« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

A Primer for the Media and I Agree With Rick Santorum

The Drudge Report put up a story about Rick Santorum’s speech to Ave Maria University in which Santorum said Satan was attacking the United States. The speech was giving in 2008, but is largely consistent with statements he has given in the past few weeks.

I agree with Rick Santorum. I also think that this is a Romney leaked piece. Given the close ties between Matt Drudge and the Romney camp, that’s an easy guess. I also think it will hurt Santorum who apparently has Gingrichitis, a disease the frontrunners all seem to get where they mouth off on any topic under the sun once they are the front runner.

Focus on this topic does not help Santorum and is largely irrelevant to being President. Nonetheless, I feel compelled to defend Santorum given how clueless some of those attacking him seem to be on the specific points he made and also given the cluelessness of a lot of reporters trying to put his remarks in context or explain them.

In 2008, Rick Santorum wasn’t running for President. His statement is well within the mainstream of orthodox Christian theology. And that’s the point here for a lot of reporters who seem stunned by Santorum’s statements.

I’m not Catholic and disagree with some of the teachings of that church, but both orthodox Protestant and Catholic views are consistent with the idea of Satan (who is very real) at war and trying to both tempt and corrupt people.

The humorous thing is there are many on the left who are trying to claim Santorum’s view is nutty, wacked out, or bizarre. There’s actually a stronger case for saying Satan is trying to corrupt the United States than that Barack Obama is a Marxist. Pick your poison.

But one of the statements Rick Santorum made that the media has terribly portrayed and clearly does not understand is Santorum saying, “We look at the shape of mainline Protestantism in this country and it is in shambles, it is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it.”

He is absolutely correct in this statement. When mainline Protestant denominations are in the news these days, it is more likely to be over their debates on the ordination of gays than on anything they have done to actually advance Christ’s kingdom. The problem is that a lot of reporters and even a lot of conservatives do not understand what “mainline Protestants” are.

It is not hard.

A mainline protestant is not a “mainstream” protestant. The two are not interchangeable. The former is more of an academic term.

The base way to understand what a mainline protestant is would be to understand that the term largely means those protestant denominations that existed during the colonial era of the American colonies and as they have evolved from that point.

Many suggest the term comes from the Pennsylvania Main Line railroad that ran through Philadelphia neighborhoods at the turn of the twentieth century, which were organized around communities of interest making up those original colonial faithes.

Specifically, Mainline Protestant denominations are Episcopalians, the United Methodists, the Presbyterians (USA), the American and Northern Baptists, the United Church of Christ, the Congregationalists, the Disciples of Christ, and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.1

While evangelical churches are more mainstream in America, they are not considered main line. Many evangelical churches branched off from the main line. The Southern Baptists, the nation’s largest protestant denomination, branched off from the Northern and American Baptist Churches. The Presbyterian Church in America, Evangelical Presbyterians, and Reformed Presbyterians broke away from the main Presbyterian Church, which is today the PCUSA. Anglicans have come back into the country in response to the ordination of gays within the Episcopalian Church.

I await the United Methodist Church splintering over that issue and the social gospel too. The Methodists are one of the last major mainline denominations not to have a serious split. But it is on the verge of happening.

There is a long history here and I am no religion scholar, but there are a couple of points to understand.

The mainline churches are more concerned these days with the social gospel, the role of gays in the church, etc. These churches are in decline. Their numbers are falling as they have replaced the actual Gospel with a modern sense of spiritualism that ultimately does not feed the flock.

Evangelical churches over all are growing. The charismatic churches are really seeing strong growth. These churches are much more concerned with fundamentalism, which is, like “mainline”, a specific term. Fundamentalist churches believe in the fundamentals of the faith, which were toward the turn of the twentieth century narrowed to five points including the inerrancy of the Bible, the death and resurrection of Christ, and the need for salvation. When people talk about “fundamentalists” these days, they usually mean hard line Christians who are no fun. Actually, a “fundamentalist” is someone who subscribes to five specific points within Protestantism: (1) the inerrancy of the Bible; (2) the virgin birth of Christ; (3) the atonement of sins through Christ’s death; (4) the bodily resurrection of Christ; and (5) the reality of Christ’s miracles.

So, when Santorum says mainline Protestantism in this country is in shambles, he is referring to specific churches, not all Protestants and specifically not evangelicals. He is referring specifically to those specific denominations more interested these days in the social gospel and the ordination of gay ministers than in salvation through grace. And both the decline of those churches’ populations and their ceding the field on actual matters of the Gospel are proof that Santorum is right. These churches have less and less to do with orthodox Christianity and it is no surprise that it is from the ranks of these churches that the media typically draws on ministers to rebut long held orthodox Christian views and the mainstream churches of America, which are more and more evangelical.


  1. The United Church of Christ vs. Church of Christ issue is complicated. I learned the list as UCC being mainline and Church of Christ not. Checking Wikipedia, it too has UCC listed. But some Church of Christ members contend they are mainline, not UCC. The general rule of thumb, however, can be that congregationalists are generally considered mainline and those congregationalist churches that prioritize the social gospel are more in keeping with the mainline trends in the country than those that do not.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • seacub

    Erick, we may not agree all of the time but this is perhaps the best article you have ever written on this site.

    With me, this doesn’t hurt Santorum but actually helps to satisfy my personal requirement that he understands the stakes.

  • flagg

    “There?s actually a stronger case for saying Satan is trying to corrupt the United States than that Barack Obama is a Marxist.”

    Might as well say there’s “actually” a stronger case that aliens have landed. I agree that there’s not much real evidence Obama is a Marxist (a committed leftist, for sure) but I’m eager to see the case for America being the subject of a satanic attack.

    I’ve always thought the devil was a lot like the US Post Office: both get far more blame than they deserve (and usually by a party that is actually at fault).

    I can’t believe our candidates are talking about this. I can’t believe our pundits are having to write about it. Makes me long for the days when we discussed real issues, like steroids in baseball.

    I hate this election.

  • acat

    The song when you name-check the title like that!

    Mew

  • http://alpipkin.com/blog/ Alpip

    global warming and other environmental agendas, “peace at any cost” groups out to destroy our national defense and a multitude of other left-wing positions. Why?

    Mostly to attract younger, hipper crowds who may be turned of by all that “God” talk. Heaven forbid (pardon the pun) anyone describe something like that place, you know … down below … and cause someone in our church to feel “uncomfortable.”

  • jpshinn

    Erick:

    I like much of your post but there is angle about Santorum’s speech that you gloss over: in addition to mainline, mainstream protestantism is also fracturing at an alarming rate. How many different protestant denominations are there? Wikipedia claims over 38000 but, even if you take half that number, you are left with 16000 different denominations. How is that possible when Christ said he would leave us one Church and we are one body in and with Christ?

    At the end of the day, when protestants rejected the leadership and authority of the Chair of St. Peter, they lost any and all authority to proclaim the gospel and decide on disputes. Since the day Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the church in Germany, protestantism has been in schism, both from the Roman Catholic Church and within itself. You see it today: 60 years ago, almost all Christian denominations held that artificial contraception was a grave moral evil; today, almost all protestant groups accept it. What happened? Without any authority to proclaim the Truth, the churches fell pray to societal and cultural forces. Same with marriage and no so-called same sec marriage. Hardly the mark of the one, true Church.

    You mention Anglicanism but it is dying in England over the ordination of gay clergy and so-called same sex marriage. Where are those Anglicans going? They are going to the Catholic Church. Why? They are coming home because only the Catholic church has for 2000 years been a steadfast and unchanging voice and evangelist for Christ.

    Even many Evangelical churches are trying to recapture the “Acts Church,” which one can see in the Retrovaille movement. They are lost with the Magesterium and Tradition inherent and solely placed in the Catholic Church. So, Santorum is right: Protestantism is fracturing and has been for 600 years.

    I just hope it doesn’t end up killing his candidacy.

  • layedbackguy2

    I have more respect for Rick Santorum, than I do some other members of the GOP.

    I do not agree with him; but, I think he truly lives, works, and speaks with his faith in Christ as his guide.

    I may be an atheist, but I recognize and respect a man who is not afraid to speak the truth as he sees it, regardless of whatever controversy or criticism this may create. Win or lose in the secular/political world, Rick Santorum has stayed firm in his beliefs, and that is a win of the spirit.

    Perhaps part of the reason so many people have a little trouble trusting Mitt Romney, is that he is so careful not to witness (except in general) for his faith in public?

  • aesthete

    Convert to Catholicism, you dumb evangelicals!

    Oy vey.

  • http://alpipkin.com/blog/ Alpip

    “you can’t beat a boiled egg.” The trials and tribulations the GOP candidates are going through (even those resulting from millions of dollars of negative campaign adds by a candidate who shall remain nameless, but his initials are MittRomeny) are making the candidates stronger for the onslaught coming from Obama.

  • ddawg

    When I saw the Drudge headline today, I thought, “O good grief.” Then when I saw what the “crazy” “Satan warning” was, I thought, “Yep. What’s to disagree with there?” As you suggest, it’s Christianity 101 that we are in a spiritual battle with Satan.

    For me, I appreciate that a high-profile politician is willing to talk about these things. I would like to add that a vast majority of our laws exist because we are fighting a battle with sin. If everyone were sinless, then people would give their best regardless of self interest, would yield to the interests of others, and would care for those in need around them regularly and voluntarily. In such an environment of pure good will, virtually no laws would be necessary (beyond, e.g., traffic laws to establish common rules or a budget to responsibly manage revenues).

    Re: setting the record straight on mainline Protestants, thank you for that clarification, too. Having been exposed to the varieties of theological approaches in America through my studies, I knew what Sen. Santorum was talking about, and I agreed. You have summed up the issue well.

  • jamesm

    Last weekend the nation watched the Whitney Houston funeral. The nation heard how much she was a christian. She carried her bible everywhere, I think non christians were surpised. Maybe the topic of religion should be talked about? Of course we have to discuss all other issues. I am just wondering out loud.

  • clintonformccain

    for the presumptive Republican nominee to be saying that Episcopalian, Methodist, Presbyterian, Northern Baptist, United Church of Christ, Congregationalist, tand Lutheran voters are not Christians. It’s not exactly inclusive for the guy to be dissin’ other people’s religions. Some folk take offense at that.

  • conservativecurmudgeon

    ..and his coverage of Santorum in the last several days has been shockingly adolescent, completely sophomoric and really, really weird.

    His “headline”, for example, about an alleged swipe by Santorum regarding the rightness of Obama’s “theology” was probably the most egregiously misleading I’ve ever seen on his site. The “theology” to which Santorum was referring was secular environmentalist extremism, not a swipe at Obama’s Christian witness.

    Drudge’s coupling of black-and-white bitmapped images of previously color photographs of Santorum (giving them a sinister patina) in front of a Cross is worthy of an “Alien” issue of a tabloid like the Weekly Word News. It’s grotesque, and, like I say, weird.

    I used to really respect Drudge, but he’s clearly barking at some angle now that I cannot grasp. His (apparent) complete ignorance of Christian doctrine is showing like a big purple carbuncle smack in the middle of his forehead: Of course, Satan is attacking the United States, he’s attacking the Earth in general: Ultimately the Father of Lies gets the earth before the Final Judgement, and he is thrown in the Lake of Fire; that Drudge would postulate that this is some sort of off-the-rails gibberish of a lunatic with a Messiah Complex shows how ignorant Drudge REALLY is about Christian doctrine.

    Let’s remember folks: This guy Drudge got his first big “scoops” because he worked in the CBS Gift Shop, and used to send faxes around to his friends. I think we really, really need to re-assess both Drudge, and Ann Coulter. They’ve skipped a groove, or something.

