Charlemange’s Protestant Church

Too often Reformed Theologians neglect the church of the Middle Ages. It is not all bad, and even if it was it would still deserve our attention. There is one period, I particularly enjoy, the time of Charlemagne. Charlemagne was the first Holy Roman Emperor, crowned on Christmas Day 800 by Pope Leo III. He is an interesting figure over all, but the church under him and his son Louis the Pious is an interesting study. In fact, I believe I will here advance the idea that the church under Charlemagne was indeed a Protestant church rather than a Roman Catholic one.

Let me begin with qualifications. By Protestant church I mean, the church protesting against or refusing to follow the Roman leadership and the Eastern Orthodox leadership. I am not trying to say that Charlemagne or his church was reformed or anything of that nature. I am saying that it did not follow Rome, and was attempting to follow the Bible as its rule, not Rome. The other qualification is that the church under Charlemagne had many failing as well. For example, to a limited extent Charlemagne spread his religion with the sword, the church and the state were too intertwined, and the bishop system stayed in place. Just a few examples. However, in a series of posts to come I would like to show that Charlemagne’s church was a Protestant church in the following ways.

• Rejection of the Pope and Caesaropapism


• Reforming the clergy


• Worship


• Eucharist


• Predestination


• Scripture

McOlbermannism

It is plain for anyone who has ever watched Keith Olbermann that he wants to be Edward R. Murrow, and he thinks he is serving the same purpose as Mr. Murrow. Even as far back as Mr. Olbermann’s ESPN days he was making a distinction between ‘colleagues’ and ‘partners’ just like Mr. Murrow only referred to Fred Friendly as his ‘partner’ and everyone else was his colleague. Mr. Olbermann signs off his shows the same way, “Good Night and Good Luck.” And he has recently started doing editorial comments at the end of the show in an attempt to “throw stones at giants” just like Mr. Murrow.

After watching Mr. Olbermann’s must recent disrespectful rant, I watched the movie Good Night and Good Luck about Mr. Murrow and his war against Senator Joe McCarthy. Never before has anything been more clear. Mr. Olbermann in his desire to become just like Mr. Murrow has become Joe McCarthy. Allow me to illustrate.

• Murrow stayed away from personal attacks and used McCarthy’s own words against him, and Senator McCarthy resorted to name calling and personal attacks never addressing the facts. So too in this latest rant, Mr. Olbermann ignores facts, and only resorts to horrible name calling and twisting of what is really going on. For example Mr. Olbermann confuses Fox News and the Administration, and openly blames the Administration for Chris Wallace asking questions of President Clinton.


• Senator McCarthy is the one who attacks the news media and slanders the media for asking tough questions. Mr. Olbermann, despite often hating the way the Republicans demonize the media, called fellow media person Chris Wallace a "monkey". It should also be noted that an earlier guest on the show vindicated Chris Wallace as did Chris Matthews and Joe Scarborough, the two shows that flank Mr. Olbermann's disgrace of a news show.


• McCarthy questioned the patriotism during his time on the committee for UnAmerican activities, and Mr. Olbermann openly called President Bush’s actions not the actions of a "true American".


• Mr. Murrow said, "We should not confuse dissent with disloyalty." Yet, in this piece by Mr. Olbermann, the President’s dissent from Mr. Olbermann’s views is openly called disloyalty, and unamerican.


• McCarthy tried to convict via innuendo and Mr. Olbermann’s piece is nothing but innuendo.

In the end, there are no similarities between Edward Murrow and Keith Olbermann. None. However, there is also one major difference between Senator McCarthy and Keith Olbermann. Senator McCarthy hated communism, viewed it as a threat, and later reports show that McCarthy was right, communists had infiltrated the American government. He was simply a smart man, elected by the people, trying to do his job. Mr. Olbermann on the other hand is hack who is neither smart nor right, he is one of those media men who sputs the party line without real reporting that Edward Murrow hated.

