Is this the End of America?

I am always looking for solutions myself, no matter how bad things get, and although I expect the next 4 years to be a bit of a roller coaster ride. I do think it’s time for a viable third party to form. I am not talking about the usual fringe folks we’ve been presented with so far, on the right or the left, which don’t include the moderates, whom I think have left been left out of it by both sides, but a party who owes no particular loyalty to any party. These are the folks who are ready to tackle the real issues realistically and actually do something more positive than spout rhetoric on both sides.

Perhaps I am an wrong, but i think that there are an awful lot of folks like me that think we can and should come to a workable agreement which will be equable to both sides.

I should have made that ‘established party.’

@Bud: Indeed it seems the US Constitution gets left out with many American Christians! It seems many don’t know it very well, is this not strange?

Sorry, my wife bet me I would not put up the younger and shirtless pic of myself, but I won the bet! I have changed it back to the older me, I hope? 😉

@ Fr. Robert: I’m afraid it has been left out of too many Americans of all stripes. Very strange indeed. It is truly a beautiful document.
F.Y.I. Hillsdale College offers a terrific class on the constitution online. They are so concerned about the ignorance on the subject that they offer it to anyone for free….

@Bud: Thanks mate! 🙂

This is exactly what we need. Ignorance of the constitution is ignorance of the idea of America. We really need to show people what the idea of America is all about. Vote how you may, but be passionate about this country we are in.

@ John number 8 – YES!!!! Yes, so many thumbs up.

I was talking to my dad about how baffling it is after church today; he said that America’s health system is already the most expensive in the world. I guess people are worried it will get worse, but seriously you guys, letting the government run it, and stopping companies like drug and insurance companies interfering the whole time, is actually going to SAVE you money.

Also, at Gold #23, this idea that extreme capitalism somehow helps the poor is soooo untrue. Economic growth is totally unsustainable, the idea of unlimited growth and money being the most important thing, like, ever, is a lie that the world believes because it worships money instead of Jesus. I would really warn against not buying into that.

The richer the rich are, the poorer the poor are. Places like Sweden generally have a smaller gap between rich and poor, mainly because they do have things like healthcare, high taxes, spend lots on education etc – and the standard of living is just as good as it is in America so it isn’t that everyone is just destitute. Have a look at this link for more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient

Notice that in the figure at the top of the page I linked America and many socialist type countries such as Russia, Bolivia, Argentina etc. have around the same rich-poor gap. So your system is getting about the same results in caring for people practically (a biblical mandate) as the systems that you think are horribly flawed.

@bud @Michael Patton
What you have is conservative view of government, which Bud acknowledges. Unfortunately the original intent of the document has been undermined since day one. For example George Washington should not have signed the central bank into law, or the southern states should have been allowed to keep their rights to own slaves and the reconstruction amendments should not have been adopted. According to liberals, the conservative view of the constitution seems to ignore a lot of history. It ignore Jefferson’s own view of the constitution. “Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment…But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times.”
The conservative view also assumes the infallibility of the writers of the constitution. The document has become an idol, it is placed on par with scriptures and Christians have been caught up in it.
Fighting for an interpretation of the constitution is not a war that we have as Christians have been called to fight, yet many are passionate about it. This according to scripture is not a battle i need to fight to live a righteous life. I would rather fight for the truth of the scriptures and here is where Christians have lost their way from the narrow path.

@Fr. Robert #40, I share your sentiment on Israel. But a brother in the Lord pointed something obvious to me this weekend. Israel now knows that they can no longer depend on USA to stand by their side. This might be exactly what God intended with the re-election of Obama. God wants Israel to turn to their only true source of security, that is God Himself. Eschatological differences aside, historically it is true that Israel had never succeeded by making alliances and relied on their own power, only when they call on the name of the Lord.

@mbaker, I’m pleased to agree wholeheartedly with you on this:

I would say the biggest danger is that our populace is becoming more swayed by mass social media in picking folks on a popularity basis, rather than spending time becoming completely familiar with the real issues themselves.

The election was a circus! Well, not the election but the campaign cycle.

Maybe this election was all about Israel. Maybe the U.S. will withdraw support for Israel and God will be glorified in some way. We live in exciting times! Come quickly Lord Jesus!