  • aesthete

    They’re theologically sound and correct.

    For that matter, I agreed with him about mainline Protestant denominations.

    I am rolling my eyes at us talking about this stuff in the context of an election, though.

  • jamesm

    I don’t think this hurts Santorum at all with Protestants. They get it,

  • rogershru2

    Everybody already knew Santorum wears his Christianity on his sleeve. Talking in general terms about God is usually tolerated. But when he talks about Satan it is implied in the reports that this is crazy talk – somehow it is news that he actually believes this stuff about God and Satan, heaven and hell, sin and salvation. The assumption in the media is that reality is purely a secular one, but talk about God and morals can be good for society if not taken too far. When somebody speaks to their beliefs in creation, Jesus, the reality of sin and Satan, the way of salvation, etc., it somehow reveals their ignorance and outs them as a religious extremist (because, you know, they actually believe this stuff).

  • http://boldcolor.blogspot.com/ Paula

    I’ve been hearing/reading about social liberals, disenchanted Obama voters, independents, etc. who say they don’t agree with Santorum on a lot of things, but they appreciate his forthright style, honesty, and sincerity. I’ve also heard the same things from friends who were dyed in the wool Romney supporters but have switched to Santorum in recent weeks (that, and their anger at his negative campaign).

    Right on target with this, Erick. Manly of you to say it, despite your dislike of Santorum.

  • http://boldcolor.blogspot.com/ Paula

    When/where?

  • jpshinn

    I love my evangelical brothers and sisters. They love Jesus and they love the bible. They just haven’t had their eyes opened by the Holy Spirit to see the beauty and mystery of the Catholic Church.

    Most importantly, they don’t have a true understanding of Jesus’s greatest gift to us: the Eucharist. I have never met a protestant who can explain the entirety of John 6 and what Jesus meant when told us to eat his flesh and drink his blood.

    A.M.D.G.

  • clintonformccain

    “We look at the shape of mainline Protestantism in this country and it is in shambles, it is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it.”

  • jamesm

    and completely false. He did not say they are not christian. Completely abandon any truthfulness. Wow

  • http://boldcolor.blogspot.com/ Paula

    It’s been an unwritten rule nearly everywhere since the beginning of the campaign that Romney’s religion is off limits. Now, suddenly, the gloves are off and the media is oozing with religious bigotry. Why the double standard?

  • falconflight

    The ‘Hills have Eyes’ response to Mr. Santorum is is well…a seeming insight into the culture that has mutated in our collective petrie dish. As a Jew, and unaffiliated at that, I couldn’t be more pleased w/ the good Senator’s challenge to the secularists.

    Look to say that the digression into “social issues” is off target is to utterly surrender to a secularist movement that couches all it loves as a social imperative.

    It has been a cringing kow tow to the worst of this society. I have contributed all that I reasonably can afford (civil service) and will probably contribute till it hurts. Our failure in the GOP is a rank and file that ordinarily participates at a 10% level in the primaries and is imho an abject intellectual and moral slough that is even more repulsive than the DemChattel voters.

  • http://boldcolor.blogspot.com/ Paula

    He was CLEARLY referring to the institutional mainline CHURCHES, not the people in them. You’d have to work for MSNBC to see it any other way.

  • rogershru2

    I haven’t seen that quote. Catholics do believe they are the true church. They do think some protestants are being saved but it is difficult having rejected God’s church on this earth. I don’t see how it would be offensive for him to say this much. It is similar to my own protestant view that some Catholics will be saved despite many of the erroneous teachings in that church, because there is still scripture there and a similar framework of the Triune God that we worship.

  • falconflight

    Should I pray at the feet of Papa Doc Barack, Chomsky, or Ward Churchhill? Yes, a lot of cleansing is in order, eh?

  • rogershru2

    Then the gloves will come off, don’t worry. There will be plenty of stories about his religion then.

  • clintonformccain

    and this dude says my church isn’t even Christian. Am I likely to vote for him?

    Shouldn’t we be talking about a $15 trillion debt?

  • jamesm

    Mormonism off limits eh. Obama on video saying “My Muslim religion” Now the evangelicals are going to come out in droves

  • Creedo

    It’s disturbing to see the media going gaga over all this talk about satan, as if satan doesn’t exist and this is crazy to talk about. Satan is very real, and the proof is all around us. This nation is in decline because of the hand of satan to destroy God’s flaming sword of Gabriel – the United States of America. Santorum is right – Satan has his sights on the United States of America, and I’m glad to see that Erick Erickson has finally woken up to the reality of the situation and is getting behind the only candidate brave enough to “come out of the christian closet” and actually talk about this stuff on the level that evangelicals talk about it every day.

    I know the media won’t put the fire to the feet of the other candidates and ask them about satan. I wish they would, so we could finally get the evangelicals behind Rick and see a revival of the Christian conservative movement in America.

    God bless Rick! God bless Erick!
    Santorum 2012!

  • jamesm

    I agree with you. I think you meant to reply to clintonformccain

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    and what was being preached by “Rev. Wright” at the United Church of Christ where Obama attended didn’t resemble any kind of mainline Christianity.

    (For the record, the United Church of Christ is not to be confused with the church of Christ described here of which I am a member.)

  • quill67

    I am a Believer. I believe crazy things:

    I believe that the Red Sea was parted.
    I believe that flood covered the earth and that animal found refuge on a large ark.
    I believe that a boy was born from a virgin.
    I believe that boy was the son of God.
    I believe that words said in private can change the world.
    I believe that a person can be forgiven.
    I believe that in life after death.

    To those who say, “Santorum is crazy”, well I am too–as are millions of people in the US and around the world who go to church to praise someone they cannot see.

    I am standing up to be counted.

  • sethellis

    It doesn’t matter who you are, or how right you are, criticizing other religions is just a bad idea. All it does is leave a feeling of negativity.

    I think Erick has an enlightening take on it, and I don’t dispute his analysis. It’s just too effing complicated. “Convert to Catholicism, you dumb evangelicals!” is exactly what voters will hear. Trying to explain the comments or put them in context will just make things worse. It’s not being portrayed as crazy that is the risk here. It’s just coming off negative. The only way to fight that is to come back with a positive message. If Santorum fails to do that, he will lose.

  • jamesm

    stand with you. 5555

  • aesthete

    Given that I’m somewhere in the Pentecostal-charismatic-evangelical nexus, I’m not inclined to agree — but no biggie.

    If you’ll forgive me, however, I don’t want our candidates running on the finer points of eating Christ’s flesh.

  • aesthete

    Don’t count me — or most of the Christians who believe as we do — into the much smaller club that favors running a Presidential campaign where a candidate constantly talks about the finer points of theology, and wants to scold people for their choices to believe or act contrary to their beliefs.

  • kipling

    I am rather sick of hearing our side complain about a statement Santorum made in 2008, a statement that he has had to defend in recent weeks. He is not basing his campaign on his Christian beliefs. He is simply responding to questions about a logical statement he made before he even decided to run for President.

    Mitt Romney leaked the opposition research and Matt Drudge ran with it because he is in the tank for Romney. If Romney becomes the nominee, will Drudge run the “crazy Mormon beliefs” stories that will come from Obama’s opposition research team. Do the same people who bemoan Santorum think that Romney will not have to defend the finer points of baptizing the dead?

    Our candidate – whoever he is – will have to defend his beliefs because Obama will attack them. He has nothing else to run on in 2012. These issues should not become the focus of the campaign but they will have to be dealt with on a daily basis.

  • haners

    Erick is making it sound like only the liberals are still with Mainline Protestant churches. This is patently false. Mainline Protestant denominations still number some 25 million people in America, while Evangelical denominations number 39 million. The difference however is that there are over 10,000 Evangelical denominations, so this is a very broad and poorly defined category, while there are only half a dozen Mainline Protestant denominations.

    The Evangelical splinter groups of Mainline Protestant churches that Erick lists off like the Presbyterian Church of America are tiny in comparison to the mainline Presbyterian Church (USA).

    In my mainline church (Episcopal), the vast majority of us are Republican or Independent. And we believe in all 5 specific points of Protestantism that Erick lists. I’m actually quite offended that Erick is suggesting that Mainline Protestant churches do not subscribe to those points. It parallels the severe generalization that Santorum made in his remarks.

    When you are resorting to arguing that your God is better than my God while running for President, you are DOA.

  • Xasteius

    no text

  • quill67

    I believe in free will.

    I believe charity is voluntary. Charity does not come by force. Some Methodist at the 2008 annual conference passed (in a very sneaky way) the “right” to healthcare provided not just to the needy but to everyone BY THE GOVERNMENT.

    http://methodistthinker.com/2009/11/11/umc-health-care-as-a-right/

    I am still a member of the Methodist Church, but I will fight this corruption and violation of free will. If it is not repealed, I will leave the Methodist Church.

  • Creedo

    I don’t know how to put it any plainer than that. This counrtry is headed to hell, and Santorum is the only one who gets that. The stakes are too high to let Obama be re-elected again. Isreal’s very existence hangs on our votes.

  • demsaresatanic

    the stake or anything, but I don’t remember any Protestant elected official in modern times remarking on the merits of Catholicism, and I hope Rick learns something from this. No matter how correct Rick may be about the “mainline Protestant” remark, it is a sign of poor judgment on his part.

  • Creedo

    While I wouldn’t go so far as telling someone else they aren’t true Christians for their offshoot upbringings, I wouldn’t necessarily agree with premises that invalidate the entire point and purpose of The Church.

  • Flagstaff

    Seems to me they are the most successful protestant Christian sect in the US, maybe in the world. They’re definitely evangelical.

    In this town, there is NO Presbyterian church. Methodists and Episcopal and Christian churches, yes. Catholic churches, yes. And lots and lots of evanglicals and Mormons.

    The funny thing is, when you pass them on the street, you don’t really know which are which.

    I find the whole discussion divisive.

    OTOH, the Obama decree regarding insurance has been very uniting. We should all be united against a usurpation of religious and secular Constitutional rights.

  • aesthete

    (well, to an extent; I do find extreme infighting between Nicene Christians to be very counterproductive and un-Biblical), but it isn’t a subject appropriate for politics in a pluralistic democracy with religious freedoms. If Santorum isn’t planning any policy based on these differences and alleged “falling away” (I agree with him for the most part), then why is this a political issue? If it’s not a political issue, then what was the purpose of Santorum’s statement — given that he is running for President and made his statements in that capacity?

  • aesthete

    I wasn’t particularly offended by the remark — but it is a deviation from the issues that are relevant to the President and to federal policymaking.

    Say what you will about Rick’s foreign policy (and I’m an admitted critic), at least it is relevant to the duties of the President.

  • http://boldcolor.blogspot.com/ Paula

    Decline of Mainline Denominations

  • http://boldcolor.blogspot.com/ Paula

    Mainline Protestant Church Decline

  • http://boldcolor.blogspot.com/ Paula

    Sorry to ugly up the place. Wish there was a delete button :(

  • annie54

    I, too, believe crazy things and I’ve seen crazy things. And, let’s not forget The Holy Trinity – The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit, which is One.

    It’s about time a leader is talking spiritually.

    I hope, however, that at the debate Wednesday night, he gets on the Presidential Message and doesn’t let CNN lead him into a trap.

    Santorum has yet another great message.

  • momac

    “So, when Santorum says mainline Protestantism in this country is in shambles…”

    Why would he make this judgment publicly, who is he to do so, and how does it help the cause of liberty to be segmenting and disparaging people that might possibly be persuaded?

    That this many paragraphs on the particulars of religions, and their political aspirations, appears here, makes it all the more troubling Santorum is doing well. He is no less interested in pushing his particular belief system than those he judges harshly, and it’s just something that (I hope) people don’t want the state delving into.