Norman Shepherd vs. Francis Turretin

Rev. Mark Horne has some excellent quotes from Francis Turretin posted on his site. These quotes begin to show Turretin’s position on whether or not the Covenant of Grace is conditional. In short, Rev. Horne concludes that Turretin holds to a qualified conditional Covenant of Grace (CoG). This is correct. Turretin argues that there are no meritorious or impulsive causes. In that sense the CoG is unconditional. He does hold that faith is a condition of the CoG if we understand that it is only an instrumental cause. This is all covered in Vol. 2 Questions 2 and 3 (pgs. 174-189) of Turretin’s Institutes. So far Rev. Horne and I agree both with Turretin and with what Turretin is saying.
Yet, Rev. Horne attempts to dove tail Turretin into Norman Shepherd, and his novel views of justification. He does so by examining Turretin’s view of works. Rev. Horne jumps from talking about conditions on the covenant of grace to the duties of a Christian. You will note in his essay, Rev. Horne jumps to Volume 3 of Turretin’s work. Yet there is no need to this for Turretin discusses whether or not repentance and the other virtues can be considered conditions. Rev. Horne quotes the section for us.

It may be taken either broadly and improperly (for all that man is bound to afford in the covenant of grace) or strictly and properly (for that which has some causality in reference to life and on which not only antecedently, but also causally, eternal life in its own manner depends). If in the latter sense, faith is the sole condition of the covenant because under this condition alone pardon of sins and salvation as well as eternal life are promised (Jn. 3:16; Rom. 10:9). There is no other which could perform that office because there is no other which is receptive of Christ and capable of applying his righteousness. But in the former, there is nothing to hinder repentance and the obedience of the new life from being called a condition because they are reckoned among the duties of the covenant (Jn. 13:17; 2 Cor. 5:17; Rom. 8:13) [p. 189; emphasis added].

Turretin’s answer then is no, properly speaking repentance is not a condition. It is a duty, but to call it a condition is to use the word improperly. This means repentance and any works are not even conditions in an instrumental sense like faith. Turretin’s position then is that nothing earns salvation, that there are no meritorious causes in man, but faith is an instrument in apprehending Christ and in an instrumental sense can be called a condition, but works including repentance are not instruments, and can only be called conditions if you use the word condition to mean a duty. There is no causality in repentance and works at all. None, not an iota. Is this how Norman Shepherd uses them?

Let us let Rev. Shepherd speak for himself. His 15th Thesis states:

15. The forgiveness of sin for which repentance is an indispensable necessity is the forgiveness of sin included in justification, and therefore there is no justification without repentance.

Turretin disagrees ranking repentance as not a proper condition of the covenant, and not a part of justification at all. Turretin makes repentance a duty of the covenant, not a condition of justification. There is no instrumental role for repentance in apprehending Christ for Turretin. Shepherd continues in his 18th Thesis:

18. Faith, repentance, and new obedience are not the cause or ground of salvation or justification, bur are as covenantal response to the revelation of God in Jesus Christ, the way (Acts 24:14; II Peter 2:2, 21) in which the Lord of the Covenant brings his people into the full possession of eternal life.

Turretin has made plain that he does not see faith and repentance as operating in the same manner. Faith is an instrumental cause, and repentance and new obedience are not. Turretin goes to great lengths to explain that in the "first moment of justification there is nothing in him except faith which can please God" (2.3.11 pg.187). And faith plays the role of works in the covenant of nature, which is an instrumental cause (Ibid, paragraph 4). Faith is what unites us to Christ (Ibid., paragraph 5), not repentance nor new obedience. These are not to be placed on the same level as Shepherd appears to do. Next, theses 20-22 are important.

20. The Pauline affirmation in Romans 2:13, "the doers of the Law will be justified," is not to be understood hypothetically in the sense that there are no persons who fall into that class, but in the sense that faithful disciples of the Lord Jesus Christ will be justified (Compare Luke 8:21; James 1:22-25).

21. The exclusive ground of the justification of the believer in the state of justification is the righteousness of Jesus Christ, but his obedience, which is simply the perseverance of the saints in the way of truth and righteousness, is necessary to his continuing in a state of justification (Heb. 3:6, 14).

22. The righteousness of Jesus Christ ever remains the exclusive ground of the believer's justification, but the personal godliness of the believer is also necessary for his justification in the judgment of the last day (Matt. 7:21-23; 25:31-46; Heb. 12:14).

