David Neff at Christianity Today wonders if an evangelical meeting to anoint a presidential candidate is a bad idea.

Three articles at Antiwar.com caught my attention this week: Who Wants War With Iran?, Blood On Whose Hands, and Another Reason Not to Go to War So Often.

William Grigg writes about the current crop of presidential candidates who think state murder is a “moral enterprise.”

I mentioned this article yesterday but I would like to highlight again Anthony Gregory’s piece on LRC about why the left’s excuses for not supporting Ron Paul are ridiculous.

Doug Bandow writes in the Huffington Post about that perennial question, Who Would Jesus Vote For? Should we even ask?

Ron Paul Schools Santorum:

I heard about Word Dynamo from my colleagues at UT, and I have to say it is super fun. If you enjoy wordsmith-ing around, you’ll love this site.

If you have interesting news you would like to share, make sure to post in the comments below!

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

News of the Week, January 15-21, 2012

In the field of Republican candidates sans Ron Paul, you essentially have a bunch of ideologically identical bozos. On all the issues that matter, they are essentially the same (or worse) than Obama himself. Take health care, for instance. Can any candidate, other than Paul, offer one piece of substantial evidence that they do not want to replace Obamacare with some form of Republicare? As the wise sage Yoda once said, “Size matters not.” Republicare may be a smaller version of Obamacare in the details, but never forget that in principle there is no difference.

The candidate’s positions on health care should be proof-positive that none of them care about the free market. Only Ron Paul has consistently defended the free market and demands that the federal government stop interfering in health care and otherwise. But there is more to the story.

Regarding taxation, the candidates (sans Paul again) completely miss the point. Of course they all want to cut taxes, this is the bread and butter of Republican rhetoric (other than pro-life language). But taxation itself is not the only variable in the equation. In fact, it doesn’t matter if you cut taxes without cutting spending, because any deficit incurred by the government is simply delayed taxation.

All candidates (sans Paul) advocate essentially the same kind of spending spree that Obama has been on the past three years, and Bush II for the previous eight. For what it’s worth, Barack Obama is essentially the continuation and logical conclusion of George W. Bush, and the current candidates (sans Paul) are in their essence the continuation and logical conclusion of Obama. Again, only Ron Paul has provided a plan to substantially reduce the actual size and scope of government power and to substantially reduce taxes in tandem.

So on these key issues, Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich are no different than Obama, and Paul is left standing. Why, then, do conservatives, and especially “conservative” Christians, avoid Ron Paul?

It probably has to do with their devotion to war. In that case, however, the conservative case against Obama must be abandoned. Every ounce of Obama’s dubious anti-war leanings touted during his campaign has been completely ripped to shreds, yet we still hear that Obama is “anti-military” for some reason. Christian warmongers should be proud of Obama.

Interestingly enough, if you want to see who troops support you should once again look to Ron Paul. Just as in 2008, military donors prefer Ron Paul over other candidates. Their second choice, interestingly enough, is Obama. What does the right – especially the Christian right – think that means?

Furthermore, I continue to be amazed at how much the right says they care about spending, yet turn a blind eye to the trillion dollar Iraq War and repeatedly call for military action against Iran. Which pocketbook do they care about?

On every issue of spending, the other three candidates are fundamentally and ideologically no different than Obama. Yet they still hate Obama.

On every issue of defense, the other three candidates are fundamentally and ideologically no different than Obama. Yet they still hate Obama.

On every issue of spending and defense that supposedly matter to Republicans, only Paul can lay claim to a realistic solution. On every issue that matters*, Ron Paul has been right and the other candidates wrong. Again, how can anyone claim a dime’s worth of difference between Romney, Santorum, Gingrich, and Obama? It certainly isn’t enough to write home about.

Yet “conservatives” and Christians still flock to crooks, liars, and at least one pathological adulterer. Why is this?

Wanting to get rid of Obama is fine, but don’t kid yourself. When you love war more than liberty, you will make crooked compromises. When you begin to truly appreciate what liberty means, I think you will find more than just your views on the free market changing.

This post was inspired in part by Anthony Gregory’s piece regarding the left on the LewRockwell.com Blog.

* One caveat: immigration. I am not 100% on board with Paul’s views on immigration, but they are still much better than anyone else in the field.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Weighing Political Planks and the Obama Dilemma

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Ron Paul’s Christian Foreign Policy

(HT Peter for sending me the link.)

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

John Stewart rips the MSM a new one on Ron Paul

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Remember this during the next election cycle

I’ll be tweeting from @dougstuart during the debate, and we’ll be posting the entirety here at LCC once the debate is over.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

GOP Debate Liveblog tonight

Dilbert author Scott Adams finally explains how to get a real education.

