BDW, I am really talking about what the Democratic Party has been known for. If they are not defending civil liberties any longer and if that was just an ACLU thing, then what real purpose do they serve in that area? Doesnt their relative abandonment of those positions kind of prove my point?

Charles, if a revolution happens then our individual guns will be of little use. Especially as Christians. We have better spiritual weapons anyway. I dont know if we understand how powerful the U.S. military is. Armed resistance would be a disaster. Of much better use in that situation would be nonviolent resistance. Sent from my iPhone

Joe, Romans 13 is left wing drivel? I will give you one more chance to actually engage an argument here instead of just spew vitriol. What have I said that is wrong or unbiblical? Use a gun to protect yourself and/or the weak? Submit to the authorities? Be careful that you are not overtaken by fear but trust in God?

It did not make it out of committee. Seven from this perspective, they did not want to address it. It might be because ALCAP, the political lobby of the SBC in Alabama, was involved in its passage, at least from supporting the Republican reps who promoted it.

I am not saying that Fox is more credible than any of the other news agencies. They have their own issues with bias. SOMETHING happened in Benghazi and because our Free Press is fundamentally broken, it is almost impossible to figure out what unless you do a massive amount of personal digging, fact checking, and weighing of sources. The vast majority of people are no going to do that. The truth is out there, but as long as it does not get to the masses, it has no real power. That seems to be how some people want it. Sent from my iPhone

Basic economics: Guns or Butter. You cant have both. I am a regular critic of our entitlement largesse. We need to deal with it. But, having troops in 180 countries and fighting two wars for the past decade and spending more on defense than all the other nations on the planet combined doesnt come cheap either. I dont know why you feel the need to support that expenditure at the level that it is. We obviously dont have money for either. I really dont see Christians addressing all of the social needs of our nation either.

Christiane, I appreciate the sentiment and caring for poor children should certainly be a priority. But, even if you taxed the wealthiest at 100% of their income and we were not in any wars, we would still be running massive deficits. Entitlements are killing us and are unsustainable. Eventually, we wont be able to borrow anymore, the dollar will be worthless, and we wont be able to help anyone and we will all be starving. It is a matter of basic economics. Something must be done but there is no political will to address this. My solution is to stop the wars, slash spending, reform entitlements drastically, raise taxes by closing loopholes, and declare war on the budget deficit like it was a moral enemy. Get our house in order and then rebuild. If we dont, the American Experiment will go bankrupt.

Robert, America is not a theocracy. The church does not have the power of the sword to punish sin that way. And, even if it did, we do not have that mandate. Plus, there are many other sins according to the OT that require death besides homosexuality. Also, all sin leads to death - sin of all kinds. The result is death anyway. If you want Islam, then that option is available to you, I guess. But, that perspective is not consistent with New Covenant Christianity.

Philip, as always, you make great points. We are an interdependent society that is very complex. Simplistic solutions to complex issues usually just skim the surface. But, Democracies can be manipulated with partial truths, so we continue to engage in them, even if they are problematic. I do believe in Conservative governing principles, but I think that all sides need to put their cards on the table about what type of society they expect and then figure out what it takes to fund that society and do so responsibly. Just shouting the mantra of Low taxes does not take into account the true situation, especially if you live in a state that receives tax money from California - a state that is going bankrupt as we speak. Now, California needs to solve their own problems, but what if they quit sending in their tax dollars to the Federal Government? It affects all of us, obviously.

Mary, You make great points. Delineating between which Federal dollars are truly going to Federal projects and which ones go to State projects would be a good place to start. Of course, one must realize that there are Blue states that also have large populations as well as small populations. The fact that California, Delaware, and New Jersey are all sending in more money than they receive tells me that this is not simply about demographics. Delaware is a very small state, but it has Dover AFB and the federal dollars that goes with it. California is huge and is in its own fiscal debt crisis, yet it sends in more money to the Federal Government than it receives back - $5 sent in for every $4 dollars it receives. When California goes completely bankrupt and a Federal bailout is required, Conservatives in Alabama are going to scream to high heaven - all the while ignoring the fact that California has been footing their bill for a long time now. Yes, I get that this is a liberal talking point, but it is one with some merit, I think. The Liberal solution is not for states to stop receiving money - it is for everyone to pay in more because everyone benefits. My solution is to stop talking about fiscal conservatism when you are getting money from other states that you dont have to pay yourself unless you are willing to be more consistent. I agree that there are different designations here and it would be helpful to lay those out. We might see a different picture if we did. But, the fact that much of this holds true for states large and small tells me that something else is going on besides just an oversight.