@ Sam: I would offer that the conservative view does not assume the infalibility of the authors. To the contrary, the framers had a keen understanding of human nature. In my humble opinion it is much more closley aligned with the Christian concept on that subject.
If I may offer a quote ” If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions”
You have pointed out that mistakes have been made. I would not disagree. It is in our nature and I think the framers were aware of the shortcomings of men. In the larger picture however, can you imagine what this world would have been like without the United States? It is hard for me not to see divine providence at work here.
Grace and Truth…..

By the way, the quote is from James Madison. 🙂

@teleologist: Well we should know by now that both British and much of American Christianity, is in error with their “superessionism” and replacement theology! Note now how the many classic or historic Christian Churches have taken the bait of calling “Israel” an Apartheid State! When in reality Israel is one of the greatest forms of democracy in the Middle East! (I lived and taught in Israel in the late 90’s myself) Sadly I have held to some form of supersession myself, in my long history as a Christian, and even “theolog”. But, after Gulf War 1, (which I was in) and reading Bock & Blaising book (PD), with Robert Saucy’s, both in 1993 (as I remember), I changed thanks be to God! But I did have the providence of my PB (Plymouth Brethren, so-called) Irish greatgram, even when I was Roman Catholic. She was simply a great Christian! And what an affect she had on me! She sowed precious seeds in my life!

I think both American and British Christianity will be simply so compromised by the time the greatest depth of the trials hit Israel (I am Post-trib btw), that indeed Israel will be on its own! (Zech. 13: 8-9) What is strange, is even at my age now, I just could live long enough to see all this? Come Lord Jesus!

That PD, was of course “Progressive Dispensationalism”. 🙂

@ Fr. Robert #68, As a Calvinist I am not sure who actually holds to replacement theology views. Before I came to my reformed view I was a dispensationalist but now I lean toward premillenial partial preterism although I am not dogmatic on matters of eschatology at all.

But what I am dogmatic about is this. My view on Israel is not predicated on my eschatology or even my particular theological perspective. It is based on the fact the God’s covenant with Abraham is an everlasting covenant and the principle that David shown when he will not harm Saul because Saul was God’s anointed. Frankly I don’t know how these 2 facts play out theologically and eschatologically but my fear of the Lord compels me to err on the side of Israel.

Here is a quote from one of your own countryman Malcolm Muggeridge
We look back upon history and what do we see? Empires rising and falling, revolutions and counter-revolutions, wealth accumulated and wealth disbursed, one nation dominant and then another. Shakespeare has spoken of the rise and fall of great ones that ebb and flow with the moon. I look back upon my own fellow countrymen, once upon a time dominating a quarter of the world, most of them convinced in the words of what is still a popular song, “that the God who made them mighty shall make them mightier yet.” I’ve heard a crazed, cracked Austrian announce to the world the establishment of a German Reich that would last a thousand years; an Italian clown say he was going to stop and restart the calendar with his own ascension to power. I’ve seen a murderous Georgian brigand in the Kremlin, acclaimed by the intellectual elite of the world as wiser than Solomon, more humane than Marcus Aurelius , more enlightened than Ashoka . I’ve seen America wealthier and more powerful than the rest of the world put together, so that had the American people so desired they could have outdone a Caesar, or an Alexander in the range and scale of their conquests. All in one lifetime. All gone with the wind.

England, part of an island off the coast of Europe, threatened with dismemberment and bankruptcy. Hitler and Mussolini dead, remembered only in infamy. Stalin, a forbidden name in the regime he helped found and dominated for some three decades. America, haunted by fears of running out of those precious fluids that keep her motorways roaring and the smog settling, with troubled memories of a disastrous campaign in Vietnam and the victory of the Don Quixotes of the media, as they charged the windmills of Watergate. All in one lifetime. All gone.

Behind the debris of these self-styled, sullen supermen and imperial diplomatists, there stands the gigantic figure of one person, because of whom, by whom, in whom, and through whom alone mankind might still have hope. The person of Jesus Christ.