ExxonMobil’s Perspectives Blog tells the truth about government restrictions on oil supplies.

It’s ridiculous that Barry Bonds can catch the attention of congress by being dishonest about steroid-use and have the government spend nearly $100 million trying to prosecute him, but dishonesty about war by presidents gets zero consideration. This country is off its rocker.

That being said, there are a few interesting presidential candidates now in the field. Former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson has officially announced, as has Lee Wrights in the Libertarian Party. Note Lee’s campaign slogan: “Stop All War!”

Some books I have read this past month:

The Devil Reads Derrida, by James K.A. Smith – When I saw this title at the bookstore, I had to buy it. It is an interesting set of essays on a variety of topics ranging from art to politics. Smith is not a libertarian, but he is anti-war and definitely has an aversion to power in general. I think he may at times be confusing political libertarians with the philosophical position of libertarian free-will; such a mistake is forgivable even though I do not really agree with him on free-will either. Still, it is good reading.

Accompany Them With Singing, by Thomas Long – This book compiles Long’s research into Christian funerals. Considering how bizarre the modern funeral has become (at least to me) this was refreshing. Definitely recommended for the ministers out there.

Art for God’s Sake, by Philip Graham – This short work gives a good perspective on the use of art in society from a Christian perspective. Thankfully, the author does not make the mistake of saying all art must be religious to be valuable. However, I have some minor quibbles with some of his definitions. It is well worth the time to read it, which is only about 90 minutes anyway since it has less than 100 pages.

Outliers, by Malcolm Gladwell – How do successful people become successful? I am fascinated by people who are at the top of their game, doing the biggest and best things in the marketplace, and I like to hear their stories. That is not exactly what Gladwell’s book covers, but it is thought-provoking nonetheless. Essentially, Gladwell tells the reader that success is due to a multitude of factors, many of which are not in anyone’s control whatsoever. In his estimation, there is no such thing as a “self-made man.” I would tend to agree, but you can always push certain factors toward falling in your favor.

The Dawkins Delusion, by Alister McGrath and Joanna Collicutt McGrath – The so-called “New Atheists” are exceedingly vocal (not to mention insulting) these days, and there is a growing body of literature where theologians, philosophers, and scientists respond to their work. The Dawkins Delusion is a fairly short response directly to Richard Dawkins’s latest book The God Delusion.

UPDATE: Apparently, Ron Paul is going to announce on Tuesday that he is running!

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

News of the Week: Potpourri of Sorts

There are many positions and actions that Christians support and take that, while often derived from and not contradictory to, are nonetheless not explicitly stated in the teachings of Christ and the New Testament Apostles. Not only that, but most American Christians seem, in my opinion, to most focus their attention and passion on those issues not explicitly stated in NT teaching, while largely ignoring those that are.

I find it very interesting that Jesus and the NT writers never directed Christians to petition their governing rulers for moralistic legal reforms. Every effort they took to redeem the fallen culture around them was carried out through gospel means, not political means. This doesn’t necessarily rule out political involvement for the Christian, but it does place it in a secondary position.It’s a telling fact to me that Jesus didn’t command us to defend and uphold the legal definition of marriage, but he did tell us to feed the poor. He didn’t teach that we should outlaw every mind-altering substance, but he did direct us to love our enemies. He didn’t say to make sure to elect Christian politicians, but he did warn us against false prophets. He didn’t instruct us to take up public policy against false religions or rich people, but he did command us forgive every offense and to give generously. He didn’t tell us to protect freedom of religion at all costs, but he did demand that we preach the gospel to every nation.

Now, obviously, our positions and actions cannot and should not be limited solely to those which are explicitly commanded in the Bible. Many good and worthy concepts and causes can be derived logically from Biblical doctrine even if they aren’t explicitly stated. And many more can be held and/or practiced without directly violating any Christian principle. But to the extent these secondary theories and deeds contradict or crowd out more primary Christian duties, they are illegitimate.

For instance, it is not automatically illegitimate for a Christian to take a political stand to ban gay marriage; in fact it may even be logically defensible based on indirectly related Biblical concepts. But to the extent such a stand sets up a collectivized “us vs. them” state of affairs, it may very well undermine our ability to reach out in love to a community that desperately needs the healing freedom of the gospel. I’m not at this time commenting on whether or not the push to ban gay marriage does in fact hamper gospel outreach to the gay population. But I am saying that it is every Christian’s responsibility to make that trade-off a part of the equation. Is the political goal worth the gospel cost?

This concept applies just as much to our brothers and sisters on the leftward lean of the political spectrum, even though the rightward leaners are usually more prominent and obvious with their moralistic politics. Take for instance the matter of wealth redistribution. Many Christians (even most right-wingers to at least some extent) take Jesus’s command to give to the poor as a validation of government policies that take from the rich to give to the poor. But to the extent that such policies lead me to abdicate my personal responsibility to freely give my resources, am I really fulfilling Jesus’s commandment?