Mary, I understand where the money goes and how those constituencies still vote Democratic - often because they know that they will continue to receive help from the Federal Government even if their state does not come through for them. My point is that the state should be more responsible for the needs of its own citizens and that neighbors should take care of the common good in their city. Using education as an example in Alabama, we pay some of the lowest property taxes in America because the timber and agricultural lobby has effectively gotten property tax rates reduced. Education is funded by property taxes. So, wealthy people either put their kids in private schools or move to affluent bedroom communities and then fund their own school systems, leaving the masses behind under the claim that hey are not going to pay into a corrupt system. Yet, children do not even have text books to take home and study with in the poorer city schools. And, the wealthy dont care and say that they are not going to support higher taxes of any kind for schools or anything else. Meanwhile, we receive a larger share from the Federal Government (other states) and those well-off can take care of themselves. In many cases, the Conservative position just becomes a selfish position. Now, I am fundamentally conservative because I believe in the principles of self-reliance, small government, personal responsibility, and transcendent ethical positions. But, I also recognize that much that passes for Conservatism today is simply parasitic - for example, affluent bedroom communities that would not exist without the center city, but are filled with people who only condemn the city and its problems and move out to secure a better life for themselves. At the end of the day, we are all in this together and just because some have the means to be parasitic does not mean that their position is consistent or even moral. It surely isnt conservative. Yes, we are our brothers keeper and we should live and fight for the good of the city taking on its problems as our own, even if it inconveniences us. I also believe that this is a Kingdom value and as a Christian I think that we are to be a part of the solution instead of using our wealth and power to insulate ourselves from any problems. Obviously, I am speaking in general terms here and not specifically to every person or family who has to move to a better school district so their children can get a decent education. Because the thrust of society has been in a selfish direction, I do not expect every individual to take on the system by themselves. But, I think that economics are important if the Church could begin to look at this position collectively, perhaps we could hammer out a position that was both conservative as well as redemptive for all. That takes prophetic imagination, though, and a rethinking of almost everything. I dont blame individuals for not doing that themselves, but what if we started doing it together? What if Christians in a community addressed the education system together instead of leaving every family to fend for themselves and make the best of things? That is just one example, but there are many others.

Mary, that is a very good point and that type of funding would fit in what is clearly a Federal mandate. But, apart from that, I know that there are many Red states that fund education programs, social programs, highway development, etc., with Federal dollars that they could forsake if they took care of themselves and their own needs. Obviously, we would have higher state taxes in this case, but I cannot figure out why according to the Constitution, we have Federal money going to education in the states, for example. Shouldnt states educate their own people according to their own standards? Shouldnt states repair their own roads and bridges? Shouldnt states care for the needs of their own people as they see fit? Now, the Federal government is tasked with the defense of the nation and a few other things and those things that are related to Federal responsibilities should be paid for by all of the states equally, but if one state benefits more than another according to Federal spending in regard to those responsibilities, then perhaps they should pay a bit more in to recognize that benefit. My point is simply that most conservatives are conservative in name only when it comes to our tax structure. If we are really conservative, we would get off of the Federal dole and stand on our own in many areas.

Bart, thank you for the chance to clarify. I really was not intending to paint the minority position as harsh and unloving. I did not have a contrast in mind, though I receive your observation that it came across that way. I apologize. Also, in saying that we welcome those to the Lords Table who belong to Jesus, I really have just the issue of baptism in mind. As for disagreeing on the importance, I would submit to you that we see baptism as very important. We just recognize that we are on the other side of 2,000 years of church history with Constantinianism having muddied the waters drastically and not everyone has the same understanding on the issue of baptism. We do not believe that baptism saves a person, so we seek to work with someone who was taught from Scripture something different in this regard. At the same time, because we believe that salvation is by faith alone, we do not say that a person cannot remember the Lord in communion because they have a different understanding of baptism. I see what you are saying. Your point is that we diminish baptism because we dont tie it to the Lords Table. We would say that, while we believe the Presbyterian to be in error, for example, it would not be an error that we would be able to keep them from communing with Christ. Some do say that, obviously. They also say that Presbyterians and Methodists are unrepentant sinners and they are not in true churches. I think that this is more in the area of doctrinal disagreement instead of the area of unrepentant sin. Because I can disagree with someone doctrinally while still recognizing that they belong to Jesus, I have freedom to be who I am without trying to force them to agree with me. Rather, I continue to hold out the truth of my doctrinal understanding and pray that God will enlighten them. I understand your position and do not condemn you for it. It is more consistent than mine. I am trying to maintain the integrity of church membership and the importance of baptism as a prerequisite and signifier of salvation and the gospel story that our church has agreed upon while also recognizing that God has saved those outside of the Baptist churches and that it is His Table that he calls His people to and that there is a universal church. Perhaps our approach is imperfect and has some inconsistency, but it does not exist because of a doctrinal downgrade. It actually exists because we recognize multiple truths about the church local and universal and because we also recognize that we cannot force people to see things our way doctrinally - yet, they are still our brother in Christ. I think that if we lifted the baptism requirement for church membership, then we would be reducing our importance on baptism, but I understand that you see it differently and appreciate that critique.

