A racial split between different homosexual Republican groups?

34 thoughts on “A racial split between different homosexual Republican groups?”

1. and canada is better?
   and reformed people in holland must to be happpy for helping to elect jan pieter balkenende,a conservative theologian but supported by late gay pim fortuyn,and reformed people in canada has made better decisions in politics. My question is reformed churches makes something no related to bashing evangelicals?.

   • I never claimed Canada was better, nor the Netherlands…
     … in fact, it’s generally worse, because we don’t even have the positive influences of the evangelicals – and I do like much about evangelicalism; I used to be an evangelical myself, and still have evangelical friends. Evangelicals are a much smaller part of Canada’s population than they are America’s, and exert very little influence in politics.

     That said, though, for all the presence they have in American politics, how much “bang” do American evangelicals get for their bucks, so to speak – for all their donations of money and time and door-to-door campaigning for the GOP, what have the Republicans given their Christian supporters of various stripes (whether evangelical, Reformed, or Roman Catholic, etc.)? How much success have the Republicans had in reversing liberalism, and enacting the policies which Christians hold dear? Precious bloody little, if any… Meanwhile, the liberal agenda advances under both Republican and Democrat administrations, regardless of whether the House and/or Senate are controlled by the same party as the President belongs to, or not…

     Reformed people in Canada, are, alas, mostly identical to evangelicals in political preferences, far too neocon for my liking. But some are like me. (Obviously, not all evangelicals are neo-cons, but most are, sadly.) It’s not all Reformed people bashing evangelicals on political matters; just a handful of us – we Reformed types, as a whole, tend to reserve our evangelical-bashing for theological matters, which are of course far more important than mere temporal, political considerations… (But those are still very important, IMO, hence my presence here at Turnabout, and on other traditionalist blogs / fora.)

     I know nothing about Balkenende, except what I’ve just Googled; I’m not Dutch myself, and I pay no extra attention to events there, any more than anywhere else on God’s green Earth. (One thing I know about the Reformed churches there, is that most of the different Reformed denominations there, have departed from the Faith, as much as Western-world Anglicans/Episcopalians, and the “main-line” Protestants in general – other than a smattering of traditionalists, these are generally Christians In Name Only…) I do know this; whatever my severe disagreements (political, social, and moral) in general, with the late gay, pedophilia-promoting Pim Fortuyn, and also libertine Dutch filmmaker http://vdare.com/asp/printPage.asp?url=http://vdare.com/misc/belien_041103_islamic.htm Theo Van Gogh(recently murdered by a Muslim immigrant upset with an anti-Muslim film he made), nevertheless I agree with them that Dutchmen, and not foreigners, should populate the Netherlands, and determine what social and political directions the country moves in. It’s like a family – you fight with your brothers or sisters, and even with your parents, but stand together against outside threats – Kipling got it right in http://whitewolf.newcastle.edu.au/words/authors/K/KiplingRudyard/verse/p3/stranger.html The Stranger, especially in discussing the kinship between even enemies within “the family” (as opposed to those outside), in these two stanzas:

     The men of my own stock
     They may do ill or well,
     But they tell the lies I am wonted to,
     They are used to the lies I tell.
     And we do not need interpreters
     When we go to buy and sell.

     {…}

     The men of my own stock,
     Bitter bad they may be,
     But, at least, they hear the things I hear,
     And see the things I see;
     And whatever I think of them and their likes
     They think of the likes of me.

     • problem with reformed churches
       you are extremely concerned with usa,while indifferent to atrocities in holland,the mecca from your religion,the problem is you reformed people makes absolutely nothing apart from bashing evangelicals,while waiting money from evangelicals for your ministries-by example r.c. sproul-,and usa in difference from perversed canada,holland,south africa and switzerland,countries under influence from teonomy and another calvinistic movements had bigger influence from holy bible in politics,and I had a solution for reformed churches,evangelize!,visit ghettoes,barrios,preach to druggaddicts,prostitutes,gays,etc.visit hospitals,no stand as os guiness,jj duyven de witt,hermann ridderbos,gc berkouwer,remembering every day and every night a long gone (for good) “christian” western civilization,where so spiritual institutions as legally established right from dutch police to kill and torture labor unions member without judiciary process as under “theologian” abraham kuyper,apartheid an invention from conservative herman doyeweerd,jim crow laws,legal ban from hair ornaments for children in geneva under calvin and farel,teachings from john gerstner:”people living in misery rebels against the will of God if tries to better their conditions”,in his book “john calvin a contemporary prophet”,and sproul ask why nobody follows to these theologian today!,and georgia harkness and reformed perspective magazine: teaching self-esteem is sin,and teddy bears with the signal “smiles, God loves you” are sinful because acording to reformed pastors children must to be teached to hates themselves and no to loves themselves,calvinist theology takes to people to excessive introspection,sofocates evangelism,reads “chosen by christ” by ernest trenchard.

       • There you go again, Eliecer…
         I’m extremely concerned with all of the world we live in, especially my own country, but not only. I am not indifferent to real atrocities, though I’m afraid I can’t get worked up about some of your “atrocities” (banning hair ornaments and certain teddy bears, oh my!)… As for us rolling up our sleeves and getting our hands dirty, helping people, I agree, we should – and we do (even if we could do more) – evidently you haven’t heard of http://www.woordendaad.nl/index.cfm?site_id=149&l_id=1&tree_id=6222&popup=1 Word and Deed, an organization with which my church is involved… Yes, we could do more in our own areas, too, and not just the Third World; we have our faults, who doesn’t?

         Which brings me to a point, I’ve raised http://antitechnocrat.net:8000/comment/reply/45/3432 previously in conversing with you – again, just because some in our camp have held some social/political/economic positions with which one may reasonably disagree – e.g. I certainly don’t agree with what Gerstner said – doesn’t mean all of us hold such, or that our tradition itself is at fault for such.

         I see you’ve brought up the American South again; as I noted http://antitechnocrat.net:8000/comment/reply/45/3432 previously, those responsible for institutions such as the KKK, and Jim Crow laws, included not just Presbyterian Southerners, but also Baptists, Pentecostals, Methodists, and so on. Perhaps you may justifiably lay blame for apartheid on some Reformed believers (but certainly not on black South African Reformed believers, so again, your objections are specious), but not Jim Crow, the KKK, and so on – those were “ecumenical”.

