We Lost

The election is over. I'm simply glad it's over. It makes no real difference for God's sovereignty over our people and nation. Indeed, belief in politics' promise to change anything important is the foremost false gospel in America today.

But elections do tell us something about where people's hearts are. In that regard, we lost this election.

Not because Obama was re-elected: that's the "political gospel" again. The Church lost this election because of what was manifested about Christians' hearts. A significant turning-point...or point of departure...has been reached.

The enemy has been substituting his political gospel for Christ's in the Church' affections for many years, shrewdly undermining Christians' true faith, hope, and love. But there's no reason we should have been blind to his deceits: God has always been pleased to give His Spirit to any who will turn from his own way and his own thoughts.

Any who WILL honestly ask Him for spiritual eyes to see, can count on His promise. But we haven't bothered to question our own thoughts and ways, or WILLed to have eyes to see and ears to hear at all.

Our alliance with the world's political factionalists started with a questionable teaching we failed to question: that God will only bless nations whose leaders are godly. And joined to it, the prideful falsehood that America is God's especial "Christian" nation.

When the Church swallowed those propositions, it naturally followed that in our democracy ("people rule") WE can (and SHOULD) do the works that leverage God's blessing.

The political faction with which Christians foolishly allied was happy to paint its candidates "godly" (it washes off easily) on the superficial "issues" it shared with Christians: gay marriage, abortion, and so forth. It was a small price for them to pay (and with counterfeit sincerity, anyway) to ensure they could pocket Christians' votes.

The factionalists didn't even bother to whitewash their candidates this time: there's not enough paint to make men rooted in the teachings of Joseph Smith and Ayn Rand look like anything but what they are: men led, and leading, in the spirit of antiChrist.

But the factionalists' candidates didn't NEED to be whitewashed this year. The political gospel has replaced Christ's among Christians enough that few notice the difference any more...or even look for it.

The election is over. The Church lost.

Knowing the times and seasons

“And He was also saying to the crowds, ‘When you see a cloud rising in the west, immediately you say, “A shower is coming,” and so it turns out. And when you see a south wind blowing, you say, “It will be a hot day,” and it turns out that way. You hypocrites ! You know how to analyze the appearance of the earth and the sky, but why do you not analyze this present time?’ ” -- Luke 12:54-6 (NASB)


We know with certainty that this is a time of spiritual warfare. God has equipped us with all the spiritual armor we need to “stand firm against the schemes of the devil,” and armed us with the sword of the Spirit. There can be no mistake He's readied us for spiritual battle.

With scripture’s certainty, we know too that the enemy is spiritual, not flesh and blood. We are wise to look beyond appearances, and recognize the enemy’s attack in evil “speculations…raised up against the knowledge of God.”. We know his attack is first against our minds: and that his great “scheme” is to capture our thoughts by his evil “speculations,” and turn Christians’ hearts traitor, to join him.

Only the One who sets the “times and seasons” knows them completely. But Jesus clearly teaches that, in its time, God reveals everything we need to know about the spiritual forces behind this world’s surface tumults, if we pay close heed. He clearly expects us to do so.

God’s been especially gracious to reveal the enemy’s “scheme” in this present time. He’s let the enemy assemble his armies together in one place, in plain sight. We can see exactly where the attack is coming: and if we “analyze” what God reveals, we know exactly what lying “speculations” the enemy is sending to capture our minds and hearts.

The enemy’s attack is led by the anti-Christian spirit of Mormonism. Its founding principle (the “First Vision”) is the “truth” a supernatural being taught Mormonism’s “Prophet:” all Christianity is corrupt, and “an abomination” in God’s sight. On its rejection of Biblical Christianity, Mormonism claims to be true Christianity, supernaturally restored only in the scriptures and prophecies its “God” gave to Joseph Smith and his successors.

A recent Mormon President and official "Prophet" made this explicit in his speech to an LDS conference, as reported on the official LDS news-site. To Christians' charge that Mormons don't worship the Jesus Christ of Bibical Christianity, he said

"No, I don't. The traditional Christ of whom
they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak.
For the Christ of whom I speak...appeared to
the boy Joseph Smith in the year 1820..."