@GoldCityDance

2. It may not be illogical, but its implausible, and unprovable. Greece suddenly hit the wall because they could no longer do what they and Italy did for decades, which is print money their way out of it.

3. How can it be immoral (on a Christian forum no less! ) to redistribute wealth? The only thing stopping us from being ruled by a new set of kings (called corporations) is a redistribution mechanism called “taxes”. If not for taxes, within 50 years, one man would probably own it all. I think the US is already getting dangerously unbalanced in this respect.

4. Hong Kong survived by being a free trade zone, and sponging off the countries around it. Micro-countries like Hong Kong and Singapore really can’t be used as serious examples.

5. OK, but is this list a lot different to 20 years ago? Would Germany, Sweden, the United States, Australia, Austria etc. NOT be on the list 20 years ago, because they just suddenly started spending borrowed money? I think not. They are not on the list because of a sudden spending binge.

6. Yes, printing your way out of it will result in inflation. But you are already printing money like there is no tomorrow and inflation is only 2%. So as long as you do it slowly, the pain can be limited. But you’re right, you shouldn’t have got into the debt so that you have to do this. But now you’re in it, there is no reason to panic.

8. Eurozone is doomed because you can’t have monetary union without buying into the idea that you have to “redistribute the wealth” to the poorer areas. I think you’ll find that all geographically large countries (like the US, and Australia, and Russia) have to use taxes to keep money flowing to the poorer areas, otherwise they would slowly have all the money flow out and they’d go broke. Either Germany will have to face up to this, or undo the monetary union.

Saskia,

Please read this. I think you make some good points but just interpret them wrong. First of all, I would like to ask you the question. Which is better? A society in which everyone has 5 dollars? Or a society in which most people have 7 dollars and some people have $20? The answer should be obvious. A free-market allows some people to get really rich, but because those people create wealth everyone prospers more than they would otherwise.

Capitalism doesn’t minimize the gap between the rich and poor. It provides more wealth for everybody. The Bible maintains that we should provide for peoples needs. So these things actually go together. You say, “Russia, Bolivia, and Argentina have the same ratio between rich and poor.” Well yes, but America is just richer (thanks to a free-market). So being poor in America is better than being moderately rich in Boliva. Those who are all about equality need to understand that envy is the driver of that idea.

Another misunderstanding is that economics isn’t a zero sum game. What I mean by that, is there isn’t a fixed amount of wealth that gets spread around either evenly or unevenly. Football is a zero sum game, one party wins one party loses. In free trade, win win senarios are created. In which, we all get something that we willingly trade for.

Watch this starting at 37:20 to about 43:00 this explains it more fully.

I’d like to hear your thoughts

9. There could be a whole lot of reasons for high unemployment. Overregulation of labour markets for example. I had a look at a few stats, and most of these countries look pretty similar in unemployment rate to where they were 10 years ago. Some are up, some are down. Norway for example, our #3 on the richest countries is at 3% unemployment with 40.2% of GDP government spending. How do you explain that? And their debt hasn’t really moved much over the last decade, so you can’t say that they spent their way to success on borrowed money.

@TJ

“First of all, I would like to ask you the question. Which is better? A society in which everyone has 5 dollars? Or a society in which most people have 7 dollars and some people have $20? The answer should be obvious.”

Actually, the answer as you have framed it is not obvious. You’re asking us to compared “everyone” having $5 with “most people” having $7. But… you just threw under the bus the people who don’t fit into “most people”, who perhaps only have $2, or maybe even $0. In a completely Laissez-faire capitalist society, there will be people with $0.

“A free-market allows some people to get really rich, but because those people create wealth everyone prospers more than they would otherwise.”

Sure. But you only have to provide enough incentive for people to go out and be successful. You don’t have to agree to not tax them hard when they do it. Bill Gates would not have done anything differently if you were to go tax him 10% more.

brainstorming: Here is an idea to stop overspending. The party that sets the amount of spending is prohibited from deciding how the money is spent.

Bill Gates would not have done anything differently if you were to go tax him 10% more.

That might be true after he became the richest man in the world, but when Microsoft was still in its infancy that would have made a live and death difference. He would have to cut back on R&D, reduce engineering staff, cut back on customer support. If you taxed him 10% more back then Microsoft would not be the dominant company they are today. And Apple might just be able to dominate Microsoft on tablets, phones and music players today.