    Santorum’s the only guy on our side I will never vote for though, so I am biased. His dorporate tax plan is a joke I’d expect out of the current administration. Everybodysubsidizes his buddies.

  • haners

    The population of the US has almost tripled since 1930, with large influxes of population from non-WASP and non-Lutheran religious affiliations since then.

    Your chart is based on share of total US population.

    What is true is that the Mainline Protestant churches haven’t been proselytizing as much as other denominations and is more tied to ethnic and cultural identities. This is particularly true in Episcopal churches (not surprisingly), where the vast majority of its members have ancestry to Britain and whose families have been Episcopalian/Anglican for as long as anyone can remember.

  • Adjoran

    His problem is he ALWAYS allows himself to be sidetracked with these questions, just as when he tried to “debate” some of the college students in NH on gay marriage. He just is too easy to knock off message.

    In the general election, every single MSM reporter will be asking him about gays, contraception, and religious issues constantly. Same with debates with Obama. He won’t get the chance to talk about the rotten economy, the dictatorial regulations, or the feckless foreign policy Obama has foisted upon us, it will be all social and religious issues, all the time.

    Obama’s only chance is to divert attention from his record, and he will have major funding and the media to help him try. We don’t need to be helping him, too.

    Rick said the other day he “isn’t running for Chief Pastor of the United States.” That’s right, sir – now how about ACT LIKE IT?

  • ddawg

    Just to clarify, Santorum has not been making speeches in 2012 about mainline Protestantism. This was something Drudge linked to from 2008, when Santorum wasn’t an elected politician.

  • Glaucon

    No good will come of demonizing any religions.

  • momac

    because we better get that right if we’re going to interpret the constitution correctly apparently.

    or maybe it’s the exact reason they use words like ‘religion’ instead of ‘evangelical protestantism’ in the constitution. the state has no business in it. and santorum dearly wishes to involve it right into your bedroom, and he repeatedly says so. so hopefully he has the same bible edition i have.

  • sulmak

    “And we believe in all 5 specific points of Protestantism that Erick lists. I?m actually quite offended that Erick is suggesting that Mainline Protestant churches do not subscribe to those points.”

    I didn’t get that he was saying they didn’t believe in them, just they have put less emphasis on them in recent decades.

  • Glaucon

    As a member of a “mainline” denomination, I find this whole conversation disgusting. There are no excuses for this. Bashing people’s religion is completely inappropriate.

    “Specifically, Mainline Protestant denominations are Episcopalians, the United Methodists, the Presbyterians (USA), the American and Northern Baptists, the United Church of Christ, the Congregationalists, the Disciples of Christ, and the Lutherans.”

    Who is next on the chopping block? The not so subtle comments about Mormonism must have just been the start. “First they came for the Mormons…”

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    .

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    The “Independent” Clinton lover is stirring up trouble in the Republican primaries again.

  • ddawg

    Many of the comments seem to suggest that Santorum is regularly talking about Christian theology on the campaign trail. The media coverage has spoken much about his “theology” comment, but he has calmly and articulately explained that he was speaking of the worldview of environmentalism that man is subservient to the earth.

    In the interview I saw, he wasn’t sidetracked by the interviewer, but gave an articulate answer and moved on.

    During the contraception mandate debate, he insisted that it was a Constitutional issue and made a point not to get sidetracked with the theology side of the discussion.

    I’m open to evidence supporting the claim that he is sidetracked with theological issues here in 2012 on a regular basis, but I think there’s a difference between answering questions that come up about remarks from the past and actively campaigning with those remarks in the present.

  • CarolT

    Drudge used to be a website I had to i check at least once a day. I got sick to it in the last few months when he became a Romney shill, I have the app on my iPhone and iPad and nearly every siren was to bah Newt, the ex giving the interview, etc. The alarm went off twice today, Hillary in lime green when everyone else waas wearing white, who cares? The other was Rick Santorum and his Satan remarks from 2008.
    I am a Catholic, my mother went to Polish Catholic School, and she beleived it was horrible to say the demon’s name. I am not as religious or superstitious as she was bur I think Rick should stay away from religion and try to make us want to support him, and the other candidates should make us want to vote FOR them than against Obama.
    This will not play well in the next few days. If Rick had a chance to beat Romney in Michigan, this will kill it, thanks to Drudge and Romney and/or Paul finding it.

  • ddawg

    Two questions for the mainline members commenting on this article:
    Do you acknowledge the leftward drift of your denominational leadership and governing documents?
    Are you glad for it, or do you struggle with it?

    It seems that if you support social justice and gay marriage, you’re probably not going to be too keen on any of the Republicans still running.

    It also seems that if you oppose those things, that you would be in at least partial agreement with Santorum about the state of your denomination.

    For those expressing frustration with Santorum’s 2008 comments on mainline denominations, which candidate(s) do you support, and why are they okay, but Santorum is not?

  • seacub

    1st – he didn’t tell “us” to do so, he told his disciples to. He was teaching them a lesson of what was to happen. Assuming a ritual was created from a teaching moment is akin to heresy.

    2nd – Jesus was claiming to be the passover meal of atonement. Both the meat and blood of the animal in sacrifice had a purpose. He was explaining each to his disciples and claiming that he was both. He was letting them know he was to be the perfect sacrifice for sin. That event was nothing more and nothing less.

    3rd – Before you can understand that, you need to understand Leviticus and the concept of a Suzerain relationship. When God claimed Israel as his own, he was establishing a Suzerain relationship with them (see: The Promise and the Blessing by Michael Harbin). Part of that relationship was the sacrifice ceremony and offering to the priests. Blood to pay the penalty for sin, meat for the priests and poor to atone. Christ was establishing here that he was both. It was a teaching moment, not an establishment of a rite.

    Lastly, I would suggest to you as I do to anyone that wants to understand the New Testament better a thorough study of the books of 1st and 2nd Kings and the book of Ezekiel.

    Remember, that neither I, you, nor anyone has all of the answers and so it is in humility that we seek the truth.

  • trickamsterdam

    No, It’s Pres Obama that’s winning. Not Romney. Not Paul. Certainly not (lol, that fedora’d creampuff) Drudge.

    It doesn’t really matter, because between the fact that working-class whites w/out a college degree (huge part of the R base) and religious conservatives (huge part of the R base, who don’t believe Romney’s change on abortion, and will also remember Romney’s attacks on Santorum’s religion, while whining about attacks on his own) who can’t stand Romney, chances of his beating Obama in November are as close to zero as Ron Paul’s (give or take 35 or so percent).

    This is going to be the biggest Pyrrhic Victory since maybe the original…Coulter, Drudge, the beautiful boys at NRO, all pushing this individual over the finish line…so he can die right there like a horse whose been run all to pieces at the feet of Obama.

    Not defeatist talk. I’m just like all the rest who feel comfortable saying that Romney is the most electable and Santorum will get killed. OK. Then I can say: Romney will lose by a bigger popular and electoral vote margin than McCain, and I’ll add it won’t even be that close.

    The difference between me and the Romney people is: I’m gonna be right.

  • jarrod21

    The thing that bugs me the most is that he shares a grating (for me, anyhow) trait with President Obama. I do like my leaders to know what they believe, and not have to constantly triangulate and focus group things to death. What I don’t like is, like the president, he seems all too willing to say what he believes, and then lecture you why you’re completely backwards for not being in lockstep. It’s as though neither man has ever once uttered the phrase (or something comparable), “That’s what works for me. Your mileage may vary.”

    What I can confidently say is that even with a few of his wackier (to me, anyhow) beliefs, I agree with Santorum on a lot more than I do with Obama, with whom I agree on almost nothing.

    That doesn’t mean I’d be terribly enthused about voting for him, but the beauty of our political system is that I don’t have to. I live in Texas, and Obama wouldn’t win here with the endorsement of Nolan Ryan, Troy Aikman, and J.R. Ewing. All those other states, though? Those are the ones I’m worried about, especially when job one is to get rid of Obama.

    I just like to believe that any serious candidate for president in the year 2012 would have a “laser-like focus on jobs” and the economy and consistently point out President Obama’s dereliction of duty on this point, and I just don’t see it. Instead, I see Santorum talking about the evils of contraception, Gingrich talking about Romney, Romney talking about how horrible all the other republicans are, and Luap Nor talking about himself.

  • jarrod21

    The contraception thing was just one thing, but I can’t see how a candidate for president could even allow themselves to be sidetracked into that sort of discussion.

  • trickamsterdam

    Do you know even after Pres Obama had known every single thing the Rev Right had said (e.g., the CIA deliberately infecting Blacks w/ AIDS) he still made excuse for him in that Philadelphia Civil Rights speech, talking about “sound bites” and how he was a Marine, and how he grew up in the age of segregation (which, I guess, makes it OK to lie about the CIA).

    This is after the MSM had tried to bury the story for a week, that’s the only reason he addressed it in Philly. And, btw, like he lost PA by ten points in the primary, so will Romney in the General. Santorum would have at least a 50/50 shot at PA against Obama.

    But don’t you understand how the MSM shapes “The News”?

    Was Herman Cain probably guilty as charged? Yeah. Guess what? If he’d been a black Democrat who was leading in the polls for President, they probably wouldn’t have even brought up some old claims that had been settled. Even if only because they were scared to, because of Sharpton, et al.

    Now you say “He can’t stay on message”. They’re making the message, man. And you’re eating it up like gruel.

    OK. Good luck w/ the Government you deserve for the rest of your life. Because I can tell you, squire, you’re gonna get it.

    And my only solace is misery loves company.

  • vtdelacy

    I have to agree that this will only help Rick Santorum, since Christians throughout the nation are seeing more and more that he is a genuine believer who will reflect our values when he gets to the Oval Office, something which we have not seen since the advent of Obamunism. It’s good that Rush Limbaugh endorsed Santorum as have at least 90 other conserative leaders who went to CPAC to offer him their support for the campaign. He is indeed the best hope we have remaining to see America led back to the right after the forthcoming election in November. It seems to me that a Santorum-Rubio ticket would energize the base and be absolutely unbeatable.

  • greenpoint

    If the mainline Churches are “gone from the world of Christianity” where would that leave its followers?? Exactly.

  • Ann2012

    flagg wrote: ?I?ve always thought the devil was a lot like the US Post Office: both get far more blame than they deserve (and usually by a party that is actually at fault).?

    He?s just being courteous I suppose, so what better reason to post some lyrics of a song that always seemed to me to have a great deal of truth in it.

    Please allow me to introduce myself
    I’m a man of wealth and taste
    I’ve been around for a long, long year
    Stole many a man’s soul and fate

    I was ’round when Jesus Christ
    Had his moments of doubt and pain
    Made damn sure that Pilate
    Washed his hands and sealed his fate

    Pleased to meet you
    Hope you guess my name
    But what’s puzzling you
    Is the nature of my game

    I stuck around St. Petersburg
    When I saw it was a time for a change
    Killed the Czar and his ministers
    Anastasia screamed in vain

    I rode a tank
    Held a General’s rank
    When the Blitzkrieg raged
    And the bodies stank

    Pleased to meet you
    Hope you guess my name, oh yeah
    What’s puzzling you
    Is the nature of my game, oh yeah

    I watched the glee
    While your kings and queens
    Fought for ten decades
    For the Gods they made

    I shouted out
    “Who killed the Kennedys?”
    Well after all
    It was you and me

    Let me please introduce myself
    I’m a man of wealth and taste
    And I laid traps for troubadours
    Who get killed before they reached Bombay

    Pleased to meet you
    Hope you guess my name, oh yeah
    But what’s puzzling you
    Is the nature of my game, oh yeah

    Pleased to meet you
    Hope you guess my name, oh yeah
    But what’s confusing you
    Is just the nature of my game, oh yeah

    Just as every cop is a criminal
    And all the sinners saints
    As heads is tails just call me Lucifer
    I’m in need of some restraint

    So if you meet me, have some courtesy
    Have some sympathy and some taste
    Use all your well learned politics
    Or I’ll lay your soul to waste, mmm yeah

    Pleased to meet you
    Hope you guess my name, mmm yeah
    But what’s puzzling you
    Is the nature of my game, get down
    Woo hoo, ah yeah, get on down, oh yeah

    Tell me, baby, what’s my name?
    Tell me, honey, baby guess my name
    Tell me, baby, what’s my name?
    I’ll tell ya one time you’re to blame

  • The_Gadfly

    I think the answer to that question is a faithful Catholic believer. When God calls you to witness, you do, even (especially?) when it makes certain people uncomfortable with their corrupted lives. Evangelicals have been making the same pronouncements for quite some time.