---- http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/31188/Crown-of-gospel-is-upon-our-heads.html

The "God" of Mormonism, its “Christ" and its “gospel,” are not those of Biblical Christianity. Mormons themselves insist on that difference: that difference is the entire basis of their religion, and distinguishes their “restored Christianity” from “corrupt” Biblical Christianity. We who instead believe the Bible must insist on its contrary discernment: that the teaching of “another Jesus” or a “different gospel” is the enemy’s attack on Christ’s faith.

Alongside Mormonism’s hatred of Christianity, satan sets the demonic doctrines of “New Age” philosophy. And just as the enemy’s Mormon standard-bearer makes no secret
of his anti-Christian “faith,” his (nominally-Catholic) running-mate boasts of being a devotee of Ayn Rand, and politically-inspired by her teachings.

What are her teachings ? First, militant atheism. Belief in God makes man an “abject zombie.” Faith is “a short-circuit destroying the mind.” Nothing exists greater than man himself, so man is rightly his own god: “…a heroic being, with
his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life…and reason as his only absolute.”

The only true morality is (as Rand entitled one of her books) “The Virtue of Selfishness.” Each man must “…exist for his own sake, [not] sacrificing himself for others...” Indeed, concern for others is destructive weakness, since it hinders man’s great purpose of self-fulfillment.

Unlimited individual “rights” and unfettered capitalism are the only path to human happiness, in Rand’s theory. The greatest enemy of both is what she calls “statism:” the belief that society and government should restrain any god-man from fulfilling all his own selfish purposes.

Ayn Rand is understandably the favorite political “philosopher” of Washington’s “conservatives.” Some years ago Chuck Colson publicly warned their faction against the spiritual deceit of her doctrines, and his warning is worth repeating:

http://townhall.com/columnists/chuckcolson/2007/10/16/the_legacy_of_ayn_rand/page/full/

(you’ll have to close a couple pop-up ads
to get to Colson’s comments.)

Rand’s disciple who is now second-in-command of the enemy forces is a prominent leader of the “conservatives” Colson warned. He has twice authored that faction’s proposed national budgets. Those documents, and the rest of his political record, embody Rand’s radically anti-Christian teachings. His political career has proved him well-qualified to now join in leading the enemy’s spiritual attack.

I solemnly charge all who love Christ, the Truth, to obey Him: “analyze” this present spiritual warfare closely, by scripture and the Spirit. If we heed Him, God clearly shows us where the enemy will attack, and what forces he sends against us. God also reveals the specific anti-Christian “speculations” by which satan is now attempting to capture our minds to join him.

We must NEVER join the one who comes only to kill and destroy. Let us all therefore “put on the full armor of God, so that you will be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil.”

The Zombie Church

After the election this fall, preachers will still give out the message of salvation. Church-members will continue to lament how evil our society is, and how Hollywood, liberals, gay-marriage advocates, and abortionists are corrupting the country's "Christian" values.

The Billy Graham Crusade will still come to town and preach Jesus Christ. Christian-music stars will keep their concert-schedules. Promise Keepers and Fellowship of Christian Athletes will continue their events across the country. Christian best-sellers will still fly off the shelf, and Christian ministries will be on TV and radio as scheduled.

Folks will still go to church, Bible-studies, and Sunday School. Some will actually study their bibles, if only to find that scripture that proves they're right about full immersion, pre-Trib rapture, or speaking in tongues. They will still pray for the sick in their congregations, for lost family-members, for the country.

Christian activities and sermons will go on just the same as always, regardless of how the election comes out. The only difference will be that millions of Christians will have recorded their personal desire (as a vote is) to be led by the spirit of anti-Christ.

Most will do so without much thought, for superficial reasons: "he's a Republican," or "a conservative," or "better than what we've got." Many will set themselves up to accept the spirit of anti-Christ as the lesser of two evils (!!) by their willingness to believe all the Obama-bashing e-mails their Christian friends send them. (After all, if it wasn't true, Christian friends wouldn't send it, right ?)