         I Googled http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=%22Georgia+Harkness%22&btnG=Google+Search&meta= Georgia Harkness, and if we’re talking about the same person (whom all of Google’s links seem to point to), I see she wasn’t even Reformed, but Methodist, so why you include her in your complaints about the Reformed faith and people, I don’t understand. (You mentioned her just before mentioning Reformed Perspective magazine, but I recall no columnist by that name, in the two years I’ve been reading it, off and on…)

         I’ve responded to your baiting twice now, when I really shouldn’t have bothered, but I’m ignoring it henceforth. (I’ll only respond to your posts if you say something useful and accurate, and not just your usual axe-grinding and smears…)

2. if you weren’t so horribly ig
   if you weren’t so horribly ignorant about the history of black and white homosexuals in relation to one another, then perhaps you wouldn’t be so incredulous about this fact. read up a little. they are two social groups that haven’t traditionally identified with one another very well. why is that so surprising? because gays are gays? think about it.

   • Oh, pardon my “horrible ignorance”…
     Of course I understand that historically, white American homosexuals and black American homosexuals probably didn’t have much to do with each other – this is because they are white Americans and black Americans, respectively, so they moved in two different racial/ethnic/cultural communities.

     My point, which you’d see if you read the linked article, is that there didn’t appear to be any racial reasons cited – the one group was in a snit, supposedly because the Christian right exerts too much influence in the GOP under Bush (ha! we should be so lucky), and the other saying, doesn’t matter, there’s room for all of us under the big Republican tent (which is true – and is precisely what’s wrong with the GOP…) It wasn’t about race; it was about politics and pragmatism – and I don’t buy any of it; again, it’s just a way for homosexuals to artificially inflate their size and influence, by appearing to be more numerically significant than they are, by having more groups. (Just like having multiple events throughout the year – Gay Pride Day, Gay Pride Week, Gay Pride Month, parades, and the related events: AIDS Awareness Month, etc. – keeps their issues in everyone’s faces, and helps normalize it in the minds of the public; that’s the strategy, anyway. Oh, and don’t forget St. Patrick’s Day Parades being hijacked by queers, to further their agenda. One pride parade of their own isn’t enough; they have to hijack others’…)

     (The linked article has expired; http://web.archive.org/web/20041012160741/http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040922/flw011_1.html here’s the archived version.)

3. true evangelicals talks
   Because some men appearing in t.v.,and considerated by liberals as “leaders” from evangelicals says something in favor from bush you assumes every evangelical is a neo-con. Reads here to a pastor with thousands of followers,expressing the more common opinion in believers community in america.

   ——————————————————————————————

   Pastor to People – Sunday, November 7, 2004

   As I write, word has just come over the networks that John Kerry has conceded the election to President Bush. Thankfully, the nightmare of a drawn-out process of litigation has been averted. With the election behind us, we must now get on with uniting the country and facing the challenges of the future.

   As believers, we should be distinguished by our acceptance of those who differ from us, whether politically or in other matters. We believe this was an important election, but let us not leave the work of reconciliation to our elected officials. Above all, now is the time for the church to be the church, sacrificially living out the Gospel and sharing the Good News that Jesus died for sinners.

   Nor should we pin our hopes for this country’s renewal on the victory of our president. We are thankful for his faith, his commitment, and his ideals, but only the Church can bring true healing to our broken world.

   Blessings,

   Pastor Erwin Lutzer.

   • No, I know that not all evangelicals are neocons…
     … see http://bushrevealed.com/ here (which I linked in a http://antitechnocrat.net:8000/comment/reply/1048/3635 previous posting) and http://www.whtt.org/index.shtml here, for some evangelicals opposed to Bush, who are “paleos”.

     Sadly, some prominent evangelicals are not only not neocons, but instead of being true conservatives, are, rather, outright leftists, like http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/exposes/campolo/campolo.htm Tony Campolo, for instance…

4. texe marrs
   hello what is your opinion about this writer http://www.texemarrs.com/

   • I’m not familiar with Marrs, but…
     … now that I’ve checked out his website, two things he says there, I have a big problem with:

     1. “We believe that the King James Bible is God’s perfect word, is without error, and is man’s authoritative guide for how we should live.”

     This is absurd; the Bible is God’s perfect word, not one or another particular translation of it, and to make a fetish out of the KJV is ridiculous, and dangerous.

     See here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

     2. “We believe in the power of Bible prophecy, freely acknowledging that God has preordained the future from the beginning and that He holds the future in His hand.”

     As a Calvinist, I certainly believe God has preordained all things, from beginning to end, before the creation of the world. But that “power of prophecy” phrase means Marrs is a dispensationalist, which one can see from his articles here. (Dispensationalism is a false, heretical teaching – see here. For an excellent book on eschatology, setting forth the amillennialist position (held by Lutherans, most Dutch Reformed, and though not specifically identified by that name, also held by Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox), see here.)

     Oh, but wait – there’s more…

     I see, from Texe Marr’s “feature” page, that unlike most dispensationalists, who are rabidly pro-Israel, that he’s the opposite, a conspiracy theorist, believing in “the Illuminati”, secret Zionist plots, etc. I don’t believe in any great, over-arching conspiracies, myself – there’s no need for them, everything is pretty much out in the open, visible for all to see – for example, only a fool would deny how many of the most prominent neocons are Jewish – and one need not search for any more complicated an explanation for their pro-Israel leanings, other than the fact that they’re looking out for their own. Whether their interests and ours coincide, is another question, and a good one, worth asking. But no need to believe in “Illuminati”, “black helicopters”, and the like, when everything’s out in the open. Occam’s Razor: the simplest explanation is the most likely one.

     I see he has a book about John Kerry’s being a member of Skull and Bones, here. Yes, that’s right; Kerry does belong to the secret society Skull & Bones. What Marrs fails to mention, at least here, is that so does Bush. That’s wickedly dishonest, to shriek about Kerry’s membership in it, while completely ignoring Bush’s membership in it.

     So, in conclusion, in my opinion, Texe Marrs is a paranoid, dishonest, self-promoting, money-grubbing, dangerous fanatic.

