Did the author mean conservative in the theological sense or the political sense? Since one of my primary interests is the intersection of religion with politics and economics, I could almost hear the book begging for a review. I was both pleasantly surprised and tremendously disappointed.

It turns out that the author (Roger Olson, a professor of theology at George W. Truett Theological Seminary of Baylor University) means conservative in both the theological and political senses. Therefore, because I am a conservative evangelical, I reject his theological proposals. However, this does not mean that because I am not an evangelical conservative that I accept all of his political proposals.

How to Be Evangelical without Being Conservative contains twelve chapters, only three of which concern conservatism in the political sense. In two of these three chapters, Olson makes some very good points, but in the third – the chapter that deals with political economy – he is not just bad, he is horrible.

In chapter three, "Celebrating America without Nationalism," Olson correctly recognizes two things:

Especially since World War II evangelical Christians in America have tended to become increasingly nationalistic.

There is probably no more patriotic slice of the American population than evangelical Christians.
He faults Christians for failing "to observe the difference between love of country and slavish agreement with or obedience to the state and government." He maintains that "Conservative Christians also miss the boat when they elevate America to the status of a near idol by engaging in worship that blends God and country as if the two are inextricably linked together." I like his suggestion that "American flags should be removed from Christian worship spaces so that nobody confuses the worship of God with veneration of nation."

In chapter seven, "Transforming Culture without Domination," Olson distances himself from the Religious Right:

Unlike affiliates of the Religious Right I do not see any New Testament mandate for Christians to engage in political activism to control the behavior of unbelievers so that it conforms to specifically Christian ethics. Where in the New Testament does Jesus or any apostle even suggest that Christians should get out and try to transform the cultures they live in by taking control of governments to legislate Christian beliefs and values? Did the earliest Christians go around the Roman empire posting the Ten Commandments in public places? Did they run for political office or seek political appointment primarily to take over the culture for Christ? Of course not – and nobody argues that they did. So why do many conservative evangelicals today do such things while claiming to be New Testament Christians? And do all New Testament Christians do such things?
I might add that it is inconceivable that the early Christians allowed their churches to function as recruiting centers for the Roman army. Olson shows great biblical insight in this chapter. It’s too bad he completely departs from this in the following chapter.

In chapter eight, "Redistributing Wealth without Socialism," Olson preaches the gospel of social-welfare through government intervention and redistribution of wealth. From start to finish, this is a horrible chapter – even worse than the worst theological chapter. Reading this chapter is like reading Sojourners or a book by Jim Wallis. Olson believes that "evangelical Christianity need not be tied to the free market, free enterprise system and especially not to laissez-faire capitalism (government’s ‘hands off’ approach to the economy)." Not only does he maintain that the Bible "nowhere mentions capitalism" (true if one is only looking for the term itself), but also "anything associated with it." This is all nonsense, of course. For a biblical defense of "laissez-faire capitalism" see my lecture "The Myth of the Just Price (http://mises.org/story/2918)."

Olson chooses his words carefully. He doesn’t advocate socialism per se (the public ownership of the means of production), but believes that "some modified form of democratic capitalism works best." Olson is trying to take a middle-of-the-road approach, but as Ludwig von Mises (http://mises.org/midroad.asp) addressed the University Club in New York in 1950, such a policy always leads to socialism. As Mises explains in his magnum opus, Human Action (http://www.mises.org/store/Human-Action-The-Scholars-Edition-P119C0.aspx?AFID=14):

All varieties of interference with the market phenomena not only fail to achieve the ends aimed at by their authors and supporters, but bring about a state of affairs which – from the point of view of their authors’ and advocates’ valuations – is less desirable than the previous state of affairs which they were designed to alter. If one wants to correct their manifest unsuitableness and preposterousness by supplementing the first acts of intervention with more and more of such acts, one must go farther and farther until the market economy has been entirely destroyed and socialism has been substituted for it.
Even worse than Olson’s notion that "capitalism unchecked by strong government regulation of businesses to prevent monopolies and other abuses tends toward injustice" is his solution: "One of the government’s functions should be to redistribute wealth to balance the inequities that tend to appear in any capitalist system." Olson asks: "How should wealth be redistributed without socialism?" But before one has time to yell: "It can’t," he answers his own question: "By means of a highly graduated income tax combined with government entitlement programs focused on job training and placement, free day care for children of the working poor, and universal health coverage for every American."

Elsewhere he advocates further redistribution through education, direct aid to children, and "other forms of welfare."