No doubt preferring the spirit of anti-Christ will make a difference in people's relationship with the Spirit of God. But no matter: it probably won't be a noticeable difference for most: and Christian activities and sermons will go on just the same as always.


“An appalling and horrible thing
Has happened in the land:
The prophets prophesy falsely,
And the priests rule on their own authority;
And My people love it so!
But what will you do at the end of it?"

Diversity and Pentecost

Last Sunday was Pentecost. The younger kids all came into the sanctuary waving red and orange streamers, and making a "whooshing" sound as they ran. The scripture reading was Acts 2's account of Pentecost: and after the liturgist read a few verses in English, Tony Kugler read the next passage in Czech. Donna read the next part in Spanish, and I finished with Peter's address and his quoting from Joel's prophecy, in Koine Greek.

I was impressed that Pastor Bud chose to make the service about Pentecost. As a career military man, he might easily have chosen to make it about the secular (and largely militarist) Memorial Day. He spoke instead about the change the Spirit makes when He enters human lives.

I was also impressed with his idea of re-enacting the day of Pentecost. Following an evil political faction, most Christians disparage diversity. Even using the word invariably raises a myna-bird chorus of "political correctness !!," "political correctness !!" from "conservative Christians." Maybe our re-enactment, at some level, challenged that political mis-thinking. Maybe some hearts got the point that diversity is from God, and created for His glory.

What time is it ?

Unless God intervenes, the Republicans are set to nominate Mitt Romney for President. He's not "conservative" enough for their wing-nut base; but the party will nominate him anyway, and most of its tools will fall in line. They've worked themselves into such an Obama-hating frenzy believing their own lies (that Obama is foreign-born, a Marxist, a Muslim, etc.) that they don't leave themselves any other choice than Romney (though ideologically-pure wing-nuts vow to write-in Ron Paul instead).

The only reason this matters a pinch of owl-dung is that nominally-Christian Christians (a majority of the American Church) have chosen to be fervent participants in the sham drama. They think politics is going to turn America back to God, and intend to be the ones who will restore America to its rightful place as God's Own Nation.

For the spiritually-superficial, -dishonest, -ignorant or -disingenuous, the way of godliness is to proclaim "conservatism" as the political equivalent of Christianity. "Conservative" politicians are happy to have a huge voting-bloc they can always count on: and their Christian followers are happy to know they're doing what God requires in voting for His Party.

The times of this ignorance God has winked at, but now commands all Christians to repent. (Acts 17:30)

What should WE repent ?, say those who trust in themselves that they are righteous, and view others with contempt. (Luke 18:9)

Repent of rejecting God's mind, purpose, and wisdom for your own. Repent of rejecting His Kingdom in favor of a human one. Repent of trusting in the strength of your own arm. Repent of trusting in human political ideologies, economic theories, and electoral processes. Repent of striving to enact righteousness in human legislation more than in human hearts.

But those who have chosen the "conservative" worldview over the mind of Christ should be concerned about more than Romney's luke-warm "conservatism." Perhaps some DO find his ardent Mormonism a concern. Even the superficial must know that Mormons believe in a different "Jesus," teach a different "gospel," and believe a different "bible." Even most ignorant Christians know Mormonism is somehow a "heresy." May the Church repent its flirtation with the political power of the world's kingdom. And repent even more its acceptance, on political considerations, of "the spirit of antiChrist" in Mormonism !! God, wake Your people that they know the time !!

course-check

Intensive prayer and continuous meditation in scripture changes us. It sets us at complete variance with the mind that is in the world. It also sets us at variance with other Christians who don't follow that fierce discipline. Except for God's intervention otherwise, it can be a lonely thing to follow Him with all our heart. Doing what I've "been apprehended for" sometimes seems intolerably solitary. I've been praying lately for a companion-in-the-faith. Donna has been a great blessing; having had the same good teaching as a foundation, she understands where I'm coming from, even if she doesn't share the exact same burden. But it would seem a great strength to have a close prayer-partner to whom God's given the same burden. Most recently, I'm thinking my prayer may not be the right one. Being solitary with him certainly seems to often go with the ministry of prophets. If that's God's intent for me, I wouldn't want otherwise. I'm sure He'll make it clear what His will is, either way.