     In general, a good rule of thumb is, beware of any modern-day “ministries” named after their founder, and/or where one person calls the shots, and it’s clearly his/her personal empire, not affiliated with any one denomination. They usually are riddled with heresy, falsehood, dishonesty, and paranoia, and their founders get very, very rich selling books spewing their propaganda. Not exactly the way of suffering, of the Cross…

     • re:dispensationalism
       No,you (and carolus) are entirely wrong about dispensations,these is only a wrong way to study escathology,no a heresy,no any fundamental doctrine is affected by it,and spiritual life in dispensationalists churches is everytimes vibrant,they are zealous evangeists and led very pure lives,because some as marrs-who is no a member from a dispensational church- use these ideas for personal purposes,NO in any way means every dispensational brother is heretic,take in consideration many theologians comdemnating dispensationalism are liberals in doctrines-although they can be conservatives in politics- as aaron wolf,reads about it in withchrist.org and herehttp://www.brethrenonline.org/faqs/Brethren.htm

       • Granted, Andre, heresy may be too strong a word, but…
         … nevertheless, as the Wolf article I linked explains, quite well, I think, the dispensationalist school of eschatology is a modern invention – 19th century, basically – and historic Protestantism, like Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, held to no such doctrines on the end-times. As far as I’m concerned, while in my camp, Reformed, people can reasonably disagree on eschatology, some being historic pre-millennialists (some of the Puritans), some being post-millennialists (most of the Puritans, and Presbyterians today), and others – esp. the Dutch – being amillennialist; nevertheless, there is a broad consensus between most in all three camps, that dispensationalism is beyond the pale, and is not truly Reformed. (Kind of like how Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox can all agree that anti-Trinitarian heretics such as Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Unitarians, etc., are beyond the pale… They aren’t Christians.)

         Dispensationalism is, from traditionalist Protestantism’s perspective (both Lutheran and Reformed), a highly erroneous understanding of the end-times. I encourage you to read the Riddlebarger book I gave the Amazon URL for; order it and read it, and you’ll have trouble holding to dispensationalism (or pre- or post-mil, either – BTW, which are you?)… In the meantime, there’s lots of Reformed literature about dispensationalism on the internet; use Google to look it up if you’re interested.

         I am not, by any means, attacking the faith or lifestyles of those who hold to dispensationalism; as you say, many lead very noble lives, I have no doubt, and are committed, passionate, faithful, honourable Christians. I simply don’t believe that dispensationalism itself is a fair rendering of what the Bible teaches about the end-times. (BTW, for us amillennialists, the end-times are now; we live in the interregnum between Christ’s first coming and His second; these are the end-times; Christ’s reign is now, on His throne, already; it is not yet fully manifested here on Earth, and won’t be until His return, but it is breaking into the world, so to speak, in and through the lives of His people, of whom He is already King. This is amillennialism, in a nutshell… It is the understanding of the original apostolic Church – even the Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox more or less adhere to it (though they don’t call it that), as do traditionalist Protestants.)

         The churches that embrace dispensationalism, are also, I’ve noticed, the same ones that tend to embrace extrabiblical practices like abstinence from alcohol, tobacco, even sometimes caffeine, ostensibly on religious grounds. There may not be a direct causal relationship between dispensationalism and mandatory abstinence from “the demon rum” and “that filthy weed”, but there certainly is a strong correlation, too strong to be ignored. Some people can’t be satisfied, I guess, with the already strict enough standards of Scripture, and have to add extra restrictions to personal behaviour. How sad… (I notice that this particular trait is also characteristic of Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and other anti-Trinitarian heresies… Hmmm…)

         And the dispys are always knee-jerk supporters of Israel, no matter what Israel does, and have always prostituted themselves politically to the GOP – and here in Canada, to the Tories. I value my intellectual independence, a trait not exactly cultivated in dispy churches, which tend towards the Fuhrerprincip. (Yes, the gloves are now fully off…) Whereas traditionalist Protestants (esp. the Reformed), for all their many shortcomings, are a contentious, argumentative lot (that is a fault, I grant, but also a strength), and accordingly will not all march in lock-step politically (even though many do, sadly), unlike evangelicals, who all-too-often are sold out, brain-dead robots, most of them…

         Wolf is NOT a theological liberal; if you have followed his writings at Chronicles, you’ll see he’s been consistently a hard-core traditionalist Lutheran all along, from the quite conservative Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod, whom he nevertheless has taken to task for some liberal tendencies he sees in it, of which he disapproves. No liberal, politically or theologically, he… Recently in a blog entry, Wolf said he manages to get along well with Tom Fleming, who is Roman Catholic, despite the fact that Tom knows that he views the Pope as the anti-Christ. No ecumenical, doctrinal-compromiser he… Wolf, Fleming, and Trifkovic have more or less called for – one of them used the phrase – anti-ecumenical unity, wherein trad-cons of all faith backgrounds work together for common goals, while nevertheless holding to their various distinctives… I am a dyed-in-the-wool Protestant, but am happy to participate in this mostly Roman Catholic blog; you’ll notice I don’t generally start theological discussions, I only respond when prodded; that’s because my main focus in participating here is on what we hold in common, not what we differ on. Perhaps you, and others who seem to want to argue with me on doctrinal matters, might borrow a page from me? (I know, as I commented in the last paragraph here, that that’s too much to ask for some…)

         • I just have to say I loved part of Will S.’s comment
           I very much liked the ending of Will S.’s comment of today, 2:34am:

           “Recently in a blog entry, Wolf said he manages to get along well with Tom Fleming, who is Roman Catholic, despite the fact that Tom knows that he views the Pope as the anti-Christ. No ecumenical, doctrinal-compromiser he… Wolf, Fleming, and Trifkovic have more or less called for – one of them used the phrase – anti-ecumenical unity, wherein trad-cons of all faith backgrounds work together for common goals, while nevertheless holding to their various distinctives… I am a dyed-in-the-wool Protestant, but am happy to participate in this mostly Roman Catholic blog; you’ll notice I don’t generally start theological discussions, I only respond when prodded; that’s because my main focus in participating here is on what we hold in common, not what we differ on. Perhaps you, and others who seem to want to argue with me on doctrinal matters, might borrow a page from me? (I know, as I commented in the last paragraph here, that that’s too much to ask for some…)”

           That phrase “anti-ecumenical unity” struck me like a bolt of lightning the instant I read it just now (it’s the first time I’ve ever seen it). It’s an absolutely fantastic idea, an amazing idea. It’s exactly one of the things I’ve been looking for in my own thoughts but couldn’t crystalize for myself the way those two simple words do so perfectly. It has applications far and wide, including in areas of thought and of politics remote from Christianity.