Again Shepherd uses ‘necessary’ in a way that makes one think of cause, and it is at least used without necessary qualifications. Again, Turretin would disagree with these points, and he has an answer to theses 20-22. He directly lets us know that justification is not the same as observing the covenant. "There is not the same relation of justification and of the covenant through all things. To the former, faith alone concurs, but to the observance of the latter other virtues also are required besides faith" (2.3.17 pg. 189). Here Turretin tells us justification is about faith alone. The other good works are not related to justification, only covenant keeping which is a separate thing. Shepherd insists on inserting his idea of continuing in a state of justification and forcing ‘new obedience’ into justification by expanding the time frame of justification. Turretin knows nothing of this idea, and in fact separates them. Faith alone is to justification, ‘new obedience’ is the fruit of life or "not that you may live but because you live" (Ibid.). That idea from Turretin knows nothing of ‘necessity’ to ‘continue in a state of justification’ as Shepherd claims. Rather Turretin’s idea is the same as the Heidelberg Catechism that makes new obedience part of living a life of thankfulness because of salvation, not in order to keep salvation. Shepherd and Turretin then completely disagree about the role of ‘new obedience’ and even repentance in salvation.

Shepherd’s view can be seen again in thesis 25:

The Reformed doctrine of justification by faith alone does not mean that faith in isolation or abstraction from good works justifies, but that the way of faith (faith working by love), as opposed to the "works of the law" or any other conceivable method or justification, is the only way of justification. (John Calvin, Institutes, III, 11, 20. "Indeed, we confess with Paul that no other faith justifies 'but faith working through love' [Gal. 5:6]. But it does not take its power to justify from that working of love. Indeed, it justifies in no other way but in that it leads us into fellowship with the righteousness of Christ.").

Here Shepherd has moved from speaking of justification by faith to justification by the "way of faith", and that is different than the Reformed doctrine of justification by faith alone, and it is surely different than the doctrine of Turretin. As quoted earlier, "first moment of justification there is nothing in him except faith which can please God". Reformed justification, according to Turretin and the Calvin quote provided by Shepherd, tells us that faith justifies in isolation from works. It is not the faith working in love that justifies, but faith connecting us to the righteousness of Christ that justifies. That same faith will work in love, but that comes after justification and is in no way a cause of it.

Thus, I must conclude against Rev. Horne. I believe that Francis Turretin does not agree with Rev. Shepherd at all. In fact, they seem to disagree on some very fundamental points.

The Pope - Politician or Preacher

This is a sad story to see. The Pope quoted an old emperor who thought that everything that Mohommed taught that was new, was evil. The Pope did not endorse this idea, but he also did not condemn it. The response from the Arab world was swift. They condemned the Pope for his anti-Islam speech even though these same countries fail to condemn suicide bombings, terrorism, and other atrocities committed in the name of Islam. Oh and do not forget that all of these countries make a sport of condemning Israel.

But what is really sad about this story is not the predictable response from a religion that does indeed teach evil. What is sad is the Pope’s response.

"The Holy Father thus sincerely regrets that certain passages of his address could have sounded offensive to the sensitivities of the Muslim faithful," Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone said in a statement.

What?! Why? Why should the head of the Roman church be sorry he upset Muslims, a religion out to kill him and his church? Perhaps the Pope should be trying to offend some Muslims. The cross of Christ is an offense (Galatians 5:11). One should expect Muslims to be offended when you tell them that Mohommed was a false prophet, and converted people by the sword. But, they need to hear it. They need to be told that God has a Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. They need to be told that war, terrorism, and the sword are not the way to heaven, but only through the blood of Jesus. One cannot expect works to be weighed and have any result other than death, damnation, and hell. This is the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. Repent of your sin, and believe on Him. The Pope does not say that, nor does he wish to offend any Muslims. Every Roman Catholic around the world should now clearly see that the head of their ‘church’ is a mere politician and not a preacher. He cares more for his seat at the international table than for the seat of St. Peter. He cares more for political correctness than correct theology. He cares more for the good will of Muslim ambassadors than he does for the good of the souls of those trapped in Islam. And that fact makes this a sad story indeed.

Conspiracy against Tucker Carlson

A national tragedy has occurred, Tucker Carlson was eliminated from Dancing with the Stars. He was scored the lowest, and then did not receive enough fan votes to overcome his performance. However, it is clear to me that the show was rigged. Here is the mounting evidence of a conspiracy to kick off Tucker Carlson.