Lo, the poor "Conservative"

I have no particular feelings toward Rick Santorum. Indeed, the current emphasis on PERSONALITIES (rather than issues and ideas) is probably the biggest red herring of what passes for American politics. But Santorum is such a complete catalog of everything wrong with "conservatives" that he makes a perfect example.

He has perfectly exemplified the waffling "conservative" attitude toward abortion. And he's taken up the the "conservative" pose of victimization that is such a pervasive and unlovely part of that faction's self-image.

Santorum told the talk-shows how he suffered when he was in college for openly championing his "conservative" beliefs in that "liberal" world. It's a long-running theme for "conservatives," starting with William F. Buckley's "God and Man at Yale" in 1951.

It may well have been true for Buckley. But Santorum's frat-brothers and professors doubt he experienced any such thing. They remember him as a typical frat-boy, interested in girls, sports, and beer. His frat-brothers say he only stood out for his political ambitions. (And that, we know, rings true.)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/01/rick-santorum-frat_n_1312924.html

and

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/05/rick-santorum-penn-state_n_1322663.html?icid=maing-grid10%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl15%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D140823

Besides those close eyewitnesses, there are other reasons to doubt Santorum's self-pitying memories. Most convincing is that he told an interviewer, on his first political contest 10 years after college, that he was "...basically pro-choice all my life, until I ran for Congress" in 1990. It's hard to believe that the "liberal" bullies on his campus persecuted Santorum for (by his own admission) sharing their views.

We all know the "conservatives" checklist. A "conservative" must hate Obama: extra "conservative" creds for irrationality and shrillness. He must claim to be pro-life, pro-military, and pro-business. He must bash "the liberal media," "activist judges," "big government," "enviro-Nazis," gay marriage, unions, global warming, illegal aliens...the list goes on and on. (And above all, politically-correct "conservatives" must be against "political correctness.")

But there's also an attitudinal check-list for "conservatives," and its first requirement is self-pity. I'm skeptical of Santorum's claim to have bullied on campus for his "conservative" views because it too perfectly mimics the attitude by which "conservatives" pander to their "base."

It's hard to take that "conservative" attitude seriously when so much of it is false. "The activist judges" who handed down the Roe v. Wade decision were overwhelmingly "conservative," and the Court has remained so. "Conservatives" have dominated American politics for 30 years. The biggest player in the world of "liberal media" is Rupert Murdoch's News Corp, whose deliberately-"conservative" slant on the "news" reaches over 90% of American homes. It's hard to swallow the "persecuted minority" self-image from a faction that dominates courts, politics, and media.

But as Santorum knows, it's the required attitude for any who wish to belong to that faction. Being able to spout the required attitude, and righteous indignation about it, on fabricated evidence probably marks him as indeed thoroughly "conservative." It seems illogical that "conservatives" want to think of themselves as downtrodden and persecuted: but those whose governing philosophy is being against government have no problem with illogic.

I've never really understood why "conservatives" find it advantageous to strike self-pitying poses. Perhaps it's supposed to draw our sympathies (and votes) to the poor underdogs who dominate our national life. Personally, I find self-pity, especially a self-pitying pose, disgusting. It reminds me of the joke:

Q.: What's the difference between a new litter of puppies and "conservatives" ?

A.: Puppies grow up, and stop whining.

The only real hope for "conservatives" is that they will repent, and follow Christ. In the meantime, perhaps we can at least hope they will grow up and stop whining.

Christian or "conservative"

The problem for those who want to call themselves "conservative Christians" is that they claim a factional Christianity. And that's a major problem from the outset. Any modifier attached to "Christianity" is heresy in the classical sense: a "dividing," as if there were a "conservative" Christ somehow different from Christ.

There's the problem too when any such modifier is a human categorization. "Conservative," from the realm of human politics, is certainly that. Regarding Christ as if He were subject to human categories is ultimately denial of His divinity, and His sovereignty. If Christ is subject to our categories, who then is the master ? Those who would reduce Christ to their human categories do so to make Him serve THEIR purposes.

