Quote of the day

posted at 10:00 pm on October 27, 2007 by Allahpundit

In June of last year, in one of the few upsets since conservatives consolidated their hold on the denomination 20 years ago, the establishment’s hand-picked candidates — well-known national figures in the convention — lost the internal election for the convention’s presidency. The winner, Frank Page of First Baptist Church in Taylors, S.C., campaigned on a promise to loosen up the conservatives’ tight control. He told convention delegates that Southern Baptists had become known too much for what they were against (abortion, evolution, homosexuality) instead of what they stand for (the Gospel). “I believe in the word of God,” he said after his election, “I am just not mad about it.” (It’s a formulation that comes up a lot in evangelical circles these days.)…

Conservative Christian leaders in Washington acknowledge a “leftward drift” among evangelicals, said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council and the movement’s chief advocate in Washington. He told me he believed that Hybels and many of his admirers had, in effect, fallen away from orthodox evangelical theology. Perkins compared the phenomenon to the century-old division in American Protestantism between the liberal mainline and the orthodox evangelical churches. “It is almost like another split coming within the evangelicals,” he said…

“The religious right peaked a long time ago,” [Carlson] added. “As a historical, sociological phenomenon, it has seen its heyday. Something new is coming.”…

Fox, meanwhile, is already preparing to do his part to get Wichita’s conservative faithful to the polls next November. Standing before a few hundred worshipers at the Johnny Western Theater last summer, Fox warned his new congregation not to let go of that old-time religion. “Hell is just as hot as it ever was,” he reminded them. “It just has more people in it.”…

“Some might compare the religious right to a snake,” he said. “We may be in our hole right now, but we can come out and bite you at any time.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

However this supposed inevitable split will take place, the Religious Right needs to agree not only on the essentials of the faith but also the Constitution and the role of Government. And we need to guard against any temptation to view ourselves as an aggrieved special interest group.

Dork B. on October 27, 2007 at 10:12 PM

Excellent article. Thanks for posting it.

Slublog on October 27, 2007 at 10:29 PM

I have often thought of the “religious right” as a myth. I know many people of various denominations and find liberals and conservatives among all of them. Some churches promote one way of thinking and some the other.

Having said that I do believe that the majority of religious folks are conservative. If they vote, they vote that way, always have and always will. And just like other voting blocks, some issues will energize the base and make them come out to vote.

conservnut on October 27, 2007 at 10:33 PM

This has to be one of the best, most well-researched articles I’ve ever read coming out of the NYT. Usually, it’s chock-full of hypocrisy and misinformation. Not this time. However, I will take exception to the notion the Christian right is falling apart. The religious right is a grass-roots movement and isn’t about to give up on its core beliefs. The tactic which most fails it, is trying to change the game from the outside in, rather than putting it’s biggest power-brokers in office, and changing it from the inside out. Nothing works like infiltration. I also wouldn’t view this as the beginning of the end of religious influence on politics. Instead, I would expect a change in strategy over the next few years.

thedecider on October 27, 2007 at 10:44 PM

I don’t take marching orders for voting from my pastor. That’s not his job, and I thank God that he stays out of the political arena and just preaches from the Bible. There’s enough in that Book to preach on without pushing a certain agenda.

I vote. I vote my conscience, which means I vote conservatively.

Vanquisher on October 27, 2007 at 10:45 PM

If they vote, they vote that way [conservative], always have and always will.

I used to think the same thing, but the rise and influence of Bill Hybels and Rick Warren have changed my mind. Those two are staggeringly powerful and neither is particularly conservative in a theological sense. Hybels, in fact, is a garden-variety liberal but he influences Warren and through his Association thousands of other evangelical pastors.

Bryan on October 27, 2007 at 10:48 PM

Following the theme of this article to its logical conclusion – if evangelicals are moving to the Left and they decide to run a third party candidate out of pique, won’t it also hurt the mainstream Dem candidate?

Buy Danish on October 27, 2007 at 10:57 PM

I think the Times’ celebration of the downfall of the religious right might be a little premature.

Maxx on October 27, 2007 at 11:01 PM

Following the theme of this article to its logical conclusion – if evangelicals are moving to the Left and they decide to run a third party candidate out of pique, won’t it also hurt the mainstream Dem candidate?