    Although I am not Catholic myself (I studied the catechism with Lutherns, attended United Methodist for most of my life, went to Brethren Sunday school, and listened to many Southern Baptist radio preachers), I’ve never found the JFK disclaimer satisfying. If you can’t be an authentic God fearing citizen and POTUS at the same time, our Constitution isn’t worth the 200 year old paper it is written on. It seems to me that Santorum has gotten it right in his career: although he personally questions the consequences of birth control he has never voted to restrict the access of others to it. He’s followed a similar path on every other social issue that is not a mortal sin. On the mortal sins where he has voted “the Catholic position” it also happens to be the conservative position, and I think the Consitutional one as well, SCOTUS decisions not withstanding.

    And in the setting of addressing a Catholic institution, it is entirely appropriate. I’d even say it’s entirely appropriate to raise the issue in the public square. Of course, that’s because I think that until we raise it in the public square, and millions of people make the private choice to pray about and conform to God’s will, we won’t get out of the quagmire in which we find ourselves.

  • repubnut

    I agree along with the majority of America..It’s refreshing once again to have a leader not scare to mention “GOD”.. he will even host a “PRAYER BREAFAST” in the White House– Mormon is a religion liken to Muslim, Jehovah Witness, Witchcraft and etc.—it’s not Christian..Even the members know the difference..

  • celador2

    The insights and facts in EE’s article are refreshing and necessary to anchor perspective. We will need do this again no matter who is elected.

    The Devil

    Media and DNC bring to foreground and amplify the Santorum speech from 2008. His points on Satan are valid. All Christians believe Satan is real and at work. That those denominations that deviate from seeking salvation and helping the needy are touched by the Devil is correct; I feel that as a gut reaction.

    A I recall the breaks in Christianity in last decade, and I wing this,

    A similar break has apeared in Anglicanism and Catholicism. Western well to do Anglicans are focused on themselves and gay marriage and female priests with the new religion global warming.

    Catholics are not much different but its not as obvious. The selection of the Pope had an African in the running as they are the basics branch of Catholicism. The Africans lead the Anglican revolt also from secularism and to abide by the Bible. Arch bishop Canterbury stated there may be two lines of Anglicanism over the gay marriage issues since one line in Africa insists the Bible prohibits it. They also inist the Chirch floow the Bible.

    Follow Christ including the Bible as center of the Church or use church resources to push western social agendas mostly secular is the split.

    That a candidate for president would have an opinion on this sweeping religious issue is right and proper in my opinion.

  • deuke

    This is a point I’ve been trying to hammer home for awhile now. As I said yesterday, the line has been drawn in the sand; the line where we stand for what is righteous and true – “the five points” – and against the evil influence that has gripped this nation and many others.

    IMO, this evil does not want this line drawn, it would rather everyone focus on what truly isn’t important anymore – the ‘game of politics.’ What is important is that people understand we are in the battle of our lives – the spiritual battle, and nothing else compares. Pick a side!

  • slp0

    Yes, I would not consider Church of Christ anything close to mainline and is one of the most conservative groups you can find. They, along with the Christian Church and Disciples of Christ, came out of what was known as the Restoration Movement of the early nineteenth century, as a response to what the denominations had already become at that point. Strictly speaking these nondenominational groups would not be considered Protestant since they were not part of the Reformation. Of the three, the Disciples are the most liberal, though not what one sees in the mainline denominations.

    (The UCC is entirely different and decidedly liberal.)

  • http://www.plumbbobblog.com Plumb_Bob

    Any intelligent observer of modern, American social change would be justified in observing what Santorum observed, and would be correct.

    Why do you have a problem with people interpreting American history?

  • celador2

    Holding true to one’s faith gives courage to believers Martyrs died for the faith in our past, Catholics and Protestants died.

    Santorum must not renounce his beliefs on the Devil he made in 2008 and still finds relevant today. But he must end the bear baiting by media and get back to the issues he runs on as a presidential candidate.

    He said he tries to do that with energy and manufacturing but media keep this Devil perspective alive and the only issue.

  • http://www.plumbbobblog.com Plumb_Bob

    Romney is giving us the preview of the election season.

    If Santorum wins the nomination (I’m predicting that he will,) the Obama campaign will make his religion the subject of the election. We will be subjected to interminable film clips of Santorum giving his religious opinion about … whatever they can find. The election will become a referendum on Jesus.

    WE. MUST. NOT. ALLOW. THIS.

    Every time we hear the press heading that direction, we must respond by positing the sheer, vicious incompetence of the Obama machine.

    We have to remind the audience that the real topic is how the President has deliberately demolished the American economy; how he has sunk our future under a massive heap of unnecessary debt; how he has unlawfully nationalized half a dozen industries; how he has repeatedly ignored the Constitution; how he has waged war against American energy companies; how he as corrupted the Justice Department; how he has directed hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to his political cronies; how he has insulted our allies, and has allowed himself to be manipulated by our enemies.

    This is a tactical necessity. I don’t mind talking about Jesus, as far as it goes, but I will not allow Democrats to divert attention from the real issues. When they start their character assassination machine, I will reply with the truth about the Democrats.

    Isn’t it a relief that the worst thing they’ll be able to say about our candidate is that he’s religious? and that the best they’ll be able to say about theirs is that he’s not?

  • renl57

    …then by your logic, isn’t Judaism much worse?

    Judaism rejects the divinity of Jesus altogether.

    That’s a conclusion one can draw from Santorum’s criticism of non-Catholic religious sects.

    It’s one thing for Santorum to be proud of his Catholic Church and uphold it as a moral good.

    It’s quite another when Santorum implies that there’s something wrong with other religions–any other religions, any other sects.

    We Americans escaped the bloodlettings of Europe precisely because we took a “live and let live” attitude toward religious faiths. The few times we didn’t (Mormonism), persecution and bloodshed resulted, just like they did in Europe.

  • renl57

    …that one can be proud of one’s own religion without sitting in judgment on other religions and criticizing them from a moral point of view.

    We know from history what happens when some Christians start sitting in judgment on other sects of Christianity or on other religions. The Thirty Years’ War, for example.

    We see right now what happens when Muslims start sitting in judgment on sects of Islam or on other religions.

    We Americans have been relatively free of that (Mormons are an exception). That’s one reason why Jews fled Europe to come to America, and why they’ve done so well here.

    Someone like Santorum is going to scare the heck out of Jews, precisely because he sounds like he is being judgmental about other religions.

    And Jews haven’t done well in countries where some Christians insisted on being judgmental about Judaism.

  • renl57

    …that America is God’s flaming sword?

    America is a country whose Constitution doesn’t mention Jesus or Christianity.

    A Constitution that explicitly prohibits an official national church.

    Doesn’t sound like the kind of country God would pick as his “flaming sword.”

    You could make a much better case for Israel or some European coalition as God’s flaming sword than America.

  • rankandfileconservative

    In the last debate, Rick cooly implied that he was the best choice, as he wouldn’t end up being the topic of discussion against Obama, and many conservatives around the country seem to have bought the argument. However, look at the headlines over the past week; the plethora of his comments concerning religion have become the media’s focus anyway.

    The point here is not to bash Santorum, it’s simply that _any_ of the candidates will become the focus, by nature of the fact that they are a threat to the media’s preferred choice, Obama. Since this is true, Rick’s idea of not becoming a distraction in the campaign, his most compelling argument, has already proven to be irrelevant. This fact should lead most thinking voters to conclude that they should primarily base their selection of a candidate on ideas (not on “baggage”), ground on which Newt has the best footing with the electorate.

  • renl57

    …on CBS that he was actually glad to have had the opportunity to speak publicly about these social-moral issues.

    Gingrich would have blasted Schieffer for even asking such questions.

    Santorum eagerly took the opportunity to elaborate on his views.

    That’s the difference. Santorum actually WANTS to talk about the dangers of birth control and so on.

    And given the opportunity by a reporter or interviewer or debate moderator, Santorum will take the opportunity.

  • Change Jar Conservative

    He has essentially killed his chances in the general election over the past three weeks.

    I will strongly support him in the general, but I think he has pushed his chances almost as low as Gingrich’s in the general.

    Guess I’m voting for Romney again.

  • bpgmswv1646

    Many of us Protestants (myself a Presbyterian) have left the mainline Protestant denominations and founded orthodox, conservative Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, Congregational, Lutheran, Anglican, etc… denominations.

    The mainline PC(USA) is losing around 80,000 members each year. .

  • clowngirl

    Not that Santorum is wanting to make Catholicism the official church of the US or meddle in any binding, official capacity — but, IMO, it’s inappropriate for him to be speaking in a public capacity about what he thinks of different denominations.

    Same with voicing opinions about whether mothers should work outside the home. It’s not a question of whether or not they should do it ( I think it’s clear there are plenty of families who have had good results either way) but whether he — in a public capacity, as part of his political philosophy should be voicing a strong opinion about what other families should be doing.

    He also doesn’t need to be quoting scripture to explain why we should drill here and drill now — it’s as inappropriate as when Obama was claiming God was in favor of tax hikes for the rich.

    The other problem is that (apparently) Santorum doesn’t tithe. Gingrich doesn’t either, and I doubt Obama tithes (does he even regularly attend church anymore?) but – in a general election – it would become a political problem for Santorum in a way it wouldn’t for other candidates because faith and a focus on God is a cornerstone of Santorum’s campaign.

    If a candidate is going to do that, he needs to demonstrate that he himself is faithful in all the obvious tangible and measurable ways.

    Along those lines – he should also be taking a sabbath rest every week and it doesn’t appear that he does.

    He needs to show he isn’t compromised in obvious and avoidable ways. And he hasn’t.

  • gaudium

    If the nation’s current economic crisis has taught us anything, it’s that a healthy economy cannot thrive in the midst of moral breakdown. Ethical failures on Wall Street, Main Street, and Capitol Hill put us into this mess we’re in today, as I’ve said many times before. … Do you think that crime rates, incarceration, low educational achievement, out of wedlock births, affect the economy and government spending? Of course they do, and the statistics prove this! If you want a healthy, thriving economy you’ve got to have a strong moral societal foundation.

  • Marcus_Traianus

    …with satan and his liege. Also with people who have shed their affiliation with God and are lost, those who believe solely in the church of government and finally with people who believe that proliferating the murder of unborn children is a worthy cause.

    Beyond that, not so much.

    Obviously, Liberals and the media will do anything to try and distract voters from the disastrous wrecking ball President Obama has been to this nation. This is a prime example.

  • bpgmswv1646

    There are some good folks in the pews still in the mainlines, but the fact is the vast majority of their ministers and those in positions of leadership (especially the UMC, UCC, ABC, ELCA, and PC(USA)) do not hold to the “5 Points”.