But "Conservative Christians" typically claim that they must take that label to differentiate themselves from "liberal" Christians. They protest that they don't want to be associated with those who deny Christ's divinity, virgin birth, atoning death, etc. They claim they want to make it clear that THEY, in contrast, are "real" Christians (with all the pridefulness that implies).

I'm always surprised by that argument. Modifiers are only necessary to distinguish between things of the same kind: "green apples" and "red apples," for example. My "conservative" friends' insistence on that modifier indicates they must consider (those whom they call) "liberals" are another kind of Christian.

Christianity 101 for "conservative Christians:" no one who denies Christ's divinity and the biblical facts of His life is a Christian. The honest distinction is not between Christians who are "liberal" and Christians who are "conservative:" it's between Christians and non-Christians. There are ONLY "real Christians" and those who really aren't.

Another problem of "conservative Christianity" is its belief that Christianity is not quite sufficient. Why else would we add something to Christianity, unless we believed Christ didn't cover everything needful ? More to the point, why would we consider that He missed giving us a necessary political thought-system ?

Joining "conservative" to "Christian" clearly indicates a belief that Christianity doesn't adequately address human political ideas or behavior. Such a belief...or rather, lack of CHRISTIAN belief...evidences "conservatives" deep ignorance of Christian teaching. Christianity 101 for "conservative Christians:" study Romans 13: 1-7, and prayerfully follow those teachings.

Believing Christians, in contrast, are rooted in the fact Christ's teachings ARE all-sufficient, and address all our questions and needs. That's the substance of Christians' confession that Jesus is Lord, and sovereign over mankind and all man's works. Christians believe that Jesus is Lord even over human political acts and ideas, and has given us His full counsel towards both.

"Conservative Christians" purport that Christianity must be supplemented by a human poltical belief-system. But if Christianity is true, that Jesus and His teaching ARE sufficient, "conservative Christians" deceive themselves. What is perfect (in biblical terminology, "complete") is a unity in and of itself. Discarding, or re-fitting, or replacing components of what's whole and complete doesn't make it work better.

A unity can only be accepted as a whole, or rejected as a whole. It's false that Christ left us no instruction towards politics: and disingenuous (if not outright dishonest) that any human belief-system can be made to meld with, or supplement Christianity. God's thoughts are not man's thoughts. The two are mutually-exclusive: and the human belief-system of "conservative Christianity" can only be adopted by dispensing with "the mind that is in Christ."

God is merciful. I can pray (and do) that he'll extend His grace to "conservatives" for honest repentance. If "conservatives" will yet see that their prideful factionalism rejects Christ in favor of their "own way," perhaps some will turn back, and follow and obey Christ.

"Conservatives" and abortion

Can't remember exactly when I first heard of abortion, and was forced to think about what that is. It was probably in the late '60s, when I started to have an adult perspective on politics. It was probably when the governor of California, Ronald Reagan, signed the most permissive abortion law in the country.

At the time, legalizing abortion was considered a "conservative" position. "Conservatives" claimed to be defenders of our "rights" against Government interference. Ayn Rand and other "conservatives" taught that laws against abortion were a great intrusion of "statism" into personal decisions about sex and reproduction. (It's still the position of Ayn Rand's followers: http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5105.)

I'd been a teen-age Goldwater fan. But Reagan had been elected governor of California, and was the rising conservative figure. There was lots of national attention on what he did as Governor of California during those politically-turbulent times. That was probably the first time I ever heard of, and thought about, abortion.

At the time I was moving toward what I considered the logical conclusion of conservative principle: that government itself is the root of our problems. That made sense to me during those times of war and civil unrest, and I eventually became a convinced anarchist. (Reagan's thinking evidently moved in that direction too. He made anarchist principle an applause-line in his first inaugural, telling the country that "government is the problem.")

But I probably wasn't yet a thorough anarchist (or even the kind of half-anarchist we now call "libertarians") when I first thought about abortion. If I had been, I'd have had to view abortion as Government infringement on our "rights." But I didn't. I remember vividly my first thoughts about abortion. They remain my thoughts today: "That's killing a baby," and "That's WRONG."