No because anti-evangelical propaganda is so ingrained amongst the Left that whoever runs will be easily caricatured as a “Christianist” boogeyman, not least to prevent him from siphoning off votes from the Dems.

aengus on October 27, 2007 at 11:44 PM

the orthodox evangelical churches. “It is almost like another split coming within the evangelicals”

now there are ‘orthodox’ evangelical churches? Really these people are making this stuff up. What sort of ‘split’ within the evangelicals happened before?

I am near certain that the Clinton machine is behind this because she wants to run against Rudy. Marginalize the group that could possibly keep him from winning. Not just marginalizing them, but saying that they are no longer conservative.

Newspapers are ridiculous. Some of the spin in their stories is not even worth discussing. Whatever many of these guys get paid, it is too much.

ThackerAgency on October 27, 2007 at 11:49 PM

Pat Buchanan would make a good third party conservative candidate. I never thought I would ever support him for President before, but he’d be better than any of the choices that conservatives have.

ThackerAgency on October 27, 2007 at 11:51 PM

Pat Buchanan would make a good third party conservative candidate. I never thought I would ever support him for President before, but he’d be better than any of the choices that conservatives have.

ThackerAgency

Unfortunately, I think the 3rd party candidate will do nothing but ensure a democratic victory, and I am sure they are onto this and will use it somehow to devide the republican party. It worked (arguably) with electing Bill Clinton on his first term.

El Guapo on October 27, 2007 at 11:55 PM

But El Guapo, I’m tellin you that if Rudy is the nom, Hillary will win. And it won’t be because of anything but Rudy’s positions. No group of people will be responsible for his defeat. The idea that Rudy is a good candidate springs from the idea that John Kerry was a good candidate. It is nothing more than Northern Elitism.

Rudy knows ZERO about any of the USA outside of NYC. That’s a problem and the media elitists don’t want to acknowledge it. Or they want Hillary to run against it.

ThackerAgency on October 27, 2007 at 11:58 PM

ThackerAgency

I am hoping Romni or McCain beats Rudy. Either way, if the right people do a good job of exposing Hillary’s crooked fund raising and other scandals, I see it as a way to attract her precious “women voters”. Look for this as another oppertunity for Matt Drudge to expose the Clintons again. I sure hope he jumps on the oppertunity now that he retired from his radio show.

El Guapo on October 28, 2007 at 12:07 AM

The only reason i would support Rudy is because i am a democratic party deserter, in fact the shamed me with all the lies (#$%# you Michael Moore), and because he was good at lowering the crime rate in NYC.

I am appalled that more people are murdered in the US every year than hte entire US Miltary death toll in GWOT. No Democrat can fix this problem, as history shows, they always multiply it.

El Guapo on October 28, 2007 at 12:09 AM

Democrats began a campaign to infiltrate and get the support of evangelicals the day after the “04 election. Unfortunately, it worked.

Connie on October 28, 2007 at 12:21 AM

“If they vote, they vote that way [conservative], always have and always will.”

I used to think the same thing, but the rise and influence of Bill Hybels and Rick Warren have changed my mind. Those two are staggeringly powerful and neither is particularly conservative in a theological sense. Hybels, in fact, is a garden-variety liberal but he influences Warren and through his Association thousands of other evangelical pastors.

Bryan on October 27, 2007 at 10:48 PM

I agree with Bryan’s assessment. Of those mentioned in the article these are the two men I have the least respect for and most disagreement with.

Much of the church today is in sad disarray. There are too many that have forgotten to teach and live truth and love simultaneously and to speak of the hope we have in the Lord Jesus. I think it’s good for the spiritual health of the church that some of the political overreaching is falling apart. The right and good work at a grass roots level to help women in crisis pregnancies and the efforts made to encourage families will go on I think, but pride has crept into too many places and it’s going to go now before the fall. This “green” evangelical business is truly sickening to me. Being a good steward of God’s creation has morphed into following Al Gore hysteria. It just looks like another way to tag into power.

Two men who were mentioned that I do respect were Marvin Olasky, editor-in-chief of WORLD magazine and David Wells (whom I had as a professor years ago). In fact, I like WORLD much better than Christianity Today which I think is beyond its best days.

Dr. Wells is quoted as saying:

Older evangelical traditionalists like Prof. David Wells of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary near Boston argue that the newer approaches represent a “capitulation” to the broader culture — similar to the capitulation that in his view led the mainline churches into decline.