    I am a minister in one of those smaller Presbyterian denominations (Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church) and I grew up in the PC(USA).

  • celador2

    It is proper for Sanotrum to discuss an issue that touches him .He must control the response somehow and make it clear other issues are front and center as a candidate for president. All are important to him. Economic issues take most his time.

    But he may be led into a trap if reporters and veteran interviewers like Bob S who go on and on for an agenda of their own. The next question may be the zinger and push Rick into a distorted hole! Rick would have to climb out.

    In 2008 poor Sarah Palin and the American voters were done a great injustce by Curic in her jaded interview set up to make Palin look weak and unfit. Voters need to see a candidate’s strong points and leadership style. Palin said she expected Curic to ask her about her work on energy. Palin saw energy as relevant and her strong point.

    Such a line of leadership questioning would have been a service to the voters. But Curic was motivated by an agenda and would never highlight Palin’s history with Energy in Alaska nor lead us into where Palin would go with energy in a McCain Administration. The Curic intervew was an ad for the election fo Barack Obama.

    Rick Santorum must keep in mind that media agenda to jade his intentions — even an unconscious bias may exost– in interviews.

    As for me I am captivated by social moral issues and rejoice when they are mentioned. Morality in a broader sense not just abortion or marriage but personal morality, community and responsibility.

  • josephine

    Thank you for this terrific article. I agree with you and know Santorum is representing the scripture exactly as it is written. He has ignited the conservative base of the Republican party and even more voters.
    We finally have a man that is not afraid of this.
    I am concerned about the end result. Even if the liberals were not in the picture, I worry about the election straying from the subject that the republicans of this country are completely united on. Saving our Constitution and thus our country from economic ruin and the loss of our freedom to live as American.

  • bennybeaver

    We loved it also something new to add to our Palin drinking game.
    Why people consider her an expert is mystery to those of us who are thinking of voting Republican this time.

    If what I read here is the trend heaven help us all we are going to lose.

  • jon11

    im a southern baptist.

    i believe in good and evil.

    here’s what i don’t get about the ‘mainline’ crack.

    Aren’t we taught to remove the plank from our own eye before attempting to remove the speck from our brothers?

    has the catholic church been free of controversy over the past few years?

    given the trouble that institution has, and has had, blanket statements about other churches are un wise, at the very least.

    but in any case your getting a preview of what a santorum candidacy would look like.

    Nothing but divisive (for our side) unresolvable this side of glory theological debates that unite the opposition like nothing else can.

  • paco12348

    We need a man of faith in White House and I don’t think it hurts Santorum to let people know what he believes. This country was founded on Judeo-Christians beliefs and values and now we have Atheists and Supreme Court with their view of separation of church and state distorting the very thing it was intended to do. That’s why we have the minority forcing the cross removal, no child being able to thank God at her graduation and many more stupid secular events. We KNOW we have Islamic beliefs in Obama’s administrations and I shudder to think of the American secrets that have been revealed and stolen. I never dreamed we would have an administration that worked against America and there seems to be nothing that can stop it. We should be able to clean out such an administration and once Obama is OUT I hope steps can be taken to have a President recalled in case we ever have another Radical AH in the White House again.

  • Tbone

    is his ground troops. They will burn in Hell. And, anyone who thinks Obama is a Christian is a fool.

  • Dave_A

    Which is why the non-denominational/evangelical-free churches are generally doing better than the various traditional protestant denominations (Lutherans, Methodists, Congregationalist/Presbyterian, Anglicans, etc)…

    There has been a proliferation of ‘feel-good’ Christiantity in protestant circles – ‘what can God do for me?’, church becoming more of a social club than a place of worship, a focus on ‘being good people’ over faith & worship of God (a far cry from Luther’s salvation by faith), and so on…

    As a ND protestant myself (and one who picks his church community based on a lack of the above), I tend to see the denominational groupings as something mostly driven by style of worship – some tend to be more charismatic, others more stoic (that’s something we’ve had since Paul was still on this earth) – and some more ceremonial (I’m including the Catholic church here – unlike some of the mainline denominations, the churches I’ve been a member of do not consider Catholicism a separate religion – just a different style of worship)…

    I would point out that the various ‘breaks’ between the Catholic population in the US, and the hierarchy in Rome exhibit a similar problem as well (with US Catholics tending to be more liberal)…

    But that’s to be expected – the corruption of Man does not lend well to building perfect communities, even when worship of God is the original goal….

  • carver1961

    people who put the knock on my church without knowing anything about it except that it has “Lutheran” in its name. My denomination of Lutheranism is one of the true evangelical, fundamental christian churches left in this country. It has no part in the feel-good, global warming gay preacher religion of some others. But this discussion is out of place here. This is not a religious seminar, is it?
    In the area of religion, I have always thought that if a person believes in an after life and being answerable to his Creator, then he will conduct himself in a moral fashion while here on earth.(I draw the line at Islam) And this belief will allow me to vote for a Mormon if need be, despite the fact that he is not my brand of Christian.
    Santorum offended me by relegating my faith to unchristian, but he was speaking at a Catholic school before he was running for office so I will try hard to ignore his ignorance.

  • tnguy

    …but he left himself open for people to think so.

    Like all man-made institutions, the Catholic church has more than it’s share of issues, internally and externally.

  • senor

    This is a very good article by Erik, and as an Anglican who left the Episcopal Church over gay ordination, I very much agree with it. I’d simply like to point out that if you need an example of Satan attacking America, read Maureen Dowd’s column in the Times this morning.

  • clintonformccain

    stirring up trouble. He’s like Dr. Strangelove’s gloved hand when it comes to tellin’ folk about religion. He can’t stop himself. This is nothin’ new. It’s his political brand. What Republicans have to decide is whether they want it to be the party’s brand in 2012, because Santorum isn’t going to change. It’s why he was viewed from the start as a third-tier candidate, behind Bachmann and Cain.

  • chadd65203

    We put too much faith in man and not nearly enough faith in God. The further we’ve strayed from Him the deeper the mess has gotten. Now, with an agnostic in the White House, all hell has broken loose. I pray people wake up before it’s too late.

  • clintonformccain

    ..but, historically, mainline Protestant church goers have been the bedrock of the Republican Party. It’s stunning to me that a Presidential candidate would attack anybody’s religion (where’s the political benefit?), but to attack mainline Protestant congregations makes no sense at all politically.

  • streiff

    nt

  • naysayer

    …and he shouldn’t have. Whether it’s offensive or not, it’s impolitic and shows that he can be led around by the nose by the media — not a great trait for the general.

    Show some message discipline, Santorum. The election isn’t going to be won by the anti-Satan vote.

  • naysayer

    If Santorum can’t weather this kind of attack from Drudge, what the heck do you think Kos and MSNBC are going to do to him in the general?

    Regardless of whether you think Santorum is right or not, do you think saying what he’s saying is going to help him in the general?

  • bpgmswv1646

    That a Roman Catholic whose own Church teaches that anyone outside Rome will go to Hell (go read the Council of Trent’s work and Benedict XVI’s thoughts on the matter).

    Of course there are good Lutherans, like the Wisconsin and Missouri Synods. Same with Presbyterians (PCA, ARP, OPC, RPCNA, etc…).

    Also Mormonism denies that Jesus is the Son of God and denies lots of other doctrines of orthodox Christianity. It is incorrect to refer to the LDS Church as a Christian anything.

  • bpgmswv1646

    That surely was once the truth. But the (R)’s have left the mainlines by the hundreds of thousands. What folks that are left in the mainline denominations are (D)’s.

  • naysayer

    United Methodist here. Although I have the good fortune to attend a thriving church under a godly pastor, I do acknowledge the leftward drift of denominational leadership and governing documents.

    I do struggle with it, just as I struggle with the weakness and leftward drift of the Republican party’s leadership. But I stick with them and try to do what I can to correct it, as I trust all of us are similarly sticking with the Republican party.

    I supported Huntsman, because although he, like everyone else running, had imperfections, he had superior executive experience, a cool head, a conservative policy record to point to, and smart ideas about how to address some of the fundamental economic issues that face us today.

    He was blasted out of the gate by Erick, who later backtracked, and never gained much traction from Republicans here who weren’t willing to actually look at his record and the policies he proposed, and were more than willing to discount him based on his lack of willingness to both toss out red meat to the base and to toe the party line on global warming.

    By contrast, Santorum has no executive experience, a terrible fiscal record, no coherent economic message, poor message discipline in general, a weak debate persona, and terrible vulnerabilities in his previous comments about religion.

    There was a reason he was the _last_ of the Not Romneys to catch fire, and it wasn’t that he was the best of the lot.

  • Right Reason

    . . .into feel-good social clubs has been progressing for some time and, in a religious context, which is the context in which Santorum was speaking at the time, it is unquestionably negative. This is not simply from a Catholic perspective. The faithful within these sects recognize it as well. That is the reason for the recent schisms within these sects. Moreover, I would argue that it is not simply a negative from a religious perspective, but from a sectarian moral one as well. Others in this thread have pointed out the shift in stance from these sects toward “social justice” issues and away from scripture.

    I would resist the urge to characterize these statements as Santorum inciting a holy war (figuratively, of course).

  • naysayer

    The worst thing is that our _own_ candidate will be going on and on about his religious beliefs. I don’t believe Santorum can or will avoid the repeated traps that the MSM will lay down for him, and will end up doing their work for them.

  • Right Reason

    He wasn’t running for anything.

    Also, it seems that everyone BUT Santorum is making this a political issue. From CNN:

    “If they want to go ahead and dig up old speeches to a religious group they can go right ahead and do so. I’m going to stay on message. I’m going to talk about the things Americans want to talk about,” Santorum said to CNN.

  • Right Reason

    n/t

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    The church of Christ isn’t a denomination, but rather a loose association of like-minded churches. Like Disciples of Christ churches, they find their origins in the Restoration Movement (Campbellites). The primary difference between coC and DoC is the use of musical instruments in worship. The United Church of Christ comes from the Congregational movement of the Reformed churches, which is a separate branch than that of the Campbellites. The coC doctrine is orthodox while UCC is not (universal salvation). Full Disclosre: I grew up attending the church of Christ.

    While I agree that mainline denominations have serious problems and are in decline, there are still a few candles in the darkness. Specifically a nearby PCUSA church and a Methodist church pastored by a longtime friend. The mainline denominations’ slide to liberalism is not unlike our national political trend. But just as we fight to slow and/or stop that trend where we can in the political realm, so do many fight within these churches to maintain the faith once delivered to the saints.

    Lastly, I don’t disagree with what Santorum said about the mainline Protestant churches. My problem is that there are enough problems with his own church that he doesn’t need to be talking about the problems of others. Glass houses, you know.

  • calesgrandma

    thank you for clarifying…i’m a member of the church of Christ (daughter of a minister) and this is not a complicated issue…we are not mainline…we are non denominational and not part of the UCC…i think erick needs to do more research…

  • Repair_Man_Jack

    You seem to have mistaken Rick Santorum for Dirk Diggler. One is a candidate for President, the other is a fictional porn-star played by Mark Wahlberg in the movie “Boogie Nights”. Hopefully, you’ll understand this distinction far better int he future.

  • clintonformccain

    I don’t think it’s helps win elections to make the Republican tent smaller, especially excluding people from the tent based on their religious affiliation. In fact, that seems crazy to me.

  • rightland1111

    Today, so many words have changed their meanings. So, exactly what did this word “Satan” originally mean…and how does it apply today. I bet you all know the answer. Maybe on happenstance, Santorum stumbled on something that has a much greater meaning. You don’t think that our current leader is by mistake…do you? I know….let me get out my tin foil hat….but explain how this meaning conflicts with the current state of affairs.