           (I must say, I also always like André’s posts quite a bit.)
           ________________________

           “If a tree falls and an expert doesn’t hear it, is there a sound?” Yes, the sweetest, most melodious sound in all creation: the sound of entropy being brought clanking, screeching, grinding to a halt.

         • I was a bit harsh on evangelicals there…
           … my language was intemperate, calling most of them “brain-dead robots” – that’s not right, sorry. (I could edit my original post, but people have already seen it, and I’d rather apologize and admit when I feel I have been in error.) As for the Fuhrerprincip comment, well, that was a bit over the top – but I do think that individual pastors wield too much power over their flock in most evangelical churches, and that their people aren’t encouraged enough to think for themselves, properly and Biblically…

           Anyway, the main reason for my frustration with evangelicals in terms of their knee-jerk neo-conservatism, still stands. Brain-dead, no; robotic, well… I found, when I was evangelical, that there was one “right” way, politically, and it wasn’t open to question, neo-conservatism was it. My experience was, and is, that many of them are unable to think “outside the box”. Not all, mind you see http://bushrevealed.com/ here and http://www.whtt.org/ here for some examples of some evangelicals, who, regardless of what one thinks of all of their views, in any case can’t be said to be ideological conformists, to say the least…

           I should say, I’m almost as frustrated to find the same unthinking support for neoconservatism amongst many of my fellow Reformed brethren, too; nevertheless, I do find some non-neocons here and there amongst them, and am encouraged by that…

         • I`m an amillenialist
           As a baptist I`m an amillenialist,you can reads about it in the book “worthy is the lamb” by late pastor ray summers,you can buy it in a lifeway bookstore,and I`m no interested in theological discussions in these blog,I was only clarifying some aspects in your post,and about evangelicals in canada,according to polls and surveys made by christianity today,make the cross count ministry,100 huntley street ministry,and another groups,evangelical vote there is considerated many more complex than in usa,social credit party founded by a preacher,-his son was a member from disappeared canadian alliance- get many votes,when canadian alliance existed and was representing pro-usa neoconsevatism,many evangelicals was voting by old conservative party,an ex-minister of finances from any province-I don`t remember his name,I imagine you know him-was working in 2000 trying to convince his fellow evangelicals for supporting Libertarian no neo-con politics,but he was failing according to an article in a charismatic magazine,many evangelicals in canada are pro- new democracy party,and I remember to have read in 1991,92,93 articles in reformed perspective mag. about quebec,with letters to editor supporting independence from this province,and to read about old issue about laws establishing to sunday as a workingday,and how it produced different opinions about churches about it,even in christian week magazine late irving hexham was discussing about if a christian can be a socialist;I think that you as many canadians had a very usa- americanized weltanschaung,and it influence in your opinion about your own country!,please considers I had asked you about some famous institutions in your land,and you don`t know,while it appears you knows eveything about usa,God bless you brother in christ!. By the way you are a member from christian heritage party?.

         • Hi Andre…
           (BTW, if you haven’t seen it, I previously apologized for some of my harsher rhetoric in that posting you responded to; see http://antitechnocrat.net:8000/comment/reply/1169/3694 here.)

           You are thinking of the Alberta Social Credit Party, which I believe was founded by its first premier, William “Bible Bill” Aberhart, who was both a Baptist minister and the premier of Alberta for many years; he was succeeded by Ernest Manning, who was also premier for many years; his son, Preston Manning, was the founder and head of the Reform Party of Canada, which morphed into the Canadian Alliance, and which has since merged with the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada (about a year ago or so), and formed the Conservative Party of Canada. Manning indeed was the driving force, since 1999, to merge the two “right-wing” parties; alas, the new party is far too neo-conservative – socially “moderate”, e.g. won’t take a stand on abortion, and pro-U.S.-government in foreign policy, for my liking – the Alliance wanted to send troops to Iraq, and the Tories have more or less kept the Alliance’s foreign policy stance. (A word on nomenclature, for non-Canadian readers, just in case there’s any confusion: whereas in the U.S., “Tory” means those who stayed loyal to Great Britain during the American Revolution (whom we call “United Empire Loyalists”, as they called themselves), “Tory” here means a member and/or supporter of the Conservative Party, in one of its various different manifestations throughout Canadian history – in this we echo the practice as in the U.K., where the Conservatives there are also called Tories. Tory also had, historically, a sense which was not merely partisan, but also stood for a set of ideals: attachment to the British monarchy; an embracing of a more collectivist, British-style conservatism than that which exists in the U.S.; traditionalist Anglo-Protestantism… Basically, toryism (without the capital t) was (it’s almost dead today; apart from a few oddballs like me) the natural, organic, Canadian conservatism, in contrast to the American-style neo-conservatism that pervades the Canadian right today, which I loathe.)

           I don’t like the Christian Heritage Party, because although they are superior to the Conservatives on moral issues – the Conservatives are like Republicans, talking a good talk but not walking the walk, as it were – nevertheless the CHP are identical to the Conservatives on foreign policy, and they are still too neoconservative, too south-ward-looking for my liking; they think too highly of Bush and the GOP…

           I want to make it clear to all reading; I’m not anti-American; rather, I am a proud, patriotic Canadian, who thinks Canada, as a sovereign, independent nation – in theory, anyway – should formulate its own policies, and move in its own direction, according to its interests, which may sometimes coincide with those of America – and may, at other times, not do so. That is to be expected; allies won’t always agree on everything – and for that matter I’m not sure I believe in the idea of nations considering other nations as permanent “allies”, anyway – there will be differences, and that’s okay… If anyone reading can’t tell the difference between patriotically Canadian and anti-American, well, they can get stuffed. Understand: I hate the Liberal government. But I don’t much care for the Canadian right, either… And at least this much can be said for the Liberals, in their foreign policy; they’re not lapdogs of any single other country’s agenda…)