I think he’s right. I wish the writer had also interviewed John Piper (pastor of a Baptist church in Minneapolis) and Al Mohler (president of a Southern Baptist seminary), two other men that I respect.

INC on October 28, 2007 at 12:26 AM

Bryan, I understand your concern, but I think it is a bit overblown. While these guys do have large followings, they are by far outnumbered by the millions of people in small congregations whose pastors would not ever dream of telling their flock whom they should vote for. These are the vast majority of thinking christians and not feeble minded idiots that you usually find in the congregations of these guys. To equate all christians to this minority of weak minded individuals falls into the left’s definition of the so called “religious right”.

conservnut on October 28, 2007 at 12:32 AM

Bryan on October 27, 2007 at 10:48 PM

Rick Warren, Bill Hybels, et al. are symptoms not the disease. The true problem in American Christendom is the large percentage of those who practice more a form of “churchianity” and not Christianity. They are the theological products of the liberal German theologians of late (and already dying) Modernity.

The rise of experientialist spirituality — in conjunction with the systematic devaluation of both Scripture and tradition (doctrine, practices, etc.), from Schleiermacher on up, through Borg, Crossan, and Spong, and blossoming most recently in the success of pastor “life coach” Joel Osteen — has resulted in a movement in American church culture that calls itself “evangelical” but has more to do with the ancient “Christian Gnostics” than with Wesley, Edwards, or Whitefield.

Ever since evangelicalism became primarily recognized as a socio-political movement, rather than a theological one, it has attracted those who would seek political ends. Similarly, with the rise of the morally-conservative Christian counter-culture following the Second World War, evangelicalism became a highly-profitable business opportunity — and the itinerant hucksters learned to play the “evangelical” tune so well that millions of well-meaning but uninformed, unattentive, or unwary Christians have been suckered out of hard earned resources.

I fear that a great many Christians today foolishly find it sufficient to be as innocent as lambs without also being as wise as vipers. And because of that, many slide into the comfortable apostacy of a feel-good gospel and churchianity.

Hosea 4:6 is as applicable to 21st century American Christians as it was to the Israelites of the 8th century BC. Remember: Venditori de oleum-vipera non vigere excordis populi. The Christians of America must put an end to their disease of ignorance or we will have our lampstand — our means of spreading the light of the Gospel — removed.

Harpazo on October 28, 2007 at 12:44 AM

Harpazo on October 28, 2007 at 12:44 AM

thanks. very well said.

JiangxiDad on October 28, 2007 at 12:51 AM

INC on October 28, 2007 at 12:26 AM

Well said. And thank you for mentioning Dr. Wells! I have admired his work since I read his “The bleeding of the evangelical church” back in high school, and relied on him a couple of times while doing my graduate work in theology. Heh, I’m jealous that you had class(es?) with him.

I consider him one of the brighter lights of current conservative Christian theology, and only pray that more like him are placed in positions to effect a real movement of change.

Harpazo on October 28, 2007 at 12:54 AM

JiangxiDad on October 28, 2007 at 12:51 AM

Thanks!

Harpazo on October 28, 2007 at 12:55 AM

God has always preserved a remnant of the faithful, and from that remnant comes revival.

Rose on October 28, 2007 at 2:04 AM

I love when employees of the NYT try and write about a man of God and come up missing the entire point. They don’t get it, and never will

Looking forward to a story from them about terrorists with words like “crackup” and “pudgy” spattered around, but they have to much reverence for true evil for that.

Hening on October 28, 2007 at 7:02 AM

Ok, Sunday morning OT:

Possibly the most creepiest youtube video you have ever seen.

Mr. X, before he was powerful enough to damage the Middle East unlike anyone who came before him.

Enjoy…

Wanderlust on October 28, 2007 at 7:59 AM

No because anti-evangelical propaganda is so ingrained amongst the Left that whoever runs will be easily caricatured as a “Christianist” boogeyman, not least to prevent him from siphoning off votes from the Dems.

aengus on October 27, 2007 at 11:44 PM

But if the candidate is running expressly as a candidate appealing to evangelicals, how is calling him/her a “christianist bogeyman” going to hurt that niche voter?

Generally I agree with Maxx and others who say this story is overblown hype.

Thacker-Agency,

Your dismissal of Rudy on the grounds that “he doesn’t know anything outside of New York” is as lame as it gets.