    Satan (Hebrew: ????????? ha-Satan), “the opposer”,[1] is the title of various entities, both human and divine, who challenge the faith of humans in the Hebrew Bible.[2] In Christianity the title became a personal name, and “Satan” changed from an accuser appointed by God to test men’s faith to the chief of the rebellious fallen angels (“the devil” in Christianity, “Shaitan” in Arabic, the term used by Arab Christians and Muslims).[3] In Islam, a shay??n is any evil creature, whether human, animal or spirit. With the definite article, the Shay??n is Iblis, the Devil.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    ..

  • acat

    against hell?

    Mew

  • chadd65203

    How does pandering to the secular left help our cause? He’s showing leadership. The Republican and the Tea Party shouldn’t be afraid to embrace values voters. I don’t buy the argument that it will alienate huge chunks of the electorate. Bush won Ohio in 2004 and it propelled him to victory. He didn’t win because he separated himself from his Christian values. He won because he embraced them, spoke about them and ran on them. Rove was smart enough to know that the base needed to come out, and they did in droves. They expanded the electorate and people voted because social value matter to people. There was a clear choice between him and Kerry, who would charitably be described as an agnostic. Gay marriage was on the ballot that year, which helped. Plus it was in the midst of the Iraq War. But Iraq was no more polarizing than what we have now. Bush could have turned his back on his religious views and he didn’t. Let’s put the power of the secularist Dems up against that of God and the true believers in the Republican party. I have no doubt who will win.

  • Repair_Man_Jack

    Caltech Michelin Lecture
    January 17, 2003
    ?Aliens Cause Global Warming?
    by Michael Crichton

    www.tsaugust.org/images/Lecture_by_?Crichton_at_Caltech.pdf

  • 10ab

    I read an interesting article by a group of religious leaders….their summation:

    A President should attempt to fulfill the promise of America by seeking to serve and be responsive to the FULL range of constituents IRRESPECTIVE of their religion and reject appeals or messages to voters that reflect religious prejudice or stereotyping!

    Mr Santorum should be running on issues NOT pandering to the extreme right. His views and statements are inflaming and beginning to pit one Christian’s faith against the other. Not since Ms. Palin spoke about the “real Americans” have I heard such cring worthy statements from a candidate!

  • westcoastpatriette

    in hearing Santorum publicly criticize Protestantism. “Has the Catholic church been free of controversy over the last few years?” Duh. And I am sure most devout Catholics would have a knee-jerk reaction to anyone (especially a candidate running for the presidency) bringing up the pedophilia scandal inside their church walls over the last decade or two. How does Santorum not see the hypocrisy involved in criticizing other churches when his own has been guilty of conduct that many think is “gone from the world of Christianity” or reveals Catholicism as in “shambles?” That is why Santorum could be dangerous. He has blind spots sometimes when he speaks that will continue to make him an easy target from many different camps inside politics.

    He makes me nervous because of this.

  • littletboca

    Hope to see you tonight Erick, since my stomping grounds just happens to be Arizona. Thanks for posting my blogs and allowing me to be a part of Red State. Marcia Wood (Little Tboca)

  • rightland1111

    First thing first…let’s cut off the head of the snake. Who…Kitty, who is the obvious “opposer” of everything American? The only way to get “part” of this gone is to get rid of him on November. Oh…and about Congress…how about the American people “declare war” on Congress…meaning…so I will not be taken out of context…voting these people out of office.

    It is imperative that we get these Progressives OUT of office. So..Meow, Meow…let’s vote ALL OF THEM OUT WE CAN.

    Sorry about not answering your question…Congress does not know how to Declare War on anything…they haven’t even recognized we’re in hell because there enjoying their benefits that are not on par with those that they swore to protect and defend.

  • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

    The church I go to is evangelical. Its nondenominational, but it bases its believe on the words in the bible, nothing more. Its called Harvest Bible chapel, and there are churches all over the country that belong to this system of churches. It was started in Chicago by James Mcdonalds. I chose this church because I’m what Eric describes as a more fundamentalist. Some of my political beliefs do not jive with my Faith beliefs. But having said that, most of my beliefs come from my faith, and rarely find myself not agreeing with what I am taught in faith based politics. The one exception comes with the governments involvement in gay marriage, which I’m on the camp that says the government need stay out of it. This should be between them and their God.

  • littlehouse18

    where presumably matters of faith were prominent on the agenda. Santorum is allowed to have a religious life too, and it is entirely appropriate for him to ‘sermonize’ in those settings.

    Otherwise, logic would say that members of clergy are forbidden from running for office. Is that okay??

  • acat

    because I recognize that Collins and Snowe and Brown and Kirk are better than the Dems who would replace ‘em.

    I further recognize that our government is, by definition, temporal, not spiritual, and I do not try to change it into something it is not.

    Mew

  • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

    But to answer your question, only when that proverbial freeze-over occurs will Congress will legislate the obvious, as is its nature. :)

  • Repair_Man_Jack

    j/k

  • littlehouse18

    It’s like when one of us reveals some new way the Jihadis could find us vulnerable – we tell them our weaknesses and how best to exploit them, when they might not have been s effective at that on their own.

  • littlehouse18

    but it has until recent times been a place where Christianity has had free, fertile soil in which to flourish in all its diverse ways.

  • littlehouse18

    and demanding that he get a chance to speak about the issues. He is continually getting boxed in by the media. They won’t let him discuss the issues, and I simply don’t think a candidate can break out of that all on his own.

  • littlehouse18

    ( or at least I try, however imperfectly). I am not going to be loyal to my denomination when they depart from the teachings of Christ and worse, try to bring the ‘flock’ along with them.

  • Glaucon

    “Two questions for the mainline members commenting on this article:
    Do you acknowledge the leftward drift of your denominational leadership and governing documents?
    Are you glad for it, or do you struggle with it?”

    What leftward drift? My mainline denomination does not ordain homosexuals, and does not perform gay marriages, if that is what you mean.

  • Glaucon

    .

  • runner12

    100% with Erick’s defense of him for three main reasons:

    1.) What Santorum said is not outside of Christian Orthodoxy. Christians do believe in a spiritual presence of evil known as Satan. He is not a whack job for believing this nor is he on the “fringe” of the Christian faith.

    2). What he stated about mainline Protestant churches is true. This was not merely his opinion, data exists to back up his statement. The reason for the decline, as Erick stated, is the increasing presence of theological Liberalism within these churches. I have heard statements both from pastors within the mainline denominations and Evangelical Protestant leaders citing this decline. It is not a controversial statement within the Christian sphere, everyone knows it to be occurring.

    3). He made these comments in 2008 at a religious institution. He was not running for President nor had his campaign kicked off. Had these statements been more recent, then an argument could be made against messaging. But this was a man invited to a religious insitution to talk about faith matters. How dare he! sarc/

    IMHO, if it leaks out that Romney did in fact hand this story to Drudge his campaign is over. How can you complain about religious bigotry towards yourself and turn around and attack someone else’s statements on faith?

  • ihateliberals

    no other candidate should be questioned when making a statement such as Santorum has made. If people could listen to Wright and then still accept Obama then religion obviously doesn’t matter in the long run. My hope is tht Santorum destroy Romney tonight and put the nomination to rest. This campaign is going to take a nasty turn once the GOP nominee is settled. religion is going to be part of the debate. Santorum has the best chance with the religious right than anyone else running at this point. To me it is coming down to a three man race. Ron Paul has had it and should just stop wasting everyone’s time. He isn’t electable no matter how good his idea’s are. Romney will get ripped apart on Mormonism right or wrong. I hope that Santorum can use Rev. Wright as a big weapon against Obama. I think the religious people tht voted for him in 2008 will wake-up and rise-up against him. They will vote for Santorum just so they don’t vote for Obama.

    We are still in a sad state with the GOP in that this should be the easiest presidential Election for them ever. It should be like Reagan in 1984. His winning wasn’t the question but By how much? In this election at this point it is a toss-up because of the GOP candidates no being very conservative or strong.

  • cbartlett

    All of these candidates are allowing the media and liberals to “use” religious issues to distract. They love to make Republicans look “crazy” or “bigotted” or “too religious” or “too dedicated” or whatever – take your pick. These candidates need to point out that we have a Constitution with the First Amendment FIRST for a reason – we always protect religious freedom and religious liberty. Period. There are way too many different beliefs about the definitions of right/wrong, moral/immoral – we will never all agree on everything. There is nothing wrong with a candicate saying that they believe in God and personally believe in and support, pro-life but move on. The rest of these discussions about specifics about any religious group need to be dumped and move on to the economy or defense of the border or energy plans or a hundred other things that are a whole lot more important to this country because Obama has screwed them up and we desperately need to get back on track.

    BTW – I keep hearing the term “we are a Christian nation”. I looked it up just to make sure – Christ is not mentioned anywhere in the Declaration or the Constitution – God/Creator is mentioned several times, but not Christ. I am a member of a fundamental, independent Christian church and I would just prefer that the federal government stay completely out of our church. Definition of true religious liberty.

  • 10ab

    Please let us not divide ourselves by pointing fingers. You hint that there are no Democratic Christians ….that statement is demeaning to the Republican party and to those Independents that would like to vote on issues not extreme religious views!

  • naysayer

    Mainline Protestants (the group studied below) are more likely to identify as Republicans than Democrats — a trend that has _increased_ in the past few years. And mainline Protestants are still more likely to identify as Republicans than Catholics.

    http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/comparison-Party%20Affiliation%20.pdf

    Interestingly, the available data also demonstrates that it’s _mainline_ Protestants that most firmly hold to the principles of smaller government, even over Evangelicals.

    http://religions.pewforum.org/portraits

  • cbartlett

    The UCC is most definitely NOT the same thing as church of Christ. I, too, am a member of the church of Christ and our congregations are locally autonomous – do not answer to any denominational organization or authority other than the Bible. Not sure the note Erick added about that at the end was very clear….

  • naysayer

    .

  • rightland1111

    meaning that BHO needs to be voted out along with all his czars. I don’t think that we have a problem there. In fact…we never have had a problem. Of course I would keep Brown instead of Warren…if I lived in MA. Kirk, I think is recovering from his stroke. Collins and Snowe, I would love to see primaried by Conservative candidates…and from living in NE for a time…I can at least hope they would go the Libertarian route…and perhaps we could stop SPENDING so much. I think that you and I agree with that…also.

    The analogy of Satan and the origin of the word…meaning opposer, which I posted does not in any way reflect a spiritual nature of government…or religious for that matter. The word was used to point out, that we do in fact have an “opposer” to our Constitution. And…Kitty…We might want to look at the words “endowed by our Creator” before we make our government…which is supposed to be run according to the Constitution (ha…ha)…totally “secular. If you mean that the government we now have is temporary…I HOPE SO and I would never change the meaning of that word.

    Voting Progressives out of office is going to save this country…and yes…I would like as many of them gone as we can afford to….otherwise…tic…tic…tic…the debt keeps going up and up and Kitty…both you and I know where we will end up with that…don’t we?

  • haners

    Some of the true conservatives here won’t be happy until they’ve purged everyone out of the Republican Party and are left with their permanent 20% in the general..

    Most Mainline Protestants are Republican. So far.

  • naysayer

    If Santorum’s _priest_ had said the things Santorum said, you’d have a point. But Santorum’s comments are coming directly out of his _own_ mouth. They are appropriately scrutinized more.

    To think that making this election focus _more_ on comparative religion would be good strategy makes my jaw drop in disbelief. If Wright wasn’t a problem for people when Obama was unknown and inexperienced, what makes you think that old line of attack is going to be more effective _now_, when Obama is the incumbent, and they can easily fire back on Santorum?

