Mike Huckabee and the two kingdoms
January 8th, 2008Kim Riddlebarger has an interesting post about Mike Huckabee and his confusion over his role as a minister and a candidate for public office.
When viewed from the perspective of the two kingdoms, every Christian is simultaneously a citizen of both kingdoms and our theological beliefs should inform how we behave as citizens. But there’s no distinction of kingdoms with Huckabee in a pulpit, and Huckabee’s “soldiers in God’s army” are people who will serve his political cause. In other words, they’ll vote for him and encourage others to do the same. Fine for a political rally. Not fine for a church service.
Hat tip: Larry
>In his sermon, Huckabee stated “When we become believers, it’s as if we have signed up to be part of God’s Army, to be soldiers for Christ.” This raises a number of red-flags.
I don’t understand how that could that raise red flags. NT Scripture contains many references to believers and warfare (2 Corinthians 10:4, 1 Timothy 1:18, 2 Timothy 2:4, Romans 13:12, Ephesians 6:11, Ephesians 6:13, Ephesians 6:17). These references are not to physical things, but spiritual things.
Well, I hate to admit this since I’ve pushed Huckabee, but the more I’ve researched Ron Paul the more I like him. I don’t agree with him on issues like gay marriage, but how much can one person really accomplish in every area in which they campaign on. I’m also leaning towards Fred Thomson.
“When we become believers [in Jesus], it’s as if we have signed up to be part of God’s Army, to be soldiers for Christ.”
Wow! Just, wow. Jesus taught peace not Republicanism. He’s using Jesus for political leverage. That said, that’s why he will probably win the Republican nomination.
When you use the name of God as a means to furthering your own political ambitions, that is what “taking the name of the Lord in vain” really means.
Huckabee seems to be saying, either you are on my side, the Lord’s side, or you are working against God. I wish someone would ask him,”Is it possible for someone to be working towards your defeat while still working for and pleasing the Lord?”
I don’t think I’m misunderstanding Riddlebarger with this summary:
If you’re a politician, you can’t proclaim the Gospel. If you want to proclaim the Gospel, don’t go into politics.
Riddlebarger is creating a false dichotomy (politician vs minister), and his conclusion doesn’t follow. He’s just trying to justify not liking Huckabee’s politics and hiding behind Christian words. He is doing exactly what he accuses Huckabee of doing.
Isn’t part of politics convincing people that you think like they do, so you would represent them well? That’s probably why atheists don’t like Huckabee: he doesn’t think along the same lines they do.
Joel, Huckabee seems to be saying, either you are on my side, the Lord’s side, or you are working against God.
Why do you say that? Did you read a different article than what I read?
Here’s my question to you: Is it possible for God to call someone to run for office, and that person be defeated?
Another question: Does God’s call infer (sp?) worldly success?
I’m going do the same thing you did: put words in Huckabee’s mouth. I think he would answer the question, “Yes.”
Joel,
the “Yes” refers to the question YOU want ask of Huckabee.
“That’s probably why atheists don’t like Huckabee: he doesn’t think along the same lines they do.”
Or, it could be because they view him as a religious fanatic.
Huckabee: Divine Providence Helps My Poll Numbers
I honestly don’t know much about Huckabee’s positions outside of his personal faith in Jesus. From what I saw of him in the debate on Saturday he doesn’t impress me when you get away from topics involving his faith.
I am sick of being pandered to by politicians who think they can use my faith to guilt me into voting for them. Republican does not equal Christian first of all. And in the case of some Republicans who are Christians, like Huckabee, the candidates faith doesn’t mean that I by default have to agree with him on policy issues.
I support Ron Paul. Most conservatives don’t like him because he is against the war but on every domestic and economic issue he is dead on. Stick to the constitution, don’t spend more than you make, and keep the federal government small.
When it comes to the war I am conflicted. After nearly 5 years it seems that the Iraqi people are incapable of, or at least unwilling to, govern themselves. The surge has succeeded in reducing violent attacks but the whole point of the surge was to buy time for the political reconciliation and the formation of a functional government. How long should American’s subsidize Iraqi incompetance with the blood of our soldiers and money from our wallets? I know, I know its our fault that such violence and insecurity exists and if we pulled out now there would be a blood bath, hence my conflict.