Buy Danish on October 28, 2007 at 8:00 AM

I think the press and a good number of politicians (and left leaning loons) OVERESTIMATE the political power of the “Evangelical” population. The vast majority are ordinary people with ordinary beliefs, not crazed right wing agendas. They just don’t like abortion, birth control for 11 year olds, the discussion of oral sex on the nightly news, drunk driving illegal aliens, footbaths in schools, politicians of ANY party labeling our leaders terrorists, tax dollars paying for people who refuse to help themselves, the list goes on and on.
By and large, Evangelicals don’t want to INJECT their faith in politics, they want to stop the proliferation of GODLESSNESS the media and the left leaning loons are promoting.

commonsensehoosier on October 28, 2007 at 9:37 AM

Uh. I don’t know how accurate the writers of this article are at interpreting the makeup and direction of Christianity in America, but I think perspective is in order. First, the various liberal influences that shaped American Churches began post WWII. That is when many of the ‘liberal’ theological concepts began moving from the universities and seminaries into the local churches. And it moved like a juggernaut, until even the Southern Baptist Convention and the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary began believing ideas such as the Bible not being the Word of God (inerrant, divinely inspired, etc.) Other ‘liberal’ hermeneutical devices and philosophies were also introduced into very mainstream venues. Then in the around the beginning to mid 80′s the SBTS began hiring some very good orthodox theological professors that started righting the ship. These men were fantastic at their individual specialties, from Ancient Near Eastern Studies to the Philosophy of Hans Gadamer. They began beating these ‘liberal’ views back, and after a few decades regained the majority at the seminary. This happened at many other places as well. This battle has been going back and forth for nearly sixty years. Thus, for the writers to say that the evangelical movement has reached its peak seems a bit hasty. I’m not saying that American Christians are winning and about to usher in another great revival, because as many others have pointed out above, there has been very little real theological development among those in the pews. This is very frustrating, and it shows an inability for those on the theological/philosophical side of Protestant America to communicate those ideas to the people. It’s far from over, and time will tell. In the mean time…I’m late for church.

Weight of Glory on October 28, 2007 at 9:49 AM

So very NYT

The phenomenon of theologically conservative Christians plunging into political activism on the right is, historically speaking, something of an anomaly – NYT

Guess they forgot about Abolition

now there are ‘orthodox’ evangelical churches? Really these people are making this stuff up. What sort of ’split’ within the evangelicals happened before?

ThackerAgency on October 27, 2007 at 11:49 PM

Agreed. I like the snobbery of the Pew analysus:

Once trailing in education and income, evangelicals have caught up over the last 40 years. “The social-issues arguments are the first manifestation of a rural outlook transposed into a more urban or suburban setting,” John Green, of the Pew Research Center, told me. “Now having been there for a while, that kind of hard-edged politics no longer appeals to them. They still care about abortion and gay marriage, but they are also interested in other, more middle-class arguments NYT

The NYT promo of Rick Warren as the thinking man’s ‘evangelical’

Warren is clearly a theological and cultural conservative [...] He raised hackles among conservatives last year by having Barack Obama give a speech at his church. And he also came under fire last year when he traveled to Damascus, Syria, where he implicitly criticized the Bush administration for refusing to talk with unfriendly nations. NYT

They use semantics to cast Hybels as a leading Evangelical. ‘evangelism’ means spreading the Gospel. ‘Evangelical’ (big ‘E’) has come to mean fundamentalist Christians who therefore fear God if they do not fight Sin. IMHO Hybels is a Jimmy-Carter-evangelical

The Huckabee promo was the give-away.

Huckabee told me that he welcomed a broadening of the evangelical political agenda. “You can’t just say ‘respect life’ exclusively in the gestation period,” he said, repeating a campaign theme. NYT

I can see how Huckabee could lose fundamentalists and gain Jimmy Caterists with that statement which confuses the attempt to save babies from immediate murder with failing to appreciate the plight of others not on death row

I would rename this piece ‘Sugar-Coating the Obama Pill’.

Relogious Cable is filled with preaching how to love thyself, get more out of life, gain wealth etc. So much self love is to be expected as the secular society expands.

Christ said the greatest commandment was to love the Lord with all your heart and might and soul.

The new feel good evangels (small ‘e’) are less about fearing the Lord as understanding His feelings

Nothing new here, Just the NYT finding kindred and trying to convince me that I am one of them

entagor on October 28, 2007 at 1:11 PM

Thanks for posting this Allahpundit.