1. The host of Dancing with the Stars read portion of a letter from Rev. Al Sharpton encouraging fans to vote. However, the original letter was Rev. Sharpton encouraging fans to vote for Tucker Carlson.
2. Harry Hamlin had an absolutely awful dance, at least as bad as Tucker, yet Mr. Hamlin received a score 5 points higher, and three teams ahead, of Tucker. Why? Mr. Hamlin’s wife competed last year, and thus, the judges personally knew Mr. Hamlin. Favoritism? I think so.
3. Jerry Springer was also painful to watch dance. Yet, Mr. Springer received higher scores than Tucker. Is there any doubt that the left leaning media swung their power to keep liberal Springer on the show.
4. Tucker was criticized for sitting down at the beginning of his dance. But the judges obviously misunderstood the point of the dance. The dance was a parody of Tucker’s show including him ripping off his bowtie, and getting up from his news chair. The judges obviously do not watch the great news show, Tucker, or they would have understood the dance and given a better score.
5. The women had an easier dance. That seems sexist to me.
6. Tom Delay endorsed Sara Evans, the dancer with the second worst score. Mr. Delay is well known for his corruption and scheming. It is hard to believe he did not interfere in this event.

This is just the beginning of growing evidence that ABC did Tucker Carlson a great wrong. I hope all will write in protest of this horrible injustice. We can only hope that Willie Giest takes up the cause, and maybe, just maybe,Tucker will be placed back on the show.

Open Letter to Keith Olbermann

I did not want to write anything about September 11th because many do it much better than I, and it is often a deeply personal issue. I did not lose anyone (though I know someone who still has her subway pass from a few minutes prior to the event). Yet, I sat at home last night trying to get my newborn to sleep, and I watch the Presdient’s speech, which I thought was less that what I wanted, and then I watch a reply of a reply of Keith Olbermann where he gave a Special Comment on 9/11 five years later. Now I watch Mr. Olbermann from time to time mostly because I keep hoping Dan Patrick will pop up and the two will discuss baseball, so I was familiar with Mr. Olbermann’s angry style. Yet the most disgraceful commentary ever given by a "reporter" was spoken by Mr. Olbermann last night. So I am writing an open letter to Mr. Olbermann.

Dear Mr. Olbermann,

I listened to your Special Comment about 9/11 last night. In this tirade of stupidity, Mr. Olbermann, you actually had a decent point, ‘when will new buildings be started, and shouldn’t it be more important to us.’ Yet, all of the extra accusations and unbelievably disrespectful comments from you made me wish the television would explode, or at least some editor would end your rant. I disagree with going into Iraq, and I disagree with the President’s Nazis comparison, I disagree with a lot of what President Bush is doing, but to call him an "opportunistic", "dilettante" and an "idiot" just seems to cross the line. Mr. Olbermann, you even going so far as to say that going to war in Iraq is an impeachable offense! As if impeachment is a way to solve disagreement on policy. Conveniently, Mr. Olbermann, you have forgotten that the Senate supported the war, not in a close partisan vote as you imply, but by an overwhelming majority that few ever see. Where is your anger for the Senate who waived the Constitutional duty to declare war, and just gave the President unlimited power and then cry about it? Where is your anger for those who just went along with the ride into Iraq and now want to use it for their political gain, and any lives lost because of their political victory are of no importance, especially if they are Iraqi lives?

But wait, Mr. Olbermann, your fraud is not done. Showing us what a great reporter you are, you decided that the Path to 9/11 miniseries shown on ABC was "created, influenced -- possibly financed by -- the most radical and cold of domestic political Machiavellis," who you implied was Karl Rove. Great reporting there thanks for all the proof. It is hard to believe a person sitting at a news desk could have so little conscience for the truth. It is hard to believe that someone who not two minutes earlier had talked of impeachment for a President who did things without proof, could make the same blunder. Of course you do not stop, you go on to misrepresent the miniseries by stating, "the whole sorry story blurred, by spin, to make the party out of office seem vacillating and impotent, and the party in office, seem like the only option." I watched the Path to 9/11, and it made both administrations look weak. Yes, President Clinton looked like he was surrounded by a bunch of dummies, but the first thing the Bush administration does is demote the one man taking Bin Laden seriously and then fire the only FBI agent getting anything done. Hardly a positive spin. Not to mention to pathetic view of Dick Cheney and Mrs. Rice on the actual day of the planes crashing into our buildings on September 11th, that day which you say should never by spun. But of course what were you doing, Mr. Olbermann? Nothing more than spinning that very day in order to score some points with ratings, which are usually not as good as Nick at Night reruns.