    This election needs to be focused on economic issues, and championed by a candidate with some basic credibility on the subject. Even then this year’s election couldn’t possibly be like Reagan in 1984, because we don’t have a Reagan available this year — by which I mean a person with at least consistently describable ideological beliefs who also is skilled at controlling his image and message, and who is an appealing and inspiring speaker.

  • acat

    I wouldn’t put much faith in the bread basket going libertarian.

    Further, the founding fathers were a diverse bunch when it came to beliefs .. I find mine more in line with Ethan Allen.

    And yes, Kirk – who is my Senator – does seem to be recovering.

    Mew

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Do you need a tissue?

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    . .

  • acat

    and let me preface by saying that I agree, if Romney’s fingerprints are found on this, he’s done…

    The trouble I have isn’t that Santorum, or Romney, or Gingrich have religion .. it’s that Santorum – of the three – seems to struggle to discuss anything but social issues… and those will not win the general election.

    Mew

    (removes horns)

  • honoraryintern

    Mew you’ve got the religion shoe and shake it every time you can. Don’t you think this is temporary as Rick settles at the top of the pack? The MisMedia have gone after him on these issues. Rick has stood toe to toe with all the crazy presumptions and has reset the conversation on his terms each interview I’ve seen. I think his approach appeals to those rust belt dems who own a gun and yes go to church. What would you have him do, the Mitt thing, Smile and say ” wont talk about it”?

  • 10ab

    Because of the religious ” purging” by the extreme right! Better candidates were out there but they did not want to go thru Hell’s fire to satisfy the far right.
    It would be a blessing if they started their own party so candidates would not have to pander so outrageously for their vote. The GOP was supposed to be a magnet for all….not a sect of religious zealots.

  • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

    Is his perceived inability to discuss anything but social issues fact or is it the produce of a media blockade?

    If he can’t stop from making own goals, then his candidacy is a dead end.

    If he is talking about other matters, and the media is through omission and twisting statements silencing that, we’ve got a different situation to deal with.

    If he falls off his high wire, so be it – but I won’t abet the media’s pushing him off. I’m tired of the media creating the narrative rather than reporting.

    Santorum certainly has many sins against conservatism in his political history to atone for (which I have pointed out in the past), but most of the religion issues thus far seem to be a crock.

    He seems to have shown growth away from being a one-leg-of-the-stool candidate, to my surprise, and he deserves a certain space to proceed without being summarily dismissed.

    It’s the difference between an Everett Koop vs. a Mike Huckabee.

    The jury is still out on that…and hopefully we’ll get resolution on this soon.

  • rightland1111

    I can only assume from my better half that the breadbasket is traditional Redstate people. I haven’t lived there, so I can’t give you an opinion on them. They seem to be about God and Country with the exception of the urban areas, i.e., the mess in Wisconsin. Even in your state…I think the corruption, for the most part, stops when you get out of Chicago…yes???

    Maine is another story and I have lived in NE. Do I think that residents of those states slant Liberatarian in their views…yes. In fact, some of them are almost akin to Washington and Oregon…except they are frugal people or at least that has been my experience. They want government out of everything and I would guess if they had a Republican/Libertarian candidate…we wouldn’t have all these close calls on the budget, etc. as we have had with Snowe and Collins. Those two have been the tie-breakers in many of the bills in the Senate…and not to the American public’s advantage…I might add.

  • acat

    This is not the religion shoe, this is the ‘winning the general election’ shoe.

    Santorum’s record remains relatively unexamined, nationwide. He was discarded early, never really vetted. Even Erick wrote him off back in August… and since his rise, several front page diarists have had questions – not about Santorum’s religion, but about his politics. Santorum has some ‘splainin’ to do.

    The Scheiffer interview I specifically reference was supposed to cover economic issues. Issues that polling indicates matter to all voters, stuff like jobs and welfare reform and fixing social security. Instead, Santorum allowed Scheiffer to direct the entire interview onto social issues. The only time Santorum stood up and objected was regarding his son’s death. No attempt to push the conversation off social issues happened.

    This is not about religion, it is about candidate competence.

    I’ve said repeatedly that Santorum could simply have redirected – “Bob, now that I’ve answered that question, I’d like to talk about my energy policy”, or “Bob, everybody knows where I stand on abortion, rather than rehashing that, let’s talk about putting our country back to work.”

    Your inability, honoraryintern, to see the difference between this and “chewing the religion shoe” is pathetic.

    Mew

  • rightland1111

    NT

  • acat

    Never lived there.

    I have spent time in Oregon, it’s quite libertarian until you get to Portland… and those folks make Moscow look moderate.

    I can understand the frustration with Collins and Snowe .. but. Maine also has a Dem (i.e. Left i.e. liberal) party .. and any attempt to unseat the Maine Twins could lead to a Dem Senator.

    I’m not saying it can’t be done, but it’ll take a GOPer who has a strong record of success in Maine .. and I do not see one on the horizon at this time. We are better off retaining Collins and Snowe as they will vote with us at least 40% of the time, where a Dem would vote with us 20% of the time to keep winning re-election.

    The object lesson is Bart Stupak.

    Mew

  • honoraryintern

    Agree with civil truth. a little time and we both might get a good candidate. Tonight will be a good test. I don’t want a social-con only candidate either. Acat your point is right, an only social-con will lose in the November. Give him 3 days. I hope we all feel better then. (Slirp, sorry Sydney likes cats…)

  • Glaucon

    Something smells around here, better check your Pull-Ups?.

  • jarrod21

    I said I don’t like Santorum. I didn’t say I liked anybody else. I mean, along with Bachmann and Paul, he was one of the few I just didn’t consider a real candidate. That doesn’t mean I’m some dyed in the wool Romneyite. All it means is I’m not chomping at the bit to vote for someone whose main selling point seems to be that he’s God’s candidate.

    For me it was Newt then Cain then Perry (to the bitter end) and then Newt again, and each of them has wet the bed. Mitt was the backup the whole time because it was supposed to be inevitable. Now it’s not, and someone I’ve always thought is a nut is out in front.

    I don’t want any of these jokers. If the Republican presidential field was a thoroughbred, it would have four broken legs and should have been put down ages ago.

    I miss when Perry (also a religious fella, if you recall, but who also had something other than that to offer) was going to be the guy. All I know is it looks like Paul Ryan and Chris Christie were the smart ones for sitting out. God only knows what these doofuses would have done to either of them.

  • cbartlett

    Not only would Obama not win here, we Texans are going to have absolutely no say in who opposes him in the other states this year. I heard at a “meet-n-greet” for Ted Cruz last night that the primary is now “most likely May 29th, possibly as late as June 26th”. I’m with you – even without the late primary – it doesn’t matter how many electoral votes we have. We end up being at the mercy of a small handful of voters in a small number of states. This is the reason to get control back to the states and out of the hands of out-of-control Federal electeds and agencies. Oh – if only Perry were still in there fighting for the 10th Amendment…..

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Done throwing your tantrum yet, crybaby?

  • greeneyeshade

    Next question?

  • greeneyeshade

    I was thinking that after the tenth anniversary, we should have been reminded of the profound hellishness many of those victims experienced.

  • admdavid

    but Mormons most certainly do believe that Christ is the Son of God. There are items where doctrinally we differ, but any assertion that we are not a Christian denomination is absurd in its entirety.

  • 10ab

    Some of our greatest spiritual leaders have led by example without pandering and self righteousness… they led with humility and acceptance. Rick Santorum comes far short of this ideal!

  • cbartlett

    There are two houses of Congress (among others) also involved in that moral breakdown. Even if Santorum managed to win the nomination AND the general against Obama, he wouldn’t be able to do much improve the moral foundation of that corrupt group by himself. If we, the voters, make a conscious decision to only elect moral, ethical people to office, it’ll still take several terms to get rid of the corrupt statists who are already there.

  • acat

    I’ll support Santorum in the general, if he can win the nomination.

    I do not believe he can do so, but I am wise enough to know I’m fallible.

    You may have your three days grace. From this cat, at least.

    Of course, if Gingrich eats Santorum’s liver …

    Mew

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    I recall Santorum talking quite a bit in the debates about repealing Obamacare and going after Mittens on Romneycare when he had the chance. If you recall, he really didn’t get all that much air time in some of those debates.

    I do agree he needs to balance his remarks and refuse to let the media heads control the dialogue (which is perhaps intentional in order to keep the focus off of Obamaneycare) like he did the other day.

    From the story here

    Asked whether he still thinks Satan is attacking the United States, Santorum called the inquiry “not relevant to what’s being discussed in America today.”

    “If they want to dig up old speeches of me talking to religious groups, they can go ahead and do so, but I’m going to stay on message and I’m going to talk about things that Americans want to talk about,” Santorum said, “which is creating jobs, making our country more secure, and yeah, taking on the forces around his world who want to do harm to America, and you bet I will take them on.”

    I’m still a Newt supporter, but I’ll vote for Santorum over Romney if it comes to that.

    By the way, did you hear Buddy Roemer’s going third party? That’ll really shake things up. Story is here.

  • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

    …but trimming his words to what he thought the audience wanted to hear. I’ve seen no evidence that he was not speaking his mind. And he was not running for President at the time.

    His political record – that’s fair game…

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    here at redstsate. Without going too deep into an explanation, I noted the difference in my comment above and referenced an explanation of who we are by Bro. Baxter.

    I surely don’t think Erick intended any slight to those of us who are members of the church of Christ or to lump us in with those of the Rev. Wright variety, but clarity is good.

    EE, if you happen to catch this comment, I invite you to visit a church of Christ so you can see first-hand what we’re about. I was a member at the North Macon church of Christ for the 2 1/2 years I lived in Macon. It’s a small congregation located on Bass Road.

  • maybenexttime

    I wonder why the Republican establishment is so determined to throw religious conservatives under the bus in this election cycle. Matt Drudge has effectively become the hitman for the contract put out on Rick Santorum. The GOP is so convinced they can beat Obama with a Obama Lite (Romney) that they’ll openly attack the one true Christian conservative in the race.

    How many more elections will the GOP establishments get away with doing this?

  • jarrod21

    It’s so dumb how things are set up.

    First off, there should be no open primaries to help prevent mischief, and if you switch party affiliation, there should be a waiting period of at least a month until you are re-registered to vote. Not that anybody checks to see if you’re actually a registered voter, but that’s another argument.

    Secondly, I’ve never had a real say in who I want to run for president. By the time it got to us in ’96, everybody but Dole had dropped out. In 2000, it was all but over in favor of Bush (who was my pick, anyhow, but that’s beside the point). In 2008, all I wanted more than anything was to cast a vote for Fred Thompson, and I had to choose between McCain and Romney. And now, I get the four horsemen of the apocalypse. That’s assuming they’re all still there by the time it gets around to us.

    I’m tired of Texans having no say in who runs for president for us.

    What would be so bad about a national, all at the same time primary? Wouldn’t that be the best test of “electability”? It’s not the 1800s anymore, I think we could manage.

  • http://www.gmsplace.com/ civil truth

    But if Newt can turn it around, he’s okay too. But he’s got his ego and focus issues. I really don’t know who can run the better race against Obama at this point between Gingrich and Santorum – but I’d put my money on the one who can best push back against a hostile MSM narrative – and can articulate a conservative alternative (and one that covers fiscal and defense policy).

    I see no path to a November win with Romney as the candidate short of an Obama meltdown.

    I can’t believe that Rick has entered the realm of viability after his past offenses – that shows some growth on his part and especially the desperate straits of the Republican primary race.

    But if Santorum pulls this one off, he’ll have one-upped the protagonists of The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. Right now I’d say he’s approaching earth orbit.