I certainly wasn't the only one who looked at, or looks at, abortion that way. But it was not mainstream opinion, or even a mainstream "issue." When Ellen McCormack didn't get the Democratic presidential nomination in 1976, she ran as a third-party pro-life candidate. I remember relatives thought I was crazy to vote for her, since they considered the REAL issue of that presidential campaign was whether or not to give the Canal Zone back to Panama. Abortion was not even on the politicians' radar that year, well after Roe v. Wade.

But soon enough political manipulators discovered abortion, an "issue" that would play well to Christians...whose votes they were courting for 1980. Roe v. Wade set the national stage for the "issue," and attacking that decision also gave the manipulators a chance to flog another of their favorite whipping-horses, "activist liberal judges."

What they conveniently forgot (or ignored) was that 6 of the 9 justices who decided Roe v. Wade were Republican appointees, and a "conservative" majority on the Court. In the 7-2 decision, the only dissenters were one "conservative" (the Nixon-appointee, Rehnquist) and one "liberal" (actually the famously independent Kennedy-appointee, White, who voted with "conservatives" any time he thought their position adhered to the Constitution).

The "activist court" which ruled abortion was a Constitutional right was a "conservative" Court. And another inconvenient fact that was lost (or covered-up) by the manipulators was that the early criticism of Roe v. Wade was by "liberal" legal scholars. They called it a "frightening" decision, erecting a "...super-protected right...not inferable from the language of the Constitution..." (see legal comments at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade).

In the run-up to the 1980 election, Reagan and other "conservative" hopefuls duly announced they were AGAINST abortion. It played well to Christian voters, as their handlers had hoped. It worked so well that the "neo-con" faction which idolizes Reagan still requires its candidates to appease the Christian electoral sub-demographic with "pro-life" rhetoric.

But as with Reagan, most of those candidates' pro-life pronouncements seem to be political posturing rather than an expression of heart-felt conviction. We all know politicians will reverse a life-long record on one side of an "issue" when it's to their advantage to take the other side, and there's been a lot of that on abortion. George Bush the First, for example, came out as "pro-life" when his long-held pro-abortion beliefs stood in the way of his being Reagan's successor.

Some honest pro-life people have run as "conservatives" because they believe that faction's lip-service to their beliefs. But most of the candidates "conservatives" have foisted on us (Bob Dole, George the First and Second, John McCain) have shown little real moral conviction that abortion is WRONG.

The best evidence is that "conservatives" have done little to reverse Roe v. Wade. They've held the presidency for 20 of the last 32 years, and controlled Congress several additional terms under Democratic presidents (most notably during Gingrich' "revolution" under the Clinton administration). The Supreme Court has been a "conservative" majority that entire time. Scriptural wisdom is that what men do shows what they truly believe. It's telling that "conservatives" claim to believe abortion is a great EVIL, and have had both opportunity and the political power to do something about it: and haven't.

The contrast with what "conservatives" have done against "Obamacare" (their partisan terminology) is instructive. The national health-care act was signed into law barely two years ago. In those two years, "conservatives" have assaulted the working of that law in every state, "opting out" of or reversing it to every extent possible. "Conservative" Congresspeople have attempted to nullify every provision of the law. "Conservatives" have challenged the law's constitutionality before several federal courts, and right now have their challenge on the Supreme Court docket. It seems reasonable to expect, if "conservatives" are truly outraged toward Roe v. Wade, they would have done at least as much to reverse it in the last 30 years as they've done to reverse "Obamacare" in two years.

But the underlying problem goes beyond two-faced politicians. Politics itself is "the art of compromise." Finding abortion WRONG is a moral judgement: and moral judgements deal with absolutes. With abortion as with slavery, politics is simply the wrong tool. The Christian worldview is even more stark in this regard: human politics is part of the evil "kingdom of this world," and cannot ultimately do righteousness.

It's a continuing problem for those who want to tout "conservatives" as the faction of righteousness. This week was a good example. Rick Santorum, the current "Christian conservative" rock-star of the Republican primaries, was criticized for his waffling views towards abortion.