Mr. Olbermann, you rant and rave about the President’s lies and half-truths while giving nothing but lies and half-truths yourself. You claim to be a reporter while you spent the entire time making up your own story regardless of the facts. And you pull it all off with a tone and arrogance that few have ever accomplished. Five years ago, Mr. Olbermann, you say you were trying to make sense of it all, well, let me help. You, Mr. Olbermann, are an incompetent who has no right being on TV or pretending to distrubute news. I will be writing to MSNBC and asking them to do the only proper thing, and fire you. Either produce the proof of all your accusations like funding the Disney miniseries, or fire the man who lied to the American public about it. MSNBC has serious journalists like Tucker Carlson and Chris Matthews, but you, Mr. Olbermann, are not one of them.

Is the Heidelberg Catechism Lutheran?

There has always been a movement to identify the Heidelberg Catechism with Lutheranism. It dates back as far as John Nevin and Philip Schaff. It served their purposes to try and read Lutheranism into the Catechism of Ursinus and Olevanius because they wanted to Lutheranize (or Romanize) the German Reformed Church. Playing down the Reformed character of the foundational Catechism seemed a good way to accomplish the task. The Confessing Evangelical revives this claim. He states,

Back in my Reformed days, this was my favourite of the Reformed catechisms. It turned out that this was because it is the most Lutheran, not least because it was written for a Lutheran crowd: it was intended to unite Reformed and Lutheran believers in the Palatinate, or at least to express Reformed doctrine in a manner that would be as palatable as possible to Lutherans.

Now, I am not denying that the Heidelberg was written to unite the Lutherans and Reformed in the Palatinate, but it was not written for a Lutheran crowd. It did avoid a few things that may have angered Lutherans, such as a clear teaching about election, but it was written to untie Lutherans with Reformed by making them Reformed. Even the Confessing Evangelical admits this by accident in his next paragraph.

From a Lutheran perspective, a lot of the Catechism's answers are pretty unsatisfactory, especially its explicit rejection of baptismal regeneration and the Real Presence. Instead, it takes a "just as surely as X happens, so does Y" approach:

He also makes the hard to understand claim that the Heidelberg was not pastoral, but didactic. Hardly a document written for a Lutheran crowd since it explicitly rejects the main contention of sacraments between the two parties. This difference is explained a bit further by the Confessing Evangelical in his next post. Note the sacraments do something different in the two catechisms, baptism and the Lord’s Supper are both very different. Hard to imagine that one is based upon the other, as the original claim contends. The Confessing Evangelical even tries to state that the Heidelberg was based on Lutheran documents. He tries to show how Question and Answer number 1 are based on Luther’s exposition of the Second Article of the Smaller Catechism, even claiming it is “clearly” based. Yet, the four areas of comfort spelled out in Q and A #1 from Christ and in fact the entire idea of comfort and joy being the unifying principle of the catechism probably came from John A’Lasco and his series of catechisms. The catechisms of A’Lasco, Leo Juda, Calvin, and the Strassbourgh Refomers (Capito and Bucer) are the four main sources. James I Good has an excellent book on the sources of the Heidelberg Catechism called, The Heidelberg Catechism in its Newest Light. Some of it is out of date now, such as I believe Olevianus’s contribution is better understood, but it is still very good. It is in the RCUS James I Good collection available at www.rcus.org.

Now this post has led some to comment about the Heidelberg Catechism being ‘weak’ on the sacraments. However, I think it ought to be viewed as separate from the Lutheran view and sources, and thus, it should simply be viewed as different. For while I disagree with the Confessing Evangelical’s idea that Lutheranism stands as a source for the Heidelberg, he is at least honest enough to see that the Heidelberg does not allow a Lutheran view of the sacraments, not at all. Something to rememeber as the Federal Vision discussion proceeds.