It’s a long article and a lot to absorb, but about midway into it is this quote:

But on the eve of the Iraq invasion, Hybels preached a sermon called “Why War?” Laying out three approaches to war — realism, just-war theory and pacifism — he implored members of his congregation to re-examine their own thinking and then try to square it with the Bible. In the process, he left little doubt about where he personally stood. He called himself a pacifist.

Hybels traced the “J curve” of mounting deaths from war through the centuries. “In case you are wondering about this, wonder how God feels about all this,” he said. “It breaks the heart of God.

It breaks the heart of God!? What breaks the heart of God?

Innocent people dying at the hands of radicals,
- considering that God hates the shedding of innocent blood -

… or, soldiers giving the ultimate sacifice?

Jesus said, “Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends.” –

This is where this pale-faced pacifist, Hybels, is completely wrong, and he, Hybels, master of idiots, would be one of the twenty-two thousand soldiers, who, being fearful and afraid were told to go home by Gideon.

I had this discussion with a pacifist Christian-in-name-only friend of mine (I call him a friend only because I would still lay my life down for him)

And I said, “Look, if a terrorist came to yours or your neighbor’s house and started killing your family and you didn’t defend your family, then I should be afraid of you, because you are worthless and no good for society because you won’t defend innocent life”.

His response was, “Well, the threat of terrorism is way overblown, they would never come to my house to kill me”.

My response was, “YOU FUCKING DUMB ASS, YOU!…. IT ALREADY HAPPENED!…… IT’S CALLED 9-11!

As you can guess he had no response…

That by the way, was the most mild thing I told him, the details of which you can only imagine.
And we have been good friends for over 10 years.

The accentuated terror threats since 9-11 have really separated the “sheep from the goats” as they say.

The reason why Hybels and et al are such complete, idiotic, absurd, miserable fools is because….

..they would’ve said to the revolutionary soldiers,… “aw come on , paying tea tax isn’t nearly as bad as going to war. After all God hates war”…

……and as such they would’ve attempted to prevent the greatest nation that ever existed, from providing more freedoms then the world has ever known……

Hybels and et al is also not considering the approx. 50 million gun owners who support the 2nd amendment and would in a heartbeat start a battle to protect themselves, which by the way Hybels, you dumb ass, in case you are listening, includes true feminists Sixties liberals, who protested the Vietnam War!

And Hybels, in case you want to educate yourself there is more where that came from at: http://www.gunowners.org/skeptic.htm

Not to mention that whenever the NRA makes a series of strange and dangerous alliances with the likes
of Chuck Schumer, Gun Owners of America Break Ranks With the NRA.

So Hybels, does it make you feel giddy when the truth – A Majority Of Americans Favor The Right To Keep And Bear Arms – is shoved in your face?

The dirty little secret here, Hybels, is that although you may believe your bull crap, you in realty are doing it to attract tithe-paying-wimpy-ass-church goers, so as to bolster your own pay check and ego.

Hybels, you dumb ass idiot, you cannot fool all the people all the time.
The fact of the matter is the 2nd amendment Christians are not attending your church…they prefer to stay home and practice their religion in peace and keep their money away from your collection plate.
Thank God!

What you should be doing instead, Hybels, is bolstering support for Rep. John Shadegg, R-Ariz., who has introduced the Enumerated Powers Act (HR 1359) (in the year 1995 and every year since) which would put pressure on every elected official to live up to their oath to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic……and Hybels if I ever catch you not defending innocent people, I will need protection from you.
.
.
And as such the New York Times Slimes has, yet again, missed the real message.

Mcguyver on October 28, 2007 at 3:42 PM

Harpazo, thanks. I had Dr. Wells for a class titled Sin and Salvation many years ago. I still have my notes!

That was an excellent verse from Hosea and sadly, quite fitting to the situation.

Weight of Glory, I think liberalism began sweeping portions of the American church even earlier if you look at what was happening in the seminaries. Princeton used to be quite conservative, but Gresham Machen left to help form Westminster Theological Seminary in the late 1920′s. The Southern Baptists also had a downhill slide within their seminaries that I believe began before WWII, but it’s been a while since I read up on it.

INC on October 28, 2007 at 5:47 PM

“They said they were tired of hearing about abortion 52 weeks a year, hearing about all this political stuff!” he told me on a recent Sunday afternoon. “And these were deacons of the church!”
from the article

I think that spiritual anorexia occurs when churches forget the importance and practice of
regular, faithful Biblical Expository preaching from the pulpit.