Seriously, your example is a bad one. Why stop at 10%. Why not just confiscate his entire net worth up to 99%? He would still probably be richer than 98% of the population in their entire lifetime, especially if you do that to all those millionaires and billionaires right? Really leaving them a couple of dozen millions should be more then enough don’t you think? That shouldn’t make him do anything differently would it. He would still be the richest man in your capitalistic system.

@Robert

My opinion about why Britain went down hill and is in the mess it is now (politically, financially, morally and ecclesiastically, etc.)

It all started with the church. At one time England was the center of the universe in Missions and Gospel dissemination. Its (the church’s) downfall is what has ultimately led to the UK’s demise (metaphorically):

1. It abandoned foreign missions
2. It replaced sound doctrine with the Calvinism of Beza.
3. It departed from the King James Bible , replacing it with the RV.
4. It lost its moral compass and replaced Bible Preaching with creeds, dogmas, high church philosophy and denominational-ism.
5. It lost its impact in the secular life by abandoning principles of conservatism for “tolerism”.
6. It became post modern in the majority of its pulpits.
7. It allowed socialism to become the norm without warning of the evils of the “robin hood” philosophy, which always leads to godless communism and religious oppression.

And its ultimate demise will come through the radical muslims that are allowed to run rampant and not be squashed like the rodent infestation that they are.

Just a poor Yank’s thoughts on you brits.

Because as Great Britian goes, so goes America.
We have been hard on your heels ever since we booted you out in 1776 and again in 1812.

I left out the sine qua non of the reason for UK’s demise.

In between #1 and #2 it abandoned its salvation by grace alone through faith alone and replaced it with a lordship theology, which ultimately led to a full embracing of Beza’s Calvinism.

By the way— the inexorable link between dispensationalism and free grace theology (of faith alone in Christ alone for eternal life) is only equaled by the undeniable (as well as inexorable) link with high Calvinism and lordship salvation (turn from your sin, make Christ lord and surrender all to be saved).

chicken or egg. #2 could be Beza calvinism or lordship salvation.

Have you read John Stott, AW Pink (later writings – after he abandoned his dispensational hermeneutic and traded it for the amil allegorizing which led to his lordship theology) Packer and a host of other brits?

@teleolgist: Yes, I am too something surely Calvinist, but modern Reformed Theology tends to be a bit too systematic to my mind in places, and biblical theology appears to be more eclectic in the best sense. But then I am always something of a “biblicist”, and prefer to allow the mystery of God. And in this life, we can but know in part as Paul said, but too await when we can know face to face. (1 Cor .13: 9-12)

I am curious about something, being a senior citizen: Do they still teach civics and American history in our middle schools and high schools as core subjects? Or even electives? Perhaps someone here with those age school children could answer that.

I know growing up we got a good dose of both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, the latter of which my entire class had to memorize to get a passing grade. Later it was the Bill of Rights. There are many small booklets you can get that contain the Constitution. My husband got his free from the Heritage Foundation. He tells me you can also get them from the VFW, and the American legion and other veteran’s service organizations. It’s good to have a printed copy as well.

I believe all children should all be made familiar with it, whether it is taught in schools or not anymore.

BTW, Happy Veteran’s Day to all you who serve or have served in the military. We have our freedom to discuss these issues freely largely because you defended our right to do so. Thanks to all of you. That is an invaluable gift.

@teleologist

“but when Microsoft was still in its infancy that would have made a live and death difference.”

You know, tough luck. Somebody else would still have done it if he hadn’t.

I don’t know how it is in the United States, but judging by what I hear, and about Romney’s tax rate, it is even worse there. Over here the corporate tax rate is around 30% and top personal tax rate is like 45%. OK, so big corp would do less R&D if you taxed them like individuals. But what about the R&D that *I* want to do? What about that small business I want to save up for, but I can’t because as an individual I’m taxed more than big corp? This is crazy stuff. Big corp should pay *AT LEAST* as much as individuals, and in my opinion more. Big corp R&D is not sacrosanct compared to my personal needs.