Predictions for the Elections

I watch some of MSNBC’s 2006 Election coverage today. I watched mainly Tucker and Scarborogh, who both lean Republican/Conservative. Both were surprisingly down on Republican chances to hold the House and even thinking they could lose the Senate. I have to admit I am completely flabbergasted at those predictions. So I have decided to play beat the pundits.

I will go ahead and predict that the Republicans will hold onto control of both the House and the Senate. I do think they will lose seats in both, but they will not lose control of either. It seemed to me that all the experts were quoting silly poll numbers such as the always popular “Is the country on the right track?” Those numbers can be dismissed without much thought because there are many conservatives such as myself who would say ‘no’, but that does not translate to a Democrat victory or vote for that matter. Why the people on these shows insist on using nation wide polls to determine trends is beyond me. Take a look at Election Projection. This site has the Republicans hanging onto slim leads in both houses. This site does not have the Republicans gaining any seats and does not even look at some House races that are contested Democratic held seats such as South Carolina’s 5th Congressional District. The Rasmussen Report has a slightly rosier picture for the Republicans in the Senate. While they have 50 seats Republican and 45 Democrat and 5 in the Toss up category, it looks good for Republicans winning 3 of the 5 including knocking off Democrat Senator Menendez of New Jersey. This is also not counting the Maryland race since a Democratic candidate has not yet been chosen. That race should prove close. It also seems to count Lieberman as a Democrat, but technically I think he counts as an Independent.

So here is my prediction.
Senate – Republicans 54, Democrats 44, Independents 2 (both voting Democratic most of the time). The Republicans will knock of one Democratic incumbent, while losing Santorum and DeWine. Lieberman will win his race. Missouri and Montana are the key races for Democrats to win, and they must hold New Jersey and Maryland. They will hold one of the two and lose both Missouri and Montana.

House - Republicans –227, Democrats 208. I just cannot see the Democrats picking up enough seats. The Democrats need to sweep through Pennsylvania Districts 06, 07, 08, and they are behind in two of the three and the third is a toss up according to most polls. The Republicans will be out in force in Pennsylvania to try and save Santorum, so those pick-ups will be difficult. Most Democratic take over plans include winning Tom Delay’s old seat, and polls are ineffective where the Republicans are planning a write in. If the Dems lose this race, it is a bad omen for them nationally. I also think the Southern races will tighten leaning toward the Republicans as Nov. 7th approaches. This will negate some possible Democratic gains, and may cost them a few seats they currently hold.

Come back on the 7th of November to see how I did against the Pundits!

Belated St. Bartholomew's Day

I know, I know. I missed St. Bartholomew’s Day. I can only blame it on in-laws visiting. St. Bartholomew’s Day is August 24th, and it is infamous because of the Massacre that occurred in 1572. That is when the Queen Mother ordered her son, King Charles 9th, to slaughter to Protestants, who were in town for a wedding. It began with a failed assassination attempt, but ended with the successful murder of 70,000 French Protestants. 10,000 in Paris alone. 500 of those killed in Paris were noblemen, a rare thing in that day and age. In addition to Admiral Coligny, of whom I have spoken before, many other died. The Marquis of Resnel, Francis Nonpar De Coumont along with one of his sons. The other lived by pretending to be dead. Baron Quellenac was slain and left naked for the ladies of the court to see. Admiral Rochefoucault was killed in his bed despite being a friend since childhood of the king. Teligny, the son-in-law of Admiral Coligny, was murdered as well. The first wave of killers came, but he was so kind to them they could not harm him, and left without doing the job. A second wave came in and cut him down before he could speak.

Yet, it is not the dead, I wish to discuss here today. It is those who got out by renouncing their religion. What do we make of them? Henry of Navarre, better known as King Henry 4th, is remembered for declaring, “Paris is worth a Mass.” But, did you know he first converted to the Roman faith on St. Bartholomew’s Day? He and his fellow noble, Conde, were taken unarmed before the King and King Charles threatened them with “The Mass or death, or the bastile.” They chose the Mass. Both would renounce their recantation. Conde spent the rest of his life fighting the Romanists. Henry of Navarre fought them briefly and then joined them. It should be remembered that he is the one that finally gave them official toleration, but he could have given them so much more. How should we judge these men? Are they cowards? Or did they act to preserve their own life in an honorable way? The Protestants in both of their houses, their chaplains, and their friends, were slain before their eyes. Many were slain in the streets before their eyes. History appears to have judged these men harshly. Yet, Thomas Cramner recanted twice before finally making it to the stake. Many English Protestants attended the Roman church of Queen Mary and readily accepted the Protestant faith back under Elizabeth, and I have seen seminary professors speak well of that group. Many people will argue that Rahab’s lie in Jericho is not sin, and herald her. Then why not these men? So the question I have is, can we accept the sin of Cramner and Rahab and still reject the Henry of Conde and of Navarre? Or must we call Rahab a liar, as well as the recanters of France?