My choice for the president is going to come down to McCain or Paul; ie foreign or domestic policy issues.
I still like Huckabee, don’t get me wrong. But my concern is that if he gets the nomination he won’t be the Republican candidate but the Christian candidate and every mistake he makes will be reflected on the church. That’s unfair, but I know that is how it will play out. I still think he would make a very good vice-presidential candiate.
I’m with you mostly, Abe, although Ron Paul strikes me as naive.
As for the war, remember that before we went into Iraq there were 20 years of bloodbath, along with payments to terrorists and invasions of neighboring countries. We’re investing a lot of money and losing some precious lives there, but after WWII it was the same thing: Our money rebuilt Europe and our troops kept it safe and let it stabilize over some 50 years (internal terrorist attacks were common in parts of Europe into the ’80s). We still have troops in S. Korea, another nation we saved that’s now prosperous. We’re actually in a post-war period in Iraq, and we need to be prepared for the long haul.
I’ve said many times here I support Ron Paul.
I will say though, that Christians cannot have it both ways. You either want your leaders to be Christian and say things like Huckabee does or you don’t. And I don’t mean people on this blog, but in general. A politician is supposed to bring the wants of his supporters to office. That’s all Huckabee is talking about, imo.
As for atheists thinking he is “a religious fanatic”, anyone who speaks extensively on the subject or is deeply involved in their faith is pretty much considered a religious fanatic. Such short-sightedness should be dismissed immediately. The application of labels for a lack of understanding is 3rd grade stuff.
I’m glad Huckabee believes in Christ, but I still don’t like his big-government tendencies. The answer to society’s problems is NOT getting government to fix them. Government tends to exacerbate problems and make them worse — see the results of LBJ’s War on Poverty or what has become of government education since the feds took greater control in the 1950s.
I support Ron Paul for president because he is the only (though Duncan Hunter is a strong second) one that espouses small government principles and has a consistent record to that end. I don’t think Paul is naive at all… just a man of high ideals that makes an awful lot of sense when you hear him. Google his interview with John Stossel.
“As for atheists thinking he is “a religious fanatic”, anyone who speaks extensively on the subject or is deeply involved in their faith is pretty much considered a religious fanatic.”
But Z, if Huckabee thinks that his poll numbers are the result of divine intervention, isn’t that fanatical? I mean, what does God care about poll numbers?
>I mean, what does God care about poll numbers?
poll numbers = people
Men have said for thousands of years - “Who is God that He should care about me?!” Yep, it’s mind boggling. … but it’s true. God works in the lives of people everyday - including yours and mine.
OK, let me get this straight. The writer of this article doesn’t want to “hold his nose” and vote for someone who promotes conservative Christian values simply because the guy is a minister who may be somewhat misaligned in one area of his theology, opting instead to abstain from voting and potentially allowing someone who actively promotes values diametrically opposed to his own to win the election.
I guess that makes sense to somebody.
“…the more I’ve researched Ron Paul the more I like him.”
Speaking of Ron Paul, there are charges of voter fraud in the NH primary…
Voter Fraud Against Paul Confirmed in Sutton, N.H.
On a related note…
I may not agree with Ron Paul, but he deserves every single vote he gets. The same applies to Obama. It looks like it cost him the win. I hope this is all just a mistake an not actual fraud.
We had a guy in my church who ran for the city council a few years ago. He resigned his position as an elder so as not to cause the kind of confusion that Riddlebarger is talking about.
I get why a political candidate would want to preach in a church and claim that God was making him popular with voters. I’m not sure why any church would let a politician get anywhere near the pulpit.
who do you like Cine?
In the Republican race, I like McCain the most because he is a war veteran, former POW and very experienced. I like Obama for the Democrats because he is very articulate, which is so unlike Bush, and he has made overtures to the conservatives in an attempt to unite a politically divided nation.