           Evangelical Christians – and for that matter, believing Christians in general, in Canada, do not form a united block the way it seems to generally be Stateside; mind you, a fair proportion in recent years have begun to rally behind the mainstream Conservative Party, and so Canadian politics is evolving in a more American direction as time passes (which annoys and distresses me); yet some evangelicals vote Liberal – there are one or two socially conservative Liberal M.P.s, who argue against abortion, in terms of “sticking up for the little guy” (yet they accomplish nothing, for all their bluster), and they are supported by other Christians like themselves – they must be; for some reason they keep getting re-elected, Lord knows why… I don’t think very many evangelicals are behind the New Democrats, federally; provincially, depending on the province, the NDP can be more moderate, less overtly leftist, than in other provinces, and much less oriented towards pushing social liberalism than federally, and so I wouldn’t be surprised to see a fair degree of support amongst evangelicals in, say, Saskatchewan, for the NDP there, esp. as they tend to invoke populist rhetoric, which Westerners eat up… (I say this as a Westerner myself, albeit an ex-central-Canadian.)

           I’m politically homeless; I didn’t vote in Canada’s recent election, and unless someone resurrects the Red Toryism of http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php?story=20040209183745915 George Grant (BTW, back then, Red Tory meant nationalist/patriotic, not socially liberal, as today; it also meant Christian, Anglican or Presbyterian or what have you), I may never vote again. (Federally, that is… Provincially or municipally, depends… For my part, I am glad I have the right to not vote, unlike our Aussie and Kiwi brethren who can’t not vote, or be punished, I believe being forced to pay a fine; perhaps Mark Richardson or someone else can enlighten me on that – all I know is that it’s against the law in those antipodean WASP realms to not vote.)

         • hi will s.
           regina,saskatchewan is home country from erwin lutzer that pastor in the post about politics and evangelicals,he had a brother evangelist there,and I want you ask to aaron wolf by his opinion about ithttp://www.shoebat.com/

         • not sure I understand your question.
           You want me to look at this site, and what about Aaron Wolf? I don’t quite follow, sorry.

         • my question and reformed/anabaptist reconcialiation
           my question is I want to know the opinion from aaron wolf about that website,send it to him,and by the way what is the opinion from your church about it/I imagine your group is no part from world reformed alliance nor world reformed synod,but your church is a part from int´l conservative reformed association and int´l reformed faith and action commission/

           July 9, 2004
           Confession and Forgiveness Mark Anabaptist-Reformed Conference

           ZURICH, Switzerland — Christians from the Zwinglian Reformed tradition and the Anabaptist global church confessed sins that separated them 500 years ago and extended forgiveness to each other at an event called “remarkable and memorable.” Settings for the Reformed-Anabaptist Reconciliation Conference were the Grossmunster and nearby Limmat River in the city of Zurich on June 26.

           Throughout the day, some 400 people, representing four continents and the two traditions, took steps toward new understanding of what drove them apart and new relationships as brothers and sisters with a common vision.

           In 1525, Ulrich Zwingli preached to Reformers against the radical Anabaptists from the pulpit in the Grossmunster. Anabaptists were hunted, persecuted, exiled and killed. Zurich authorities ordered the drowning of Felix Manz, one of their earlist leaders, in the Limmat River in 1527.

           In 2004, Larry Miller, Executive Secretary of Mennonite World Conference (MWC), a community of Anabaptist-related churches, preached from Zwingli’s pulpit to both Reformed and Anabaptist Christians in an afternoon worship service. In his sermon, “The new city,” based on Zechariah 2 and Matthew 5, he said that the best in the Reformed vision of the church was like the Old Testament city, “open to all citizens without exception.” It lifts up Jesus as Lord of all and says that the church is called to shape society. Reformed practice, however, has not always matched this vision, including in relation to Anabaptist Felix Manz and his siblings in the faith.

           The Anabaptist vision, Miller said, was typically of the New Testament “city set on a hill,” a church as the community of disciples following Jesus in life daily, separated from the world while witnessing to it. However, persecution drove them into tightly knit, separatist communities.

           “After lighting the lamp, we hid it under the bushel where it neither illuminates good works nor provokes offerings of glory to God,” he added.

           Miller commended the Reformed Church for being willing to revisit the convictions of the Anabaptists and to take steps “toward fuller communion with former adversaries.”

           Confessions and responses from representatives of each group, both during the afternoon worship service in the old church and at an evening ceremony at the Limmat River, were among the conference’s most moving moments. Reudi Reich, president of the Reformed Church of the Canton of Zurich, read a statement of regret for the persecution of the early Anabaptists during the worship service. In response, Ernest Geiser, president of the Council of Elders of the Swiss Mennonite Church, said: “Descendents of the formerly persecuted Anabaptists among you today no longer see themselves as victims…. We seek no compensation for past injustices. We accept your confession with a spirit of forgiveness.”

           In the evening, several hundred people crossed the bridge over the Limmat and gathered on the bank facing the towering Grossmunster, near the spot where Manz was drowned. A rowboat slipped silently along the river to the cluster of people and in a dramatic move, the rowers snatched the cover from a new capstone on the wall. The English translation of the inscription on the grey granite plaque reads:

           “Here in the middle of the Limmat River from a fishing platform, Felix Manz and five other Anabaptists were drowned between 1527 and 1532 during the Reformation. The last Anabaptist executed in Zurich was Hans Landis in 1614.”

           At the dedication of the plaque, Ruedi Reich again asked for forgiveness for the persecution, torture and death inflicted on Anabaptists nearly five centuries ago “in a combined action by Church and State.”

           Thomas Gyger, president of the Swiss Mennonite Conference, in his response, noted that city authorities and the Reformed Church in the 16th century acted to maintain public order in the face of what they considered a serious threat. He expressed gratitude for the memorial and for the steps being taken toward reconciliation.

           Robert Neukomm, Zurich city councillor, reviewed the history of Harold Bender’s 1952 unsuccessful attempt to erect a memorial to Manz. This year, noted Neukomm, there were no dissenting votes.

           The ceremony also included singing, prayer and a poem, written and read by James Landis, a direct descendant of the executed Hans Landis.