When a commitment to expository preaching from the “Bible alone” is forgotten, the human tendency to **extrapolate** and go “beyond Biblical themes” becomes all too common, thus leading to more error. Over time, the neglect of Biblical preaching in favor of “topical preaching” leads to more error compounding on error in other areas of the church.

In effect, spiritual anorexia leads to sin.

Pastors are starving their churches because of their refusal to be faithful to the public and faithful preaching of the Scriptures.

ColtsFan on October 28, 2007 at 5:49 PM

Hybels, whose Willow Creek Association now includes 12,000 churches, told me over the summer. “People who might be called progressive evangelicals or centrist evangelicals are one stirring away from a real awakening.”
–from the article–

I have no interest in “name calling” or being disrespectful to those who may disagree with me on any given position.

But the facts speak for themselves: The facts are that Willow Creek, Rick Warren’s church, Bill Hybels, “the mega-church philosophy” all have a very different philosophy, and a very different “theology” than Christians like myself who view the Bible as the basis or the standard.

As a former member of a “mega-church” myself, I once disagreed with a Christian who actually said the above to me in a lengthy conversation.

I now say I was wrong earlier. My friend was right.

ColtsFan on October 28, 2007 at 6:02 PM

Hybels traced the “J curve” of mounting deaths from war through the centuries. “In case you are wondering about this, wonder how God feels about all this,” he said. “It breaks the heart of God.”

At his annual leadership conference this summer, Hybels interviewed former President Jimmy Carter. To some Christian conservatives, it was quite a provocation. Carter, after all, was their first great disappointment, a Southern Baptist who denounced the conservative takeover and an early critic of the Bush administration. Some pastors canceled plans to attend.

“I think that a superpower ought to be the exemplification of a commitment to peace,” Carter told Hybels, who nodded along. “I would like for anyone in the world that’s threatened with conflict to say to themselves immediately: ‘Why don’t we go to Washington? They believe in peace and they will help us get peace.’ ” Carter added: “This is just a simple but important extrapolation from what a human being ought to do, and what a human being ought to do is what Jesus Christ did, who was a champion of peace.”

From an epistemological standpoint, how in the world can Bill Hybels even talk about the “heart of God” when he does not view the Bible as the sufficient rule or “epistemological yardstick” for adjudicating competing religious claims about God or God’s nature. He adheres to the “mega church mentality,” which denies the sufficiency and epistemological authority of the Bible.

ColtsFan on October 28, 2007 at 6:29 PM

He brought up the Rev. Jim Wallis, the lonely voice of the tiny evangelical left. Wallis has long argued that secular progressives could make common cause with theologically conservative Christians. “What Jim has been talking about is coming to fruition,” Hybels said.

The Bible does not intend for anti-abortion messages 52 weeks from the pulpit. That is an abuse of the pulpit, because it is contrary to the epistemological yardstick, the Bible.

But that abuse should not encourage us to adopt the other faulty extreme. The embrace of “feel good”, emotional driven appeals to left wing socialism should not be identified as “the correct Biblical position.”

After all, bad economics are still bad economics, no matter if you call it “Christian left wing” or secular left wing.

ColtsFan on October 28, 2007 at 6:42 PM

Concerning Bill Hybel’s embrace of the Religious Left,
many of us Bible-believing Christians share Allahpundit’s Right-Leaning views on economics because we Christians know that the Bible teaches a realistic, pessimistic view of human nature

If men were angels, maybe things in life (government, economics, the need for accountability and “checks and balances”) could be different.

But men are not angels.

They are sinners, including me.

And socialism does not work because men are not innately good, angelic beings. Socialism fails because men are sinners.

ColtsFan on October 28, 2007 at 6:50 PM

“The religious right peaked a long time ago,” [Carlson] added. “As a historical, sociological phenomenon, it has seen its heyday. Something new is coming.”…

His name is Jesus. You ain’t seen nothing yet.

Mojave Mark on October 29, 2007 at 12:25 AM

This “green” evangelical business is truly sickening to me.

I heartily agree! What we call “greens” are merely the modern incarnation of the Pagans. Paganism by its very nature seeks to devalue human life, as opposed to Christianity and other religions which seek to enhance and elevate human life.

landlines on October 29, 2007 at 1:28 AM