I know that Ron Paul is the leader in receiving military contributions. Isn’t that amazing? McCain is 2nd.
http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2007/Q3/
“John McCain’s statement in favor of keeping troops in Iraq for 100 years or longer puts him out of sync with the majority of Americans, who want our troops to come home. Further, his comments recklessly put America at risk as such a statement will likely serve as a recruiting tool for Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, who appeal to radicals and incite violence against Americans by claiming that the US desires to occupy the Middle East indefinitely.”–RP
I guess I’m running a theme of disagreements today, but how is it just me that thinks Ron Paul sounds like a nut?
I heard him on Meet The Press. Paul that is.
He sounds like a ‘nut’ because its been 75 years or more since we’ve had anyone run for president who truly believed the government of this country should be controlled by the constitution. We’re simply not used to hearing such things.
Agreed, Larry. He has (unfortunately) unique ideas that haven’t been espoused by any other candidates.
Anything in particular that disturbs you Tony?
Also, I highly recommend the film “No End In Sight”. It’s a heartbreaking, infuriating documentary about the absolute incompetence of our leaders before and during the Iraq war. I consider it must viewing for every American.
I have been a Bush-backer for a long time, but I never thought about foreign policy differently until I looked up Ron Paul. At first I thought he was a nut too, but the more I listened to him the more he made sense. I don’t agree with him on everything, but so much of what he says makes so much sense and I wish there was someone running who was closer to his views but just not so radical.
Larry,
Actually I thought through that after my post, whether or not it was “nut-like” because the ideas were so foreign to the mainstream and not necessarily because they were nutty ideas. I’m still not sure, I guess because it has been so long since people have thought the way he does its hard to differentiate. I’ll have to do more research on him.
Ron Paul is not the polished politician that we are used to. Obviously he’s not going to get the nomination. I just hope that his ideas make a big impact upon the Republican Party and open up debate on some of the issues within the party. It needs it bad. Unless there is someone who stands up and says that they are willing to stop this war I’m afraid the Republicans are in for a big defeat come November.
It’s interesting that whenever I speak with people about Ron Paul or they hear his ideas for the first time, I always end up hearing the words “common sense”.
It’s interesting that whenever I speak with people about Ron Paul or they hear his ideas for the first time, I always end up hearing the words “common sense”.
Funny, that’s not what came to my mind when I read some of the ugly, racist ideas that were published under Ron Paul’s name in his newsletters.
January 8, 2008 5:28 am EST
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – In response to an article published by The New Republic, Ron Paul issued the following statement:
“The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.
“In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person’s character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: ‘I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.’
“This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It’s once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.
“When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”
“Libertarians are incapable of being a racist, because racism is a collectivist idea.” (Ron Paul on CNN)
CNN and good ol’ Fox News have both done all they can to silence Paul’s message of personal liberty, less intrusive governing, and real fiscal conservatism. These principles and the fact that they are being embraced by more and more voters have the GOP shaking its collective head. The media has done all it can though to limit the “front runners” to candidates that fit the mold, basically Democrats and Republicans alike that will pander their way right into the White House.
em
Funny that you believe everything you read without digging just a bit deeper.
Total smear job.
http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=41822
Google the writer “Kirchick” too if you are referencing the TNR article.
I saw this video of Ron Paul that FOX censored in the replay of the Republican debate.
Ron Paul Breaks It To Them Gently
Cineaste - not sure which replay you’re talking about (maybe it was edited to only show candidates with half a prayer of winning?), but Fox definitely showed that exchange during the live telecast.
Zoner - I researched the allegations about Paul’s newsletter pretty thoroughly because I was seriously considering voting for him. It seems that at best, he allowed himself to be associated with a bad crowd of people, and did a poor job of keeping tabs on the things being said in his name. That indicates a serious lack of judgment which - despite my agreement with him on a number of issues - will cost him my vote.
“It seems that at best, he allowed himself to be associated with a bad crowd of people”
“That indicates a serious lack of judgment”
If those are your standards, who exactly does that leaves on the list of folks eligible for your vote?
If those are your standards, who exactly does that leaves on the list of folks eligible for your vote?
Whoever bids highest.
Peter-
I could just as easily do the same thing to you that was done to Paul and you’d likely never know about it until the damage was done. Would that be a lack of judgment on your part?
He obviously refuted all the claims and he’s not a racist. The voters in Texas believed him and have continued to elect him into office for the past 10 years.
The fact remains that he has the most African -American support of any Republican candidate.