And what is the ultimate goal of serving the needy? Is it not to demonstrate the love of Christ in a tangible way, and to correlate a physical gift of sustenance with the spiritual gift of salvation? Therefore, to the extent that a government handout leads the poor to look to a secular institution rather than the Church, it undercuts gospel efforts. Again, I am not attempting to make a determination here on the absolute virtue or evil of government welfare. I am, however, calling for a correct prioritization focused on the explicit commands of Jesus.

Jesus and the Apostles seemed to view political institutions as almost irrelevant givens. The church’s mission was and is the same whether under a theocracy, a foreign empire, or a democracy. Obviously, there is much that we can indirectly deduct from Christian principles regarding better and worse forms and roles of government. But any resulting conclusions must still retain their secondary status to those primary gospel directives which transcend time, culture, and political ideology. As Christians, our political goals (however noble) must always be subordinate to our gospel mission.

This is a lesson that I have been wrestling with recently. As a libertarian, I see my political beliefs as a natural outgrowth of a Christian rejection of coercion as an organizing principle for society. My identities as a Christian, a pacifist, and an anarchist are closely linked. However, I began to notice that more and more I was looking primarily to political means to find resolution for the obvious ails in society, instead of really recognizing the radical power of the gospel for spiritual and social change. It has taken time to readjust my mindset, but I am learning to understand in a deeper way that I must look first and primarily to gospel-centered methods rather than political methods.

This doesn’t mean that I have abandoned my political beliefs; in fact, I still plan and expect to be deeply involved in political issues. But I am spending more of my time and effort on gospel pursuits, and more importantly, my hope is in the gospel, not in elections.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Political Goals and the Gospel Mission

Historically there have been some Christians, particularly among the Mennonites, who have chosen to abstain from the voting process. Many of these Christians abstain from voting because they believe it is inherently violent in that it is an action directed at enforcing one’s will upon others. Whether or not they are correct about this assessment is a good debate, but I’d like to suggest that there is a more fundamental reason to abstain from voting. The Christian is to belong to the Kingdom of God and not to have any faith in governments of men. More simply put, voting is unethical. Putting such faith in government is no less than idolatry.

The true choice is not between politician A and politician B, but between voting and not voting. I choose not to vote. I know it is not a popular position, even among Christians. As a conscientious abstainer I don’t take this position because it is popular, but because it is right.

As Christians we know that the only legitimate laws are those that come from God. God gave man dominion over the animal, plants, and all of the earth. But, only God has dominion over man. When you vote for man you are choosing man to have dominion over you and over other people, but as Christians we are to have one master, one ruler, Jesus Christ our King. We cannot serve two masters.

But, you may ask, what will happen if I don’t vote? Or what would happen if all Christians decided not to vote? If I don’t vote, will this allow for the possibility of a dictatorship coming about? Yes. But, I if do vote, is there also the possibility of dictatorship coming about? Yes. Voting is no assurance against a dictatorship forming. After all, the National Socialists (Nazis) were voted into the majority in the Reichstag in the 1932 elections paving the way for Hitler to be appointed Chancellor of Germany. The results of an election may not be in my power to control, but whether I vote or not is in my power. It is the vote that is the ethical decision to make. I choose not to participate in a system that is contrary to the will of God, and I do not worry about what will happen as a result of Christian abstention. As the old hymn says, “I’m but a stranger here – Heaven is my home.”

Worrying about what will happen IF you choose not to vote is a symptom of a bigger issue – a lack of faith in God. Which is ultimately a bigger concern: what happens if we don’t vote OR what happens if we do not obey and trust in God? We must remember that Christian ethics is a means-based system. We are to do the things that God tells us to do. The end results are left in God’s hands. Consider a similar question that could be asked regarding tithes and gifts to your church. Some may fear that giving will reduce their own financial security. Others may feel that their money will not be put to proper use. But we are not called to worry about the future, nor are we called to dictate how God uses our tithes. We are called to give. When it comes to our earthly needs, we are called to trust in God, not in our own wisdom or in a human government. We are called to be in the world but not of it. We are to be separate. By not voting, you as a Christian follow the demand of Christ to not be part of this world – to separate yourself from this world. Saint Paul writes “Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is–his good, pleasing and perfect will.” – Romans 12:2 (NIV) The pattern of our modern world involves voting. I challenge you to stop conforming to the pattern of this world. Instead, be transformed by true discipleship in Christ alone.

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Christian Views on Voting: Why Vote at All?

Thanks guys…

Post from: LibertarianChristians.com

Monty Python Tells Us What Elections Are REALLY About