True, Mike. But, this is an area where we have been specific and churches do what they think is best here. I have said it before, but our only real cooperation involves churches sending money up to the CP so our entities can do the work for them. That is what it means to cooperate in SBC life. Doctrinal differences are overlooked at that point - as long as they are not deemed too severe. Sent from my iPhone

Bart, we tell people to forsake their sin as they come to the Lords Table - to not partake in a manner unworthy of the Lord. So, that would apply to any unrepentant sin. We tell people to repent daily, especially when coming to the Lords Table. If they refuse to repent, those are issues we address. This is also why we partake of communion once a month. But, an equivalence has been made to those not baptized by immersion as unrepentant sinners (ala Mark Dever). I would not see it that way, but that is another post, isnt it? It is a post I have written in the past and that you and I debated in other posts when this came up several years ago. Here is my reflection on it:http://www.downshoredrift.com/downshoredrift/2009/02/why-open-communion-modified-best-reflects-our-spiritual-unity-in-christ.html

Maybe so, Clark. I am open to suggestion and critique. That is why the comment section is open. I did try to be clear, however, that I have no problem with anyone from either side articulating their belief or even by explaining it in contrast to the other side. You kind of have to do that. But, when you say that your side is the only place that a thinking, conscientious person can safely land, that your view is the view of Paul and the Apostles, and that everyone really needs to end up there, I dont see how you provide much room for the other side to coexist alongside of you or to partner with you. It is one thing to say that you think you are right and the other side is wrong. It is another thing to say some of the things that he said in the TGC video. I think that comments like that just inflame the rhetoric and are not helpful. They arent helpful when Patterson says them either. But, that is my view. Obviously, others have differing views. Of course, we are in the midst of a big mess as those with the different views keep expressing them, so I dont know if their way forward is best either. As I have said elsewhere, either we are going to get along and make room for each other in the SBC, or we are going to keep dividing and eventually go our own way. At some point we might need to figure out which direction we want to go.

Well said, Darryl.

Job, I think - I hope that you missed my point. As long as one side is promoting their view over and above the other, then there is no hope for working together. The SBC will eventually splinter and fall apart. Either we find a way forward together or we break into multiple groups. Or, we have a faux peace, like you are saying and just keep talking past one another.

Yes, that is definitely a possibility. Jerry Vines should be included in this discussion as well, as it seems that he continues to exert a great deal of influence. There are certainly other protagonists here. The issue is simply that unless there is a softening of hearts and a desire to be last instead of first on both parts, I doubt that we will make much progress. And you are right. Mohler and Patterson did have a very public discussion on this issue in 2006 that was supposed to create peace. Apparently, it didnt. Sent from my iPhone

Yes, Bill. Absolutely. That is a good distinction and I fully agree with your point. Thanks for the clarification. I really cannot add to what you have said here. Sent from my iPhone

So good, Christiane! Thank you! Sent from my iPhone

I was impressed with them as well. My point is that finding a way to address things like that or giving an alternative on issues of that matter when people bring resolutions like that is appropriate - even helpful. I think the Resolutions Committee did a great job. I just wish we could have spoken to that issue. Sent from my iPhone

The THEM are our children. The sins committed will be the very things that Christ forgives and where He shows His grace and redemption. It is not saying that we should win, but rather, when we do, Jesus will triumph over that too. Sent from my iPhone

Robert, I am not a fan of the Christian Left either. My solution is to be prophetic on issues at a local level instead of aligning ourselves with political parties that take us where they want to go. Thank you for your insight here. It is worth considering. Sent from my iPhone

Robert, I am not trying to denigrate. That is what they appear to be to me, hence the Washington, DC office. I am happy to be wrong. Sent from my iPhone