“Why stop at 10%. Why not just confiscate his entire net worth up to 99%? He would still probably be richer than 98% of the population in their entire lifetime”.

There’s a point beyond which the disincentive becomes too much such that nobody will do anything any more. I think I’ve heard economists say that point is a tax rate >70%. But I think >50% should be the upper limit.

Look, sure lower tax is good. But it’s not sacrosanct. What annoys me about the right wing politics in America is they treat it like a religion, as if it is a matter of morality. It isn’t. Probably tax rates a bit lower and a bit less government spending would be a good thing, but its not a moral issue or a religious one.

@Jeff Ayers

“It replaced sound doctrine with the Calvinism of Beza”

Funny, I don’t think of the CofE as ever being especially Calvinistic. Sure, there were pockets of it.

“It departed from the King James Bible , replacing it with the RV.”

Really? The moral downfall is due to not using the KJV? What about all the other civilisations and empires in history past and present that don’t use the KJV?

“It lost its moral compass and replaced Bible Preaching with creeds, dogmas, high church philosophy and denominational-ism.”

And what about all the empires past and present that are high church? Russia became a great nation being high church.

“It allowed socialism to become the norm without warning of the evils of the “robin hood” philosophy, which always leads to godless communism and religious oppression.”

Well… yes Britain did become too socialist, but.. it didn’t lead to communism did it? So I guess it doesn’t always lead there.

@Jeff Ayers: Well I would agree, but only somewhat, I am an Anglican evangelical Christian, and surely at one level Anglicanism and the CoE has been the central faith in England at least, of course following the Anglican Thirty-Nine Articles. But then there was also the Independent and Free Church Movement also in the churches of Great Britain, noting both Scotland and Ireland. And the Anglican High Church and Anglo-Catholicism only came later in the 19th century. But certainly today there is the Roman Catholic offer of Anglicanorum Coetibus, for Anglicans. And too Roman Catholicism itself. But of course as an Evangelical Anglican presbyter, this is not my path. But, surely Postmodernity, which really followed Modernism has affected the whole of the Western culture and world. (Note too, these are things that AW Pink and John Stott did not face fully!) Note also, I can well remember the Judeo-Christian ethic and reality as an Irish boy in the 50’s (Dublin). But those days are long gone now!

Finally, again the things that affect both the British and America are really the same, and after living in the US for several years, I can certainly see this! The sexual mores have certainly changed in the so-called Free World, and this is part of Postmodernity surely. So anyway, I don’t see the theological issue of Calvinism as really the major effect, pro or con. Even the American Calvinism is at logger-heads, etc. Though I am surely myself basically Reformed. (Btw, I rather like the Federal Vision, in some of the American Presbyterian churches). But yes, I would agree that Reformed Theology has some real problematic places, like eschatology, and sometimes an overt “supersessionism”. The doctrine of the visible church is surely important, but itself is always both seen in the NT at least in the Jewish Covenant/covenants but with the Gentile Church also, (Rom. 15: 8-9). But this is a deep subject, and demands our thought and thinking!

Btw Jeff, note, the great affect that the Archbishop Thomas Cranmer (the really first well known Protestant martyr in England)…and himself one of the first real lasting Protestant Evangelical thinkers. And too Peter Martyr Vermigli had also in England. But of course this all came from the English Reformation, with both Luther and Calvin.

Btw, I love the KJV myself, I’m a Brit! 😉 But I am not KJV only. I like too the ESV and the NASB. 🙂

Also Jeff, WE Evangelical Anglicans really like the first several Ecumenical Councils and Creeds, especially the Nicene, In Christ is ‘very God’! Here too Luther stood strong! And The Council of Chalcendon, 451 is good also, though must be carefully expressed… “He (Christ) being one Son, dual in nature, not dual in Person … Christ our God is perfect God and perfect Man.”

And too, the Council of Ephesus, 431 is important! But I will leave that.

