Skip to content

Insane Quote of the Day

Politics is direct involvement in democratic partisan activity with the goal of changing the law so as to facilitate either social service, social action or both. The Church and clergy should stay out of politics and Christians should participate as individuals in existing parties or through Christian parties.

This has got to be one the most naive and asinine definitions of politics ever to be written, even from the ranks of fundamentalists. Apparently politics only happens in democracies between partisan political parties. Aren’t we lucky that America came along and invented politics, kids?

And the fantastically contrived dichotomy between “the Church” and “Christians as individuals” is something I really wish people would see the stupidity of. If individual Christians are the real political agents and the church needs to quietly stay out politics, then why don’t we just fess up and admit that we don’t really think the church exists at all? If the church is not a social and political body then it is nothing. Or at least nothing like what Scripture indicates about the church.

Don’t even get me started on “Christian parties.” This has got to be the most mind-numbingly ridiculous construal of the role of Christianity in politics that I’ve read in ages. Sigh.

13 Comments

  1. robert wrote:

    While he claims to be trying to reclaim Augustine’s thought, he’s clearly singing to the tune of Maritain and his acquiescence to modernity and Liberalism.

    Thursday, August 13, 2009 at 12:31 pm | Permalink
  2. Brad A. wrote:

    Welcome to my world, folks (although I’m sure many of you are in it, too).

    It’s really hard for me to believe he’s read Yoder when he utters stuff like that.

    Btw, you seem really fixated on this guy, Halden…

    Thursday, August 13, 2009 at 12:53 pm | Permalink
  3. Halden wrote:

    Its like watching a train wreck…just can’t quite look away. I’m trying my best.

    Thursday, August 13, 2009 at 12:54 pm | Permalink
  4. Nathan Smith wrote:

    I wonder how many posts will end up in the “things that make you want to gouge your eyes out with your pinky, shove scalding hot pokers in your ears, and repeatedly slam the door of a 1950s-vintage, American-made sedan on your head” category.

    Thursday, August 13, 2009 at 3:41 pm | Permalink
  5. Halden wrote:

    I created it to put stuff in. I’m sure I’ll find things. Hopefully not just from this one particularly disastrous blog, though.

    Thursday, August 13, 2009 at 3:42 pm | Permalink
  6. Well, if you don’t move far away from this crap, you’ll get blamed for its brand of crazy. After all, its liberals like you to whom this is a reaction against. … Wait, what?!

    Thursday, August 13, 2009 at 3:54 pm | Permalink
  7. Halden wrote:

    Actually as Robert notes above, if anything Carter is the real liberal for insisting that the church stay out of politics, while insisting that “individual Christians” get on board with certain movements within the state.

    Constantinianism anyone?

    Thursday, August 13, 2009 at 3:59 pm | Permalink
  8. robert wrote:

    Contantine never went so far as Liberalism. He only partnered with the Church and put it into his service to some extent. The Liberal state, though, marked the Church as a competitor and dismembered it. If Craig is really serious about bringing the thought of Augustine and Thomas to bear on political questions it will mean rejecting the “good” of the Church’s subjugation to the state and remembering the Body of Christ as an actual (authoritative) body that stands in judgment of the state and demands primary allegiance of its members.

    Thursday, August 13, 2009 at 5:58 pm | Permalink
  9. I dunno Halden, you have sooooo many Rawls books in your room — never mind your shrines to Hobbes, Locke, Hegel, and Novak.

    Thursday, August 13, 2009 at 10:38 pm | Permalink
  10. Adam Weinert wrote:

    You could put Driscoll’s stuff in your new category?

    Friday, August 14, 2009 at 12:04 am | Permalink
  11. Dan wrote:

    What does it mean that I knew that this was Carter before I even clicked the link?

    Friday, August 14, 2009 at 3:49 pm | Permalink
  12. R.O. Flyer wrote:

    Nice. It is funny to me that he places Lesslie Newbigin and John Stott in the same camp in this post.

    Sunday, August 16, 2009 at 10:50 am | Permalink
  13. John Tyson wrote:

    Maybe Carter would be a little more tolerable if we was even a good Augustinian. But, he can’t even get that right.

    Monday, August 17, 2009 at 2:08 pm | Permalink

Switch to our mobile site