A typically thoughtful essay by Hadley Arkes on what Newt Gingrich left out of a recent speech. Here's a sampling:
“My late professor Leo Strauss, in his commentary on Machiavelli, drew attention to Machiavelli’s silences and omissions. He offered this rule of interpretation: When a wise man is silent on a matter that is regarded, in common opinion, as a matter of importance, he gives us to understand that, in his own judgment, it is not that important after all. Newt has made it clear that when it comes to leading the Republicans back, their appeal to the broad electorate should not mention these vexing issues of abortion and marriage.”
http://theologica.blogspot.com/2009/06/abortion-marriage-and-future-of.html
steve said...
At one level I agree with the criticism. However, let's remember that we can only elect candidates who run for office. There's a limited value in those who never run for office, but are always quick to find fault with those who do. There's a limited value in saying what a better job you could do in office if you always delegate the job to someone else. Failure becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
http://theologica.blogspot.com/2009/06/abortion-marriage-and-future-of.html#2571373096760595045
My comments from that thread:
ReplyDelete"Politics is applied theology."
I'm a theologically conservative Christian who is pro-life and pro-traditional marriage (among many other things).
My voting behavior flows out of and from my theological, Bible-based convictions.
Therefore, I have registered and voted Republican because they're usually the only party that has a viable chance of winning against the greater evil that's embedded in the secular and theological liberalism of the Democrat party.
I only make common cause with non-Christian fiscal, security, and social conservatives because its oftentimes prudent. The other choice is not to vote at all. And that seems worse to me.
Ergo, I vote Republican because I'm a Bible-believing conservative Christian.
donsands said... "Ergo, I vote Republican because I'm a Bible-believing conservative Christian."
Could a Democrat say, "I vote Democrat because I'm a Bible-believing liberal Christian?"
Truth Unites... and Divides said...
Could a Democrat say, "I vote Democrat because I'm a Bible-believing liberal Christian?"
Sure. Absolutely.
But (chuckling heartily) I know there are some folks who will dispute whether a Democrat who knowingly votes pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage is a Bible-believing Christian.
And Machen wrote a book about Christianity and Liberalism.
Question for you Don Sands, let's say you only had the following two options, there's no third option, and you can't refuse to choose. Which would you pick?
(A) Genuine Bible-believing voting Christians spread between Democrats and Republicans. No one belongs to a third party or votes third party.
or
(B) All genuine Bible-believing voting Christians vote Republican. A totally unified monolithic voting bloc.
Which would be better for the Gospel of Christ, option (A) or option (B)? Explain why.
donsands said...
"A" would be better.
Christians in both parties, and there are.
But like Francis Schaeffer said, "Conservative humanism is just as wrong as liberal humanism."
--------------------
Steve, would you answer the same way as Don Sands? Why or why not?
Splitting the vote between two different parties would dilute the influence of Christians within a given party. At that point, Christians would just be one more lobby, competing with others for attention.
ReplyDeleteSteve: "Splitting the vote between two different parties would dilute the influence of Christians within a given party."
ReplyDeleteIf you were to make a value judgment, would you say that diluting the influence of Christians within a given party is mostly a good thing or mostly a bad thing?
A bad thing. The whole point of participation in a political party is to use the party as a vehicle to extend or amplify your political influence.
ReplyDelete