@John: Actually Calvinism has always been part of the early CoE and Anglicanism, see both the Anglican Thirty-Nine Articles, especially Article XVII, Of Predestination and Election. And the Irish Articles 1615, of which I give the link below.

http://www.lasalle.edu/~garver/irish.html

It is always interesting to hear the opinions of Obamacare from those who either have no health insurance or who fundamentally disagree with the idea of universal/governmental healthcare. They often, without serious consideration to it’s alternatives, form opinions void of fact. As a nurse I see too often the consequences of those who suffer because of poor healthcare in this country. The enormity of covering every person in this country comprehensively should be considered; what other entity is large enough to take on the task without abuse outside of the government? I think conservatives fundamentally can not accept that God and a government can exist. Consider Daniel in the bible who God set up as a dignitary in Babylon for God’s purposes. Christians need to stop being radical in the wrong way. Just like the Lord stated, “The poor you will have with you always”, it is not a stamp of approval from God saying it is His desire for it to be thus, He however realizes that many would reject Him, therefore rejecting the blessings He provides. Leaving them vulnerable to this worlds system. I look at healthcare the same way. Allowing healthcare does not disqualify help from God, in fact it gives Him great glory as He raises up evangelicals in healthcare fields to minister the gospel to sick people. God is the only Healer, that will never change.
I look forward to the day I hear a medical doctor giving God the glory for success in surgery. We are too quick to define God by our experiences, therefore limiting our relating to Him in another’s view. This is not in regard to sin, as we should be uncompromising when it comes to that; yet full of mercy as God is merciful with us. Because He will judge the world and that will not change.

@bud
I am sure Conservatives will claim not to consider the founding fathers as infallible, then why do they want to go back to the “original intent” of the document? Also i have no idea how you come to conclusion that the framers of the constitution come close to the Christian concept of human nature. You really have got to prove this one. Until then you have really proved my claim, that Christians have made conservatism syncretic with Christianity.

In your quote of James Madison and mine of Thomas Jefferson, it is pretty clear that they themselves differed on the original intent of the constitution. So i am not sure what good it does to go back to the original intent of the constitution. More importantly why do we as Christians feel we have to get into a battle that was fought from the very beginning and has not ended?

I do not need to imagine the world without the United States, i can just read history! The world survived quiet a while without the US. God’s providence works even without the US. What i would like to imagine is a future where Christians are faithful to God and are not under the tutelage of conservative ideology.

Hey TJ,
Thanks for responding. Your point about America in general being more wealthy than a place like Russia is correct.
However, you missed my point about the fact that a place like Sweden or Switzerland or Norway, where the gap between rich and poor is the smallest, has a great standard of living.

So to throw your question back at you (as well as the reply already given by John) – which is better; a place where most people have $7 (just enough to eke out a living); some have less than that (subsistence); and some have $20 (way more than they could ever possibly need) – or a place where almost everyone has around about $10 (just enough to live comfortably ala Sweden)? I would say the choice to that is pretty clear.

I can also tell you from personal experience that when people are making way more money than they could ever possibly need, it DOES NOT benefit the poor. Where I am this is exactly what is happening, and no the poor are not getting richer. Things are just getting way less affordable, so that people who are earning what used to be a regular and normal wage which would have let them live comfortably, are now finding they have to struggle more and cannot have things which used to be within reach.
I and many people I know have been personally affected by this. Homelessness here is increasing badly (this is exacerbated by other factors like bad policy). The price of food and housing is really high. And yet the only people who don’t seem to notice are the ones whose crazily high incomes are pushing the prices up in the first place.

Yes, these people work hard. But so does everyone else. It’s false to say that people who earn more have done more to earn it. Sometimes – but usually not.

Thank you again for your thoughtful reply, but with the greatest respect (sincerely), I disagree very passionately with your ideas on this.
Saskia

Oh also, I was probably a bit unclear in that I wasn’t saying that communism is a good way to go. I agree about capitalism allowing more wealth in general but I don’t think it should be allowed to be a free for all because that’s when you start getting people in a prosperous country in a position where they have no housing or food. That should not be.

@Fr Robert

“Actually Calvinism has always been part of the early CoE and Anglicanism”

That’s true… officially. The Queen swore she would do everything in her power to uphold the Reformed Church and 39 articles. I don’t think it’s true of the Queen, and I’m not sure how true it’s ever been of the rank and file Anglicans. Perhaps you know better than I.

