Throughout history theocracies have come and gone.
God, gods…all made in man’s image and lust for power.
I don’t live in a country where God, gods or Satan is evoked everytime I turn the corner. But around the world, millions do.
As I watch the US electoral process unfold I’ve been keeping a personal commitment not to post anything that would offend my neighbours to the south.
(It works in theory):^)
Last year I linked up to an article by a guy named James Heflin.
I get curious about fundamentalism and he had written an article entitled “Wonder-Working Power”. I wondered if James Heflin would get a lot of hate mail.
If he did, he has recovered to write this: “Their Will Be Done.”
As I mentioned before, Heflin is a former Baptist and I think he deserves a serious hearing.
The old saw “my freedom ends where your nose begins” is unimportant to them; they apparently stop at only the first three words of Jesus’ admonition to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This is not a contradiction that bothers fundamentalists, because they would, they feel, be stripping away our rights for our own good, for the saving of our souls. To hold that religious pluralism is good, they contend, is to hold that moral relativism is good. They know the Truth, and they know that even more moderate Protestants are hellbound, in need of saving. Theirs is a world of absolutes, and it is to them only a matter of our sinfulness that keeps us from seeing those absolutes. There can be no debate with such a viewpoint, but no matter: Fundamentalists are not interested in debating. The more the Left employs careful, nuanced debate, expecting the enlightenment of reason to moderate the Right, the more the Right will successfully demonize them for moral relativism. The specter of moral relativism in turn provides them with a tool for fearmongering and recruiting.
This isn’t just about voting Republican or Democrat.
It’s something we Canucks need to ponder also.
And we are a bit less likely to send hate mail, given the Southern Baptists haven’t got their roots down here as firmly, but if it wasn’t the SBC it would be another religious or denominational group.
Heflin goes into the history of fundamentalism in America.
(No. I am not going to say root causes!)
Give this a read.
And as a commenter said about Mr. Heflin’s last article…”Wow. We’re all gonna die. 
”
A few points on the piece
(1) The Constitution Restoration Act has a snowball’s chance in Hades of passing. While the idea of using the Constitutional power of Congress to limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is being bantied about in conservative circles; that bill in question would be lucky to get 25% support, let alone the 60% needed to get past a Senate fillibuster.
(2) Helflin does a bait and swich by combining Reconstructionists and Southern Baptists. Baptists lean towards a premillennial theology, where Reconstrustionists are postmillennial; the two might agree on the general political direction desired, the two aren’t on the same escatalogical page. Reconstructionists are a distinct minority in the evangelical community; I’ve seen one in 19 years in various evangelical circles. While Heflin didn’t directly link the two, the less-astute reader would assume that theocons are closet Reconstructionists.
(3) Heflin has a fine whine made from liberal Baptist sour grapes. In places like the PCUSA and the Episcopal Church, the liberals wound up ruling the roost and ousting the conservatives. In the SBC, the liberals/moderates got the short end of the stick and were given the left foot of disfellowship; the center-left of the SBC took off and formed the Cooperative Baptists.
As a former Southern Baptist (actually, since I’ve not formally become a member of either Vineyard church I’ve attended in the last four years, I’m technically still a Southern Baptist) I find his take of the denomination a bit overwrought, to say the least.
That bill won’t pass, but the story does say exactly that. You may be right that these “theocons” aren’t “closet Reconstructionists,” but few if any would oppose a Reconstructionist state. THey’re more like “unwitting Reconstructionists.”
What is the Vineyard’s take regarding separation of church and state?
I don’t know if they’ve taken a stand that I know of; they’re not overly political.
From where I sit, I have to look at where James Heflin has been. And to where he is going with this.
Reconstructionists and the Baptists may well not be on the same escatalogical page, but I’m hard pressed to deny that politics makes strange bedfellows.
Don’t worry about writing stuff that might offend us, your neighbors to the south. Shoot, we generally find a way to get offended by just about ANYTHING!