Olson rejects the arguments of those who think "redistribution of wealth should be strictly voluntary." He singles out for special criticism Marvin Olasky, the editor of World magazine and author of The Tragedy of American Compassion (http://www.amazon.com/Tragedy-American-Compassion-Marvin-Olasky/dp/1433501104/lewrockwell/) and Renewing American Compassion (http://www.amazon.com/Renewing-American-Compassion-Ordinary-Citizens/dp/0895264145/lewrockwell/). (Olson wrongly refers to Olasky’s latter book as Renewing of American Compassion.) What really galls Olson is that private, non-profit welfare programs might limit their help "to people of a certain race, ethnicity, gender, sexual preference, or religion." I don’t think this would happen, but so what if it did. We must remember that a free society includes the freedom to discriminate. The society advocated by Olson is not based on freedom at all; it is based on Marx’s Communist Manifesto, which states that one of the conditions necessary for the transition from a capitalist to a communist society, is "a heavy progressive or graduated income tax."

Olson believes that government entitlement programs financed by a highly graduated income tax are "not unreasonable or unchristian policies." In fact: "They accord well with Scripture’s overt concern for the poor and oppressed." "Redistribution of wealth is biblical," says Olson. Christians should not feel bad about espousing government theft of resources because "no biblical or rational conflict confronts the evangelical Christian who wants to advocate for the poor, including government-sponsored redistribution of wealth, in spite of all the fussing and fuming of some conservative evangelicals who consider such policies socialistic."

But what about the commandment: "Thou shalt not steal" (Exodus 20:15)? Olson doesn’t apply this to the government because "the idea that taxes are a form of government theft comes from the philosophy of secular thinkers like Robert Nozick of Harvard University."

Olson’s conclusion is inescapable: stealing is okay if the government does it. This is just like concluding that killing in an aggressive war is not murder if the government says to do it. This thought reminds me of what is missing in his book.

What is missing in How to Be Evangelical without Being Conservative is a chapter on "Supporting Defense without Militarism." This book would have been the perfect place to present the evangelical case against Bush’s war of aggression and for a sane U.S. foreign policy. Instead, we have things from non-evangelicals that are not as effective like the recent petition (http://www.theshofar.org/?page_id=126)"calling for the National Association of Evangelicals (http://www.nae.net/) to a public declaration of repentance and commitment to restoration":

The last eight years of leadership in the American political realm has been guided by an administration that early in its inception was lauded as Christian. It is an undisputed fact that not only did the evangelical community play a huge role in elected George Bush to office, but many, including the Washington Times Bill Sammon proclaimed him the Evangelical President. Yet as the years passed, the lies and deceptions surfaced and the hallelujahs and amen’s have silently died down as the evangelical community slowly crept away distancing itself from the monster it helped create. Rather than admit self-deception, or worse, complicity it seems organizations such as the National Association of Evangelicals have chose to ignore the human rights abuses, stolen liberties, constitutional breaches and crimes the Bush Administration have committed. If this organization is truly representative of the Christian community why have they refused the partial responsibility they shoulder by supporting such atrocities?

In light of the recently released Senate Armed Services Committee report implicating members of the Bush cabinet in war crimes it seems public rebuke and repentance is in order. Just as we cannot in good conscience turn away from the facts that the American war machine has been kidnapping foreign nationals and holding them in secret prisons, waging illegal wars based on deception and misinformation, engaging in torture, human rights abuses, war profiteering and a multitude of other unchristian practices neither can we let the leaders of the Evangelical communities ignore their responsibility in putting this machination in action through aggressive political support. While we acknowledge that the NAE condemned the use of torture, this small acknowledgment did little to reverse the damage done to the testimony of Jesus Christ and the integrity of the American Church.

It is therefore this 21st day of Dec 2008 declared that those who are represented by the evangelical view of the Christian faith demand a day of public fasting, prayer and repentance be decided by the National Association of Evangelicals for the failure to be the voice of conscience to the Government whom they so vehemently supported and resolve to a plan of action to correct the injustices committed by the Bush administration while under the guise of being ruled by Christian principals and law. Let us truly become a light set upon a hill.
Olson would have accomplished much more with his book had he included something like this in place of his attack on capitalism.

Although I had high hopes for this book, I’m afraid I can only recommend the two chapters that relate to politics. Christians can be theologically conservative and yet at the same time reject the Republican Party, the Religious Right, and many aspects of the conservative movement. In How to Be Evangelical without Being Conservative, Roger Olson rightly rejects these things, but because he advocates socialism (while eschewing the term) and a watered-down, effeminate, politically-correct evangelicalism, the book on being evangelical without being conservative remains to be written.

January 5, 2009


Laurence M. Vance [send him mail (http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/mailto:lmvance@juno.com)] writes from Pensacola, FL. His latest book is a new and greatly expanded edition of Christianity and War and Other Essays Against the Warfare State (http://www.amazon.com/Christianity-Other-Essays-Against-Warfare/dp/0976344858/lewrockwell/). Visit his website (http://www.vancepublications.com/).