           The conference began in the morning in the Grossmunster with singing by Swiss Mennonite and North American choirs. After the reading of several 16th century texts representing the two traditions, Hanspeter Jecker from the Beinenberg seminary offered a historical analysis. Markus Rediger, Mennonite World Conference executive committee member from Switzerland, presented Anabaptists and Mennonites around the world today. He was joined by Charly Lukala, a Congolese Mennonite Brethren pastor, Kathiana Sempertegui, a Bolivian Mennonite, and Larry Miller, to present the book In God’s Image as gifts to local, national and world Reformed leaders including Setri Nyomi from Ghana, General Secretary of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches (WARC).

           An evening cultural celebration, also in the Grossmunster, concluded the conference with music and story-telling, led by John E. Sharp, director of Mennonite Church USA Historical Committee. Sharp introduced Lawrence Hart, who recounted his role in a Southern Cheyenne peacemaking ceremony in Oklahoma (USA). There was music by Roland van Straaten on the blues harp and Swiss folk music by Paul Giger, Noldi Alder and Tobi Tobler to round out the evening.

           During the afternoon, workshops addressed the history of the Reformed and Anabaptist traditions and their churches today. Peace, state and church and the day’s reconciliation events were other topics. There was also a guided tour to traces of the Anabaptists still found in Zurich (there are no Mennonites there now).

           An exhibit of Anabaptist history and photos of Mennonites and Amish were displayed in the house where Zwingli once lived.

           The global face of the Anabaptist church today was underscored at the event by the presence of Amish and Mennonites from Ireland, Netherlands, France, Germany, Bolivia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Canada and the USA.

           Planning for the event began after Sharp wrote to the Zurich City Council in January 2003, requesting that a marker be erected to remember Felix Manz. Last July, Sharp met with Reform officials Peter Dettwiler, Minister of Mission and Ecumenical Relations, and Philip Dytwiler, who is in charge of special events for the Canton of Zurich. He encouraged them to work with the Swiss Mennonite Church in planning the conference.

           In 1984, after representatives of the WARC, Baptist World Alliance and MWC shared a 1983 service of confession and communion in the Grossmunster, a call to churches to continue the conversation at the local level had little response. Larry Miller expressed his hope that the 2004 event will have a different result.

           “Where we encounter one another with a common commitment to Scripture as normative and openness to mutual correction and sharing, we can expect to be led by the Spirit beyond our brokenness into God’s new city,” concluded Miller.

         • Andre: I don’t know how to contact Mr. Wolf…
           … … as far as I know, at Chronicles, Wolf’s email address isn’t given anywhere, and other than if one of his columns is added to a blog, where feedback is possible, I don’t know how one could contact him, other than to send him a letter, or send an email to [email protected], and hope that someone passes it on to him. Here’s an interesting essay by Wolf, which is the only thing by him I’ve seen, far as I recall, on the whole Israel/Palestine conflict. (At the bottom, you can see Chronicles’ address, phone number, and the aforementioned email address, all of which you can use as easily as I can.)

         • Liberal Anabaptist & Reformed guiltmongering? No thanks.
           To answer your first question, my church, the URC, is a member of a mostly conservative, traditionalist, worldwide body of Reformed churches, known as The International Conference of Reformed Churches; we’re not a member of the World Reformed Alliance, who are composed of extremely liberal churches, and I don’t know about the others you mentioned.

           I’m afraid I don’t like this “confession and forgiveness” Anabaptist/Reformed conference. The aforementioned liberal body of ostensibly Reformed churches, WARC, is mentioned as participating, which alone makes it suspect in my minds, and everything else about it is just so wrong, wrong, wrong. The spectre of people today apologizing for long-ago sins committed by some of their theological forebears, smacks too much of typical modern liberalism for my liking – it reminds me too much of white politicians apologizing to blacks for slavery, or whites to aboriginal peoples for genocide, etc. Too much emphasis on group responsibility, as if guilt and sin are corporate rather than individual – and it especially makes little sense within Protestantism, when no-one leader is considered the earthly head of the Church, able to speak on behalf of all Protestants, or even all Reformed, even… And moreover, the absence of any acknowledgment of context, for why what happened happened, as if this happened in a vacuum, and that Anabaptists bore no responsibility – all I see are accusations of Reformed guilt, and everyone agreeing to that, and the Reformed parties apologizing. True, Miller acknowledges past Anabaptist shortcomings, but evidently, at least from what one can glean from this story, not within context, and not in any way evidently connected to Reformed guilt, so it was a non-sequitur. I see no mention here of Münster, for example, and how that quite rightly alarmed Roman Catholic, Lutheran, and Reformed, alike…

           I see this was a very multicultural event, with even Congolese and Bolivian Mennonites, and the WARC leader, a Ghanaian, present… Also present, a Native American “peacemaker” (they don’t say, but I’ll bet it was something like the usual sweetgrass and tobacco peace offering, and passing around a “peace pipe”, and the like), and blues harp and Swiss folk music played…

           All in all, typical liberal, multiculturalist guilt-mongering propaganda, with a bit of quasi-ecumenical “we’re all in this together, though we liberal Anabaptists are morally superior to you liberal Reformed types, since our forebears were your victims” BS, thrown in for good measure. No thanks. I believe in anti-ecumenical unity; I promise I won’t drown any Anabaptists, if Anabaptists will promise not to re-create Reformation-era Münster (rumspringa is bad enough). I think that’s a fair deal. 😉

         • but will…
           but will s munster happened after,when huldreich zwingli was died,and this was another entirely different story with another anabaptist group/jan van leyden and zwickau prophets,unrelated and with very different doctrines,even they baptized children!,to group from conrad grebel/this is as I was asking you about falklands islands war and british guilt toward argentinians,and you answer with colombian civil war and colombian guilt!.And anabaptist guilt in this case in particular is identical to arab civils guilt in deaths by bombardments in fallujah.God bless you.

         • Fine, whatever, but my larger point stands…
           … that this meeting you posted the news item about, is just a liberal guilt-wallowing fest.

           Frankly, on a functional, day-to-day level, I’m over the events of centuries ago, and I do get along with Mennonites and Baptists and others in that vein; I may not have any close friends amongst such groups, at present, but I have cordial relations with those I know in such camps. But, of course, I still believe strongly in what I believe, and don’t believe in the doctrinal stands (apart from the common basics) of other Christian traditions. My point is, the WARC “Reformed” believers don’t speak for me, and I’m sure the most liberal Mennonites don’t speak for you, so why should either you or I care how they relate to each other? Liberal Christianity, is NOT Christianity. Simple and plain. I may be charitably inclined enough towards conservative Christians in other traditions, to recognize them as, likely, mostly, brothers in Christ, regardless of our deep differences. But Liberals of any stripe, and anti-Trinitarians, are outside the fold, as far as I’m concerned. Period.