Neo-Con vs. Paleo Con or Why I disagree with President Bush

I have to admit that Donald Rumsfeld got me a little angry when he claimed that those who disagree with his policy are Nazis appeasers. There is an old adage that whoever references the Nazis first in an argument loses the argument. Although technically Senator Durbin referenced them first, so I guess everybody loses. Anyway, what is worse than Rumsfeld’s argument is the fact that people think President Bush is a conservative. He is not by any traditional meaning of the word. He truly is a Neo-con, and I worry that his brand of ‘conservatism’ will be the standard for the Republicans in this next century.

I did some digging about Paleo-con and the neo-cons to see what really happened to the Republican Party. Was the Republican Revolution in ’94 a true conservative revolution or a neo-con revolution? Here is my arm chair politician assessment. We know that Barry Goldwater in ’64 was a Paleo-conservative, but his loss set off a mini-revolution within the Republican Party. Men like Donald Rumsfeld, who is a neo-con and had voted against Goldwater on bills like the Civil Rights Bill and the Voting Rights Act (both of which increase power to the Central Government away from the states), and led a charge to push Gerald Ford up through party leadership. Ford was also closer to neo-con than paleo-con. The Ford Administration had some neo-con influence, but it was doomed to failure from the start because of Nixon. The Reagan Administration was, in my opinion, a battle between paleo and neo conservatives. Perhaps it is one of the reasons most Republicans hail Reagan as a great President. He was aggressive in foreign policy, very hawkish, including backing Contra rebels to create democracies (neo-con), but he never actually invaded any countries and did begin a process of disarmament (paleo). He opposed Centralization in many respects like the Department of Education (paleo); yet, he also had an amnesty program for illegal aliens (neo). Perhaps that is why his Supreme Court nominees were all across the board in political philosophy. George Bush Sr., was obviously a neo-con despite his failing to overthrow Iraq. His ‘New World Order’ harkened back to Woodrow Wilson and Teddy Roosevelt, both of which squarely put Bush Sr., as a neo-con. He also supported centralization going against his own party platform to accept the Department of Education. Thus, the major players in the last portion of the 20th century were Neo-cons.

But what about the Republican Revolution? I do believe that it was a paleo revolution. Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America was very paleo in its wording. They were against nation building in foreign policy, they were for a balanced budget, and they advocated Federalism over centralization of power. Of course not all of the people swept into power in 1994 were paleo-cons. Take Bill Frist for example. He won election that year, and is clearly a neo-con. The problem for the Republican Revolution of 1994 is that it was really never a revolution. The Contract with America passed the Paleo controlled house, but died in the Neo controlled Senate. Men like newly elected Bill Frist, and older leaders like John McCain helped Democrats kill the Contract with America. The Senate today is even more controlled by Neo conservatives than it was in 94. Paleo conservatives like Jessie Helms and Strom Thurmund have gone, and been replaced by Neo conservatives like Lindsey Graham. Neo conservative President George Bush helped Neo conservative Bill Frist oust Paleo conservative Trent Lott as leader of the Republican Senate.

All this is a long lead up to say that President Bush and his Neo con Senate have done a lot of things wrong. The spending is out of control, Campaign Finance, No Child Left Behind, federal funding for existing stem cell lines, amnesty for illegals, and other such nonsense. However the worst mistake is their rhetoric. There is no need to treat paleo-conservatives like Rep. Tom Tancredo like a persona non grata. Nor is it necessary to accuse opponents of the neo-foreign policy of being 'morally confused'. It is possible to be against terrorism and against pre-emptive war in Iraq. It is possible to be against dictators and against the idea that the American military can build new democracies. Not only is it possible, it is possible to be these things and be conservative.