Copyright 2009 LewRockwell.com


Laurence M. Vance Archives (http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance-arch.html)



Back to LewRockwell.com Home Page (http://www.lewrockwell.com/)


http://images.clickability.com/pti/spacer.gif
Find this article at:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance159.html

Yes. Jesus did not delve into the state (Gentiles). The morality of the state wasn't established by Christ but by Socrates/Plato. Plato, like Jesus, was despised for being a spiritual person. Jesus didn't work at the front of the flock. He worked in the middle as its shepherd. He allows the rams to lead the flock as the world's false authority while He Himself steers it in a general direction from the middle.

Why must the shepherd remain towards the middle of the flock? The shepherd has to keep those in front of him from getting too far ahead while he has to keep those in the rear from falling too far behind. As the shepherd utilizes the authority of the lead Rams in the herd, He Himself is the ram for the discouraged. If a sheep ahead of Jesus in the flock has any questions regarding what to do and which way to go, Jesus refers them to the lead rams at the front of the flock.

Once again, this is a subtle point that people misconstrue about the job of shepherding. It is a fallacy to think that a shepherd leads from the front of the flock as Moses did in the movie. A shepherd utilizes the false authority of the rams at the head of the flock while he steers the flock from the middle. This allows the shepherd to fall back when necessary to help any stragglers catch up with the flock.

Truth Warrior
01-05-2009, 12:59 PM
Yes. Jesus did not delve into the state (Gentiles). The morality of the state wasn't established by Christ but by Socrates/Plato. Plato, like Jesus, was despised for being a spiritual person. Jesus didn't work at the front of the flock. He worked in the middle as its shepherd. He allows the rams to lead the flock as the world's false authority while He Himself steers it in a general direction from the middle.

Why must the shepherd remain towards the middle of the flock? The shepherd has to keep those in front of him from getting too far ahead while he has to keep those in the rear from falling too far behind. As the shepherd utilizes the authority of the lead Rams in the herd, He Himself is the ram for the discouraged. If a sheep ahead of Jesus in the flock has any questions regarding what to do and which way to go, Jesus refers them to the lead rams at the front of the flock.

Once again, this is a subtle point that people misconstrue about the job of shepherding. It is a fallacy to think that a shepherd leads from the front of the flock as Moses did in the movie. A shepherd utilizes the false authority of the rams at the head of the flock while he steers the flock from the middle. This allows the shepherd to fall back when necessary to help any stragglers catch up with the flock. Moral: NEVER ever offer to clean the shoes of the shepherds. :D

Why am I feeling the sudden urge to post Nietzsche again? :D Maybe it's just those "European" references. < LMAO! >

torchbearer
01-05-2009, 01:02 PM
Yes. Jesus did not delve into the state (Gentiles). The morality of the state wasn't established by Christ but by Socrates/Plato. Plato, like Jesus, was despised for being a spiritual person. Jesus didn't work at the front of the flock. He worked in the middle as its shepherd. He allows the rams to lead the flock as the world's false authority while He Himself steers it in a general direction from the middle.

Why must the shepherd remain towards the middle of the flock? The shepherd has to keep those in front of him from getting too far ahead while he has to keep those in the rear from falling too far behind. As the shepherd utilizes the authority of the lead Rams in the herd, He Himself is the ram for the discouraged. If a sheep ahead of Jesus in the flock has any questions regarding what to do and which way to go, Jesus refers them to the lead rams at the front of the flock.

Once again, this is a subtle point that people misconstrue about the job of shepherding. It is a fallacy to think that a shepherd leads from the front of the flock as Moses did in the movie. A shepherd utilizes the false authority of the rams at the head of the flock while he steers the flock from the middle. This allows the shepherd to fall back when necessary to help any stragglers catch up with the flock.

Would Jesus be a monarchist or an anarchist if the only ruler he recognized was God the father? (a divine ruler, lord)

Truth Warrior
01-05-2009, 01:08 PM
The Libertarian From Nazareth? (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/butler-b1.html)
Bill Butler thinks he knows His political views.

heavenlyboy34
01-05-2009, 01:57 PM
The Libertarian From Nazareth? (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/butler-b1.html)
Bill Butler thinks he knows His political views.


Yeshua the Libertarian FTW! :) Thanx, sensei! ~hug~

Mitt Romneys sideburns
01-05-2009, 02:42 PM
Is there any reason you continue to post every single new Lew Rockwell article in a new thread?

I mean, I people post articles all the time. But its usually because they found something in the particular article that stood out and they want to comment on the article.

All you do is copy-paste the article, and you give no reason for posting. You give no comments or opinions of your own. You just copy-paste.