         • leaving munster
           about corporate guilt from anabaptists http://www.anabaptist.co.uk/

         • reformed church, only another anabaptist group
           http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualNLs/porn.htm

         • mormons
           I took offense to the comments that Mormons are not Christians. Though no longer a member of the Mormon faith, I can assure you and others out there that Mormons DO believe in Jesus Christ, practice his teachings and strive to emulate his behavior. While it is very easy to sit and point out those who might be “different” or practice “uncoventional” beliefs, I find it very sad that you choose to “run down” a group of people whom, it seems, you know very little about. If you would like to see for yourself, why not attend a church meeting? It isn’t that different from other services I have attended myself, i.e., Lutheran, Catholic, Episcopalian, Baptist or whatever “normal or conventional” Christian groups as you say. You might think yourself, “educated” but if you make unilateral statements like those found on this sight, you just show how uneducated and close-minded you really are.

         • and while I’m at it
           If you are such a hotblooded Christian, I hope you remember that Jesus was understanding and loved even those who were his enemies and those he might not have understood. You would do well to adopt his attitude. And it isn’t UP to you to judge, it isn’t your place. It is Christ’s. Perhaps instead of raising conflict and disseminating “hurtful” and blatantly false information, you could use your time doing something decent. Volunteer. Adopt an orphan. Tutor a child. Visit a nursing home. Visit a shut-in. Hold a drug baby. Help with Habitat for Humanity. Coach a little league team. Anything but what you’re doing. Jesus tried his best not to hurt others. It would be nice if you tried to be a little more like him.

     • Hello there. Happened upon th
       Hello there. Happened upon this old post while searching for info on Texe Marrs.

       Couldn’t let your remarks about Texe’s supposed hypocrisy for detailing Kerry’s Skull & Bones links go without comment…

       1. Go to Google.com
       2. Type ‘site:www.texemarrs.com bush skull bones’
       3. Read Texe’s many articles mentioning Bush’s Skull & Bones membership.

       BTW, that item you linked to was an audiotape, not a book.

       • ah…
         well, that’s good.

         but really, I don’t care!

         audiotape, book, whatever…

         • If you are going to call someone “wickedly dishonest”…
           If you are going to call someone “wickedly dishonest” for being hypocritical, you should first check whether they really are being hypocritical.

5. calvinist ethnical traditionalism against christian evangelism

   The Outlook reformed fellowship, October 2003, Volume 53, No. 5, pp. 15-17

   John R. Sittema
   Dr. Sittema offers some practical thoughts on evangelism
   and why reformed people have such difficulties with it

   I hate cooked spinach: always have, always will. Always looked to me like seaweed, and tasted just as bad. I blamed Popeye for it. The cartoon character with the fore­arms and the muscle-generating can of spinach caused many boys (and girls) to eat more of the green stuff than they wanted. At least I could console myself with the knowledge that spinach had so much iron in it that it was the “best thing on the planet to eat”, and would build strong bones, blood, and biceps.

   Or so I thought. Not too many years ago. the FDA in Washington DC revealed that spinach, while good for you, has nowhere near the amount of iron in it that Americans have thought for many decades. Seemed that a scientist many years ago misplaced a decimal. Spinach is only one-tenth as good for you as they said! That mistake led scientists, cartoon writers and moms to believe in the “doctrine of the value of spinach. thus foisting the horrid tasting stuff on generations of children. Oh, the power of a mistake!

   Doctrine Shapes Life

   “Doctrine shapes life”, Christians always say, and rightly so. But mistakes in doctrine shape life, too, often with terrible consequences. Think of how people once read the Biblical descriptions of the system of slavery in the Roman world as prescriptions allowing for the trafficking in human flesh. It led to horrifying abuses of human beings created in the image of God.

   In this article, I want to reflect on how misunderstandings, distortions, and errors in doctrine have compromised some Presbyterian and Reformed churches in regard to evangelism. Specifically, how such errors have undercut evangelistic zeal, activity, and success in many of our churches. I hope such reflection makes you think about your perspective, and about your church.

   A scant bit of history is in order. In the centuries prior to this one, some of the greatest evangelists in this country were Calvinists. Who has not heard of George Whitefield, the passionate Methodist – but thoroughly Calvinistic preacher who was used of God to evangelize much of this land in the mid 18th Century? Recently, a Baptist acquaintance who is a careful student of early American Baptists, reminded me that in the United States, early Baptists were almost universally Calvinistic in doctrine. They led the way in evangelistic fervor and success. Calvinism, back then, meant evangelistic fervor!

   Yet, despite this legacy, Presbyterian/Reformed churches in this generation do not lead the North American Christian world with a passion for evangelism. In fact, in many Calvinistic churches in the U.S., about the only “evangelism” that takes place is marital. That is, a son or daughter of the church falls in love with and marries a person with non-Calvinist (and/or non-Christian) roots.

   Members of Calvinistic churches, with few notable exceptions, are not passionate about the lost. Budgets in such churches support “missions” – but often only to the extent that they send money to others. Local evangelism is almost non­existent. Sadly, a correlative attitude seems to be acceptable and popular among Calvinists these days: “people get saved in Baptist or other fundamentalistic churches, and then they learn good theology and become Calvinists.” If it weren’t so arrogant. it might he funny. Fact is, not many “get saved” through the evangelism efforts of Calvinistic churches in todays Christian world. And that’s a shame.

   Why is this so? I believe there are several reasons, and I commend them to you for your reflection, and prayer.

   Theological

   First of all, Calvinistic theology -which once drove missionaries to all lands – has seen many distortions that seem to justify evangelistic inactivity.