Santorum's campaign hurried to affirm their candidate is pro-life, and always has been. But it's the usual political spin: what else would we expect from a candidate's handlers ? After his 1990 election to Congress, Santorum admitted in a magazine profile that he was actually "...basically pro-choice all my life, until I ran for Congress."

It seemed an unusually candid admission from a politician, but his campaign that year showed the typical "conservative" temporizing. He cautioned against trying to criminalize what many people consider a "right." His 1990 position-paper said he only opposed third-trimester and publicly-funded abortions. In another post-election interview, Santorum admitted that on abortion he'd tried to "dance around the issue, not really take a position on it." It's not the stance of moral conviction.

Mitt Romney too has been criticized for waffling on abortion. He had claimed to be "unequivocally pro-choice" in his unsuccessful run for Ted Kennedy's Senate seat in the '90's: and only decided he was pro-life a couple years after being elected Massachusetts' governor in 2003. So his loyalists gleefully rubbed Santorum's nose in his own equivocations. But I doubt most of us, Romney and Santorum partisans excepted, consider that gotchas and oneupmanship prove a candidate's pro-life convictions.

What makes any person "pro-life" is a heart-felt moral conviction that abortion is WRONG. I'm pro-life because of that conviction. But politics doesn't deal in heart-felt moral convictions. Politics rewards its players' ambition and ability to manipulate the truth, not their righteousness.

Get down to it, what politicians desire above all else is political power. They will mouth whatever "position" furthers their ambitions, whether or not they believe it. That's why we see "conservative" politicians against "gay rights," until they're outed: or who champion "family values" while they molest teen boys.

We can't expect anything else from those whose hearts are set on the corrupt power of the world's kingdom, under the enemy's sway. But even the blind denizens of that realm know that what politicians SAY is no indication of what's in their hearts. In that, they are wiser than most Christians.

Our nation is sick-unto-death because Christians deceive themselves, and so choose to follow deceivers. We should be the country's moral compass, pointing toward righteousness. How can America not wander, lost, when the Church points our country to transparent political deceptions ? Our unbelieving fellow citizens are wise enough to distrust us, and despise the Church's "moral leadership." Well they should.

But even in their self-delusion, it may be that some "conservative Christians" still love Christ more than than their "conservatism." God is merciful: it may be that He will yet give some the grace to repent. Let those in whose hearts He has set love of Truth forsake the broken cisterns they drink from, and turn back from following their own blind way ! God is merciful: let us seek Him and repent !

Asking the Wrong Things of Government

We all know human organizations work better by being smaller and more efficient. But we also know that in partisans' mouths "smaller" and "more efficient" are primarily code-words for "less expensive." The real criteria of "small government" partisans, to the exclusion of almost every other consideration, is money.

It's one monomania of "conservatives" today. We easily assent to the plausibility of their madness because everyone knows government could be better if it were smaller, more efficient, and less costly. The problem is that the cost of government (or its size, or its efficiency) is the wrong criteria.

Any discussion of what is good, or "better," or "best" is a moral question, presented in moral terms. The problem is that moral questions speak to right and wrong; and the size, efficiency and cost of government are, in themselves, neither.

Made in the likeness of God...Who Alone IS Good, Jesus says...man has moral capability. Things created by man: whether ideas like efficiency, or objects like money: take on a moral dimension only in man's use of them. Governmental efficiency can be a moral evil, as in the crematoria of the Nazis. Government spending can be a moral good, as in our aid to the starving after that war.

The governmental systems and concepts men have devised can likewise only be considered in moral terms ("better," for example) according to how man uses them. Communism, for example, is morally judged not according to its paradisical concept, but on its hellish practice.

The great mistake in morally evaluating government is to draw the line the wrong place. Christian ideas and attitudes about moral government are rooted, first and only, in the Kingdom of God: perfect governance, owing nothing to man. Human governments may manifest some relative moral difference, between the "better" and the "worse." But all Christian consideration of government begins and ends in our King, Who Alone IS absolute Good.

The only line of distinction Christians should recognize, or take as their own, is between His rule and man's.