Truth Warrior
01-05-2009, 03:11 PM
Is there any reason you continue to post every single new Lew Rockwell article in a new thread?

Well, since I don't, there is no reason. :)

I mean, I people post articles all the time. But its usually because they found something in the particular article that stood out and they want to comment on the article.

I understand what you meant. I have different motivations for my actions. Is that all right with you? :rolleyes: Neither your permission, agreement nor approval are necessary or required. :)

All you do is copy-paste the article, and you give no reason for posting. You give no comments or opinions of your own. You just copy-paste.

Well, you either get it or you don't. Either take it or leave it. Personally, in your case, I'd HIGHLY recommend "LEAVE IT". ;)



Thanks for your OFF TOPIC thread bump. :)

heavenlyboy34
01-05-2009, 03:29 PM
Moral: NEVER ever offer to clean the shoes of the shepherds. :D Why am I feeling the sudden urge to post Nietzsche again? :D Maybe it's just those "European" references. < LMAO! >

I double dare ya to do it. ;)

Truth Warrior
01-05-2009, 03:37 PM
I double dare ya to do it. ;) Patience, grasshoppa. ;) :) I know it's tough for a Sag, because I'm married to one. :D

Truth Warrior
01-06-2009, 02:44 PM
Where's the "Evangelicals"?

Bump!

heavenlyboy34
01-06-2009, 02:45 PM
Where's the "Evangelicals"?

Bump!

I don't see any...I don't know, sensei, but I'll bump it for ya anyways. ~bumpity bump~

Truth Warrior
01-06-2009, 03:14 PM
I don't see any...I don't know, sensei, but I'll bump it for ya anyways. ~bumpity bump~ Heck I'd even be pleased to settle for SOME conservatives, mind you, not ALL by any means, of course. :rolleyes:

hope7134
01-08-2009, 10:30 PM
Truth Warrior Banned? A bright star has surely faded!

The reason no opinion was needed, because truth needs no opinion or comment, truth stands alone. It just "IS". Accept truth or not, the option is always yours. But, just because you do or don't accept it, doesn't change it. It remains! So when you post truth, there is nothing else to say!

Truth Warrior, wherever you are, thank you for posting this article. I for one will miss your cunning wit.

heavenlyboy34
01-08-2009, 10:43 PM
Truth Warrior Banned? A bright star has surely faded!

The reason no opinion was needed, because truth needs no opinion or comment, truth stands alone. It just "IS". Accept truth or not, the option is always yours. But, just because you do or don't accept it, doesn't change it. It remains! So when you post truth, there is nothing else to say!

Truth Warrior, wherever you are, thank you for posting this article. I for one will miss your cunning wit.

He's (supposedly) only on a 2-3 day ban, so I expect my sensei back swingin' any time now. :D

heavenlyboy34
01-08-2009, 10:45 PM
Patience, grasshoppa. ;) :) I know it's tough for a Sag, because I'm married to one. :D

:eek: I could only imagine how crazy it must be to live with someone like a Sag, sensei! ;):) tty when ya get back. ~hugs~

Truth Warrior
01-21-2009, 03:51 PM
:eek: I could only imagine how crazy it must be to live with someone like a Sag, sensei! ;):) tty when ya get back. ~hugs~ Now that PMS and MS is history, it's gotten LOTS better, day to day. :D Sag is my rising sign. That may explain my freedom obsession. ;)

TER
01-21-2009, 03:53 PM
Now that PMS and MS is history, it's gotten LOTS better, day to day. :D Sag is my rising sign. That may explain my freedom obsession. ;)

welcome to the forums, mr. truth warrior ;)

Truth Warrior
01-21-2009, 03:56 PM
welcome to the forums, mr. truth warrior ;) Thank you. ;)

heavenlyboy34
01-21-2009, 03:56 PM
Now that PMS and MS is history, it's gotten LOTS better, day to day. :D Sag is my rising sign. That may explain my freedom obsession. ;)

;):D

Grimnir Wotansvolk
01-21-2009, 04:37 PM
Would Jesus be a monarchist or an anarchist if the only ruler he recognized was God the father? (a divine ruler, lord)Monarchist. There is no such thing as "Christian anarchy", because an imaginary king is still a king as long as he has footsoldiers carrying out his bidding and forcing their false hierarchy upon the world

Truth Warrior
01-21-2009, 04:48 PM
Christian Anarchy: Jesus' Primacy Over the Powers
http://www.hccentral.com/eller12/ (http://www.hccentral.com/eller12/)

heavenlyboy34
01-21-2009, 04:51 PM
Christian Anarchy: Jesus' Primacy Over the Powers
http://www.hccentral.com/eller12/ (http://www.hccentral.com/eller12/)

Thanx, sensei! I'm bookmarking it to read it later. :D;)