   In the first place, Calvinists I know argue that “evangelism” is properly an activity in which only official preachers in their official pulpits are to be engaged. Thus, the common believer’s only duty is to “get people into church” where they can “hear the preaching”. But this minimizes the role of all believers in “witness” and “testimony” – those legal-sounding terms the NT uses to describe the calling of all Christians to bear witness to their Lord and Savior. To be sure, preachers preach, and steelworkers don’t. But recall that preachers preach “to equip the saints – including steelworkers – for their ministry.” (Ephesians 4:11-12) And that ministry commissions each believer as a testifier, a witness-bearer, who must live his/her life “on the witness stand”, thus testifying and speaking of the power of the crucified and risen Lord.

   Secondly, the doctrine of election seems to be used with greater frequency to argue that “evangelism is God’s business; if He chooses people, He’ll bring them in. I have nothing to do with it. In fact, I cannot affect the outcome by my efforts!” I know pastors and even groups of churches that use such argumentation to oppose what I’ve heard called the “Arminian practice of evangelism”. Such an argument seems to ignore that those chosen before the foundations of the earth (Ephesians 1:4,11) are “included in Christ” when they hear the gospel. (Ephesians 1:13) In other words, our spiritual forebears were right: the Calvinistic doctrine of election demands and drives evangelism, rather than excusing us from it!

   Cultural

   There are also cultural reasons evangelism is in trouble in many Presbyterian/Reformed churches. First, many such churches operate like a closed circle. We use “in-house jargon” that only people from our background will understand (think of such terms as “votum and salutation” or “the regulative principle” or some of our theological terms). We tend to move socially only within our own circles of redeemed people. To be sure, we’ll be polite with new folks to the church, but to spend the time and effort to intentionally seek close friendships with unbelievers as a strategic gospel priority? Doubtful. In fact, many of our church members don’t have any close friends who are unbelievers. In such tight and exclusive circles, evangelism is dealt a double stumbling-block: before one can embrace Christ as Lord, he must “fit in” with our socio-economic-cultural group. Doesn’t sound that different from the Judaizers, who demanded that people be circumcised or they couldn’t be in Christ. Frightening.

   Second, Calvinists in our generation seem to be flirting with a non-Reformed understanding of the covenant. That is, “being in the covenant” seems to equate, in many Calvinists’ minds, with “being elect” and “being saved.” OT Israel had that view, and it resulted in spiritual destruction! It’s a very small leap indeed to the contemporary corollary, that “we Calvinists are the covenant people. After all, we have the heritage of the faith and the sign of infant baptism for our children!” As a result of this distortion, “election” and “salvation” are somehow connected to being Scottish Presbyterians or Dutch Reformed Calvinists.

   Such a view is remarkably arrogant, and wrong on several levels. Being in the covenant does not guarantee that one is saved. Remember Aachan, Korah, Dathan, and Abiram? All of them were members of the covenant; yet all of them were destroyed in their sin. And in Webster’s dictionary, the term “covenant” does not include as one of its definitions a reference that says “see Dutch Calvinism”. God’s covenant is indeed a blessed relationship of God’s gracious favor, of God’s promise. But it demands faith; it does not render faith unnecessary for the children of Calvinists. And God’s covenant is established far and wide, with all kinds of people, both Jew and Gentile, who “repent and believe”, including “their children, and all who are far off, all whom the Lord our God will call unto himself.” (Acts 2:39)

   Third, many Reformed churches confuse faith-identity with cultural/ethnic-identity. I can’t even begin to guess how many times I’ve heard Presbyterians or Reformed Christians talk about “our people” and “our churches”, meaning of course not Christians, but Scottish Presbyterians or Dutch Reformed people of the Calvinist worldview. Don’t get me wrong. I enthusiastically subscribe to Calvinist creeds and read Scripture with a worldview shaped by such understandings. But there’s a huge difference between Biblical conservativism (which holds firmly to the truths of Scripture) and ethnic/cultural traditionalism (which holds stubbornly to “the way we’ve always done it, because our way is the only right way.”)

   Here’s the point: when we confuse Biblical Christianity with ethnic or cultural traditionalism, we not only don’t seek the lost, but we even hinder evangelism efforts. “Not Dutch? You’re not much!” The bumper sticker famous among Dutch Calvinists might be tongue-in-cheek, but the attitude behind it fairly shouts: “Even if you’re washed in the blood of the Lamb and renewed in the image of God, you don’t fit in here unless you are just like us!” “You don’t go to church twice on Sunday? You’ll never fit in here until you get your ‘sabbath-observance’ straightened out like we do.”

   What a shame. For a spiritual heritage that celebrates grace as one of it’s fundamental hinge pins, far too many of our churches’ doors squeak on cultural rust.

   Popeye could get away with being wrong about spinach. He was only a cartoon character. But you and I may not be wrong about our doctrine – or the attitudes our doctrine generates – if it destroys our passion for the salvation of the lost. Jesus addressed just such a situation in the parable popularly known as the “prodigal son” in Luke 15. I’ll remind you of the first half of the chapter. Jesus was eating with “sinners”, and the pharisees were indignant. So Jesus told 3 stories. There was a lost lamb. The shepherd left all behind to seek and find it, and invited everyone to celebrate that the lamb was found. There was also a lost coin, for which a woman searched diligently. When found, it was the occasion for a great celebration with friends and neighbor. In both these cases, Jesus commented “in the same way, there will be great rejoicing among the angels in heaven over one sinner who repents.”

   And then the point. There was also a lost son. You know the details: wasted an inheritance, worked with accursed pigs, ate their food, came to his senses, was repentant, and was received by his father with a party, a ring, and a robe. But the son had no passion for the salvation of the lost. In bitterness, he was moved by the arrogant envy that a fool received forgiveness and joy even greater than he who was the “good boy”, the “covenant” son.

   Jesus taught the parable against the arrogant “covenant people” of the day who had no heart for evangelism. His point is sharp. And it sticks close to home, doesn’t it?

   Dr. John R. Sittema serves as an Associate Pastor in the PCA Church and is the author of A Shepherd’s Heart.

   • I did read this in Outlook, a year or so ago…
     … and I agree with many of Sittema’s challenges to the Reformed faithful. (I grew up mainline Protestant, became evangelical later on, for about a decade, then became Reformed. I do believe the Reformed can learn a lot from evangelicals…)

     • anti-ecumene unity!
       http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualNLs/6_shipwr.htm

6. true calvinists please stand up
   http://www.swrb.com/newslett/actualNLs/pcabad.htm

Comments are closed.