@John: I am 63, so in both the Church of Ireland as the older CoE, as too the Church of Scotland (historically), the Anglican Article XVII (as the Irish Articles), have been seen as Calvinist! Surely more so in the years past. But the Anglican Communion has always had a strong-minded Calvinist section of clergy! Yes, we are on the small side now, but were still here! Note, the Anglican and Irish Rev. T.C. Hammond.

Yes, absolutely there is a Calvinist “section”. I’m just not sure that there was ever a time in history you could have surveyed the Anglican Church with a question like “did Christ die for all or only some”, and found a rank and file Calvinist answer. Maybe way way back in the 16th century there was such a time, but even then I doubt it. What do you think?

“am sure Conservatives will claim not to consider the founding fathers as infallible, then why do they want to go back to the “original intent” of the document”

Well, original intent is the only valid exegetical method, whether its infallible or not. In fact, the less divine it is, the less room there is for other methods. Otherwise documents can be interpreted to mean anything, even the opposite.

@Sam: The Constitution is not a particulary long document to read and was written in a very straight forward manner. It begins with a statement that all men are created equal and that there are certain rights that come from the creator (God). The point to me being that the rights were given by God and not the government. It then goes on to list the reasons why they felt it necessary to establish a new government and then it proceeds to detail the structure of this new government and how it will operate. The best insight into the how’s and why’s of it seems to me to be in the Federalist Papers.
As to the human nature part what I ment is that the framers understood that men were subject to their passions and self interests. As students of history they saw how tyrannical or despotic regimes could gain control over peoples lives and they concluded that both mens nature as well as governments needed restraints. A quote I remember to that effect was ” We must take human nature as we find it and not as we think it should be” or something along those lines. My point was I do not think they held mankind as by nature good. My comparison to Christianity was that it finds human nature as fallen (not good) as well and as a Calvinist I would refer to the doctrine of total depravity. Some progressives would say human nature is basically good but because of social or economic reasons can turn bad.
I am not suggesting that to be Christian is to be conservative. Liberalism and conservativism are political ideologies. Christianity is a large house with many rooms. While we may differ on our philosophy of government we are united in Christ and a truly perfect form of government will not exist untill his return. Untill then this is the best one we have.
Grace and truth……

Here’s the deal. Capitalism doesn’t work because it’s moral. It works because it harnesses our greed. I say harnesses, because regulation and taxes are what brings an immoral beast to work for the good of society. Communism is moral, but people are not, so it doesn’t work (amongst other reasons).

@john @bud @michael Patton
If you go up in the comments you will see a quote from James Madison, another from Thomas Jefferson. Also when you go into the history and see the reasons for George Washington signing into existence a national bank, you will see that even the founding fathers had different ideas as to what the original intent of the constitution was. As far as original intent goes, it is not monolithic as how the conservatives claim it to be. So the question eventually becomes, whose original intent to go with? This has been a battle that has been fought from the beginning. I see no reason for Christians to be so passionate about an interpretation of constitution or small government, except that they have defined Christianity as through the lens of conservatism. In such a view of Christianity, the command to set on our hearts on things above seems to have fallen on deaf ears.

It is good that you welcome liberals into Kingdom of God too. But when conservatives say things that they need to be educated about the constitution or when conservatives say that they will never vote for Obama yet vote for a mormon Romney or when they say because of liberal votes the USA is going to go down the tubes, like it wouldn’t go down the tubes under Romney, is that welcoming liberals into the Kingdom of God?

The most liberal president in the history of the United States? That really shows a lack of knowledge. Obama is about as liberal as Eisenhower. At least in how he has governed so far, Obama is well to the right of LBJ or FDR.

@John: I can think of the time of Anglicanism, in the late 1700’s, with John Newton, who with William Cowper wrote the Olney Hymns. Cowper (pronounced Cooper, btw). Cowper was an English poet and hymnodist, and one of the forerunners of Romantic poetry. He was a fervent Evangelical Christian and friend of Newton. We should note too, that he had problems with depression and thought perhaps that he was one damned by God, and not one of the elect. As this was the general position of Anglican Calvinism at the time, i.e. election to grace or reprobation! Check out the life of William Cowper.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olney_Hymns