    (I didn’t ask for three days – it’s really in Rick’s hands how he handles the space he’s been given.)

  • acat

    And that’s pathetic.

    The trouble is, Ron Paul, Buddy Roemer, and Gary Johnson will all be trying to siphon votes away from the GOP nominee ..

    Mew

  • christine777

    Santorum would tone down his religious rants. I’m all for a candidate of faith, but his candidacy has become all about religion. It’s the same mistake that Perry made when he turned his campaign from the economy and jobs, to religious fervor. When a a candidate gets off message he dilutes his base. I would rather hear about his methods to turn our economy around, reduce the deficit, cut off corporations and some of these countries that are not allies from financial aid. It’s time to do what ever is needed to save our country from financial ruin.We’re in crisis mode here and religion is not going to change it. So let’s hear about solutions.

  • jc230

    the so-called mainstream conservative journalists, broadcasters who use their media platform to promote “their” candidate. Hugh Hewitt announced yesterday on his radio show he wasn’t going to cover the GOP debate tonight as he has provided commentary and analysis of previous televised debates. He claims it’s because there have been so many “liberal” networks and conservative moderators haven’t hosted any of the major debates. That is a bogus argument. If Hugh Hewitt wanted to provide information through the lens of a non-biased conservative he could provide his perspective, along with guests, and debate analysis. The problem is Hewitt cannot provide non-biased analysis, he’s got it bad for Romney. Too bad the mainstream conservative media is misleading the American public much like its liberal counterparts. You really need to be discerning and politically astute to recognize there are few purist media outlets offering data that doesn’t have political bias or spin.

  • phenne

    “We loved it also something new to add to our Palin drinking game.
    Why people consider her an expert is mystery to those of us who are thinking of voting Republican this time.

    If what I read here is the trend heaven help us all we are going to lose.”

    Care to elaborate?

    I mean, do you and your drinking group imprint onto people your ‘accumen’ from witnessing their plain-spoken thoughts?

    If I get your snarky comments right, your position is “middle-of-the-road” in a superficial context, providing you with copiuos amounts of ‘cover’ as you saunter through a soiree, glass in hand, flitting about making shallow conversation on nothingess to bolster your self-esteem.

    Did I nail it, or what?

    “Git Er Dun!”

  • runner12

    on his messaging as a whole. His kerfuffle with the whole pre-natal statement was distracting from the real issue of the Obama administration’s attack on religious freedom.

    Too often he chases rabbits that have nothing to do with current events. His focus should be on jobs, our national debt, and the overreach of the Feds.

    My only point was to defend him from this specific attack, any critique on his coomunication style on other points is fair game, IMHO.

  • honoraryintern

    … herding cats, never successful venture. Is a Romney-Paul ticket better?

  • honoraryintern

    No political wind blows without a reason. Suggestion as to why… http://www.redstate.com/honoraryintern/2012/02/22/mitts-not-stupid-or-hey-have-you-seen-my-new-aluminium-foil-cap/

  • acat

    Cat tongues are notably not soft.

    Romney will – just because of who he is – struggle in the role of “leader” that we require of our presidential candidates. We – meaning the conservative movement – may get him into the white house, but it will be at a cost… specifically, money and time spent on Wafflin’ Willard will not be spent winning House, Senate, and Statehouse races.

    Ron Paul should not be allowed to organize anything more complex than a Sunday brunch.

    You’re not going to make it beyond intern if you don’t learn to pay closer attention, eh?

    Mew

  • trickamsterdam

    The problem w/ your logic, acat, is that all the candidates fail your test (i.e., competence) and Santorum probably actually passes it the best, if anyone does.

    Can anyone doubt he’s done the most w/ the least?

    But, to explain:

    Newt fails your test because if he would’ve started fundraising and cultivating endorsements earlier (like Romney did) he might have been able to defend himself in Iowa from Romney’s and Paul’s hate-a-thon.

    That might not only have allowed Newt to maintain his position as front-runner, it may have kept Newt from becoming completely frustrated at his treatment, which further wounded him and added to the general negativity of the entire primary season.

    Romney fails your test because even w/ all his advantages, he can’t close. Even, possibly, in his “home” state (quotes, because he’s another one of these guys w/ five home states). For his pos/neg rating to collapse more than thirty points during a primary campaign means the guy’s as ham-handed as it gets. He doesn’t do interviews, because in this context he doesn’t have to…he’s got paid advertising and surrogates, whereas Santorum has to do them for the free air time.

    But when Romney does do interviews he screws up (“I don’t care about the poor”). And in the General he’s going to have to do interviews. Honestly, based on what advantages they both have and where they both are, it’s fairly clear Santorum is the more competent politician.

    What people should actually do, instead of thinking of the popular vote (which all of us political junkies know isn’t how we elect Presidents, but which even we can sometimes forget), and also stop thinking about “independents” in a general way, and then go state by state. Which states can Romney take that Santorum can’t? And which can Santorum take that Romney can’t?

    Honestly, I may be missing some, but I give Romney a better chance in NH, and that’s it. But I give Santorum’s message of economic populism (to get Reagan Democrats) and traditional values (to get much better turn-out from the Base) a chance to really compete in the Rust Belt, especially PA and OH.

    Now does that make him anything like a favorite against Pres Obama? No, it doesn’t. But I think he has the economic (bring back manufacturing) and social message (it times of uncertainty, people often want to hold onto the values they know) that fits this climate much better than Romney’s (or, frankly, Newt’s).

    But, to wrap up, w/everything they’ve squandered and w/ what Santorum has done w/ so little, I’d think it would almost be impossible to say that Newt and Romney have run more “competent” campaigns.

  • acat

    I agree re. Romney, he fails the first rule of sales – Always Be Closing.

    I agree re. Gingrich .. but I do suspect he was in the race, initially, to sell books.

    I agree partially re. Santorum – he traded his (and his family’s) time instead of money for votes in Iowa .. (and in the end, he bought the Van Pantaloons endorsement, which put him over the top)

    Where I disagree is whether Santorum really can bring it in the rust belt. Doing so requires him to get out of his social issues comfort zone and start tackling hardball fiscal questions.

    I’m going to be watching tonight .. this is do-or-die for Santorum… and a chance for another comeback for Gingrich.

    Mew

  • johneidsmoe

    Erick, I agree with almost everything you say. But when you list the liberal mainline denominations, you list several very specific religious bodies, and then you conclude with “the Lutherans.”

    The fact is, only ONE Lutheran synod is liberal, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA). Unfortunately, ELCA is also the largest synod, although it is rapidly losing members and churches. Two rapidly-growing Lutheran synods consist mostly of churches which have left ELCA, the Lutheran Congregations in Mission for Christ (LCMC) and the North American Lutheran Church (NALC).

    Other conservative Lutheran synods are the 2.3 million member Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, the Association of Free Lutheran Congregations, the Church of the Lutheran Brethren, the Evangelical Lutheran Synod, the Apostolic Lutherans, the Church of the Lutheran Reformation, the Church of the Lutheran Confession, and the Association of American Lutheran Churches. Note that last week Matthew Harrison, the President of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, testified very strongly before Congress against Obama’s HHS regulations, declaring in the words of the Apostles in Acts 5:29 as quoted in the Augsburg Confession, “We must obey God rather than men.”

    All of these Lutheran synods would agree that ELCA does not speak for them. Please, Erick, continue to point out the problems with mainline denominations, but please do not paint all Lutherans with the ELCA brush.

  • The_Gadfly

    when he was running for office: ‘you can’t call the Soviets an “evil empire,” that’s so 18th century!’ Why, that’s almost like one of the Founding Fathers saying our Constitution is only fit for a moral people.

    There’s never been a financial crisis that wasn’t also a moral crisis, and rarely is there a moral crisis without an accomapnying financial disaster. You can’t focus on one and ignore the other. Both must be addressed. And I for one am getting tired of people claiming the anti-Constitutional position that faith cannot be aired in the public square is ‘the moral high ground.’ It runs contrary not only to the religious component of the First Amendment, but the free speech, assembly, and right to address grievances clauses as well.

  • avagreen

    Let me try to gather my thoughts….

    But some Church of Christ members contend they are mainline, not UCC.
    and.
    A mainline protestant is not a ?mainstream? protestant. The two are not interchangeable. The former is more of an academic term. Actually, both of these terms are “academic terms” as are “congregationalist”, “fundamentalist”, and “evangelical” which all have been created by scholars/academicians on the issue of churches and religion in America. The complaint I have is that such scholarship almost always gets it wrong in their attempts at grouping religious folk, and consequently mangling the belief system of many, while trying to speak for and about so many by combining these groups, into….well, “groups”.

    1. The United Church of Christ did not originate from any early protestant movement in this country (although they would like others to think so), as it came into being in 1957 as a conglomeration between two other groups that had their origins in the 1930′s (after a mishmash of multiple combining other multiples of other groups from earlier times) and is a tremendously liberal group, twisting the Word of God. I remember distinctly when this happened because of the confusion that the uber-liberal UCC and their rantings was the same thing as the church of Christ. Not.

    2. The church of Christ (an “evangelical” group……. according to the “fundamentalist” belief system described in this article) broke from the Disciples of Christ (a “mainline” group according to this article)back in the early 1990s over several issues, which again according to this article would make them “evangelicals”.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Christian_Churches/Churches_of_Christ

    Additionally,….”Because of this separation, many independent Christian churches and churches of Christ are not only non-denominational, they can be anti-denominational, avoiding even the appearance or language associated with denominationalism holding true to their Restoration roots and firm conviction that Christ has founded only one church which is his body.”

    3. Each congregation of churches of Christ is autonomous and is lead by the elders elected by church, and does not identify with any national organized group ( with a leader to speak for the body of believers) with a set creed other than what is written in the bible. So, its difficult to say where the statement came from that members of the church of Christ consider themselves “mainline” (whatever that means).
    4. Regarding “social gospel”….depends upon whatever someone is trying to push into this category:
    The churches of Christ do not believe in supporting gay rights or any other new liberal movement (which I think what is meant by “social gospel) that is being pushed in the name of religion. Why? Because it is against scripture. They do, however, believe in strongly in the “social gospel”(whatever that means) of feeding the poor, running soup kitchens, clothing stores, tending to the homeless, etc. and is organized on an individual congregation basis as a decision of their elders. There is no organized group to make decisions or speak for this type of activity.

    Hope this clarifies the difference between these two groups, which has continued to be muddled through the years by labels and groups created by men.

    And, yes, I are one.

  • westcoastpatriette

    do not get involved with denominational churches…I don’t like to get my eyes crossed either!

  • honoraryintern

    No one will have me as an intern. There’s always hope…

    Sunday brunch with radioactive glasses on the table… head shake… God help us…

  • dfschim

    Thank you for your fine Christian defense of Rick Santorum, I agree with you.

    I would like to ask however why you were so specific with the “United Methodists, the Presbyterians (USA), the American and Northern Baptists, and the United Church of Christ” but you lumped all Lutherans together instead of saying the ELCA? All of the other Lutheran churches are confessional (an older and more complete definition of orthodoxy than fundamentalist). Only the ELCA stands for the liberal social gospel movement and the ordination of homosexuals. Please don’t lump the rest of us orthodox Lutherans in with them.

    I tried to post this when the article first came out, but I was unable to because I just signed up for an account. I hope some people still find these comments useful today.

  • dfschim

    Thank you my fellow Lutheran brother.

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    I’ve made several of the same points from time to time, but upthread in my comment here, I just linked to a website that gives an explanation of who we are by Bro. Batsell Barrett Baxter.

    There are two ministers from Texas who were/are very dear friends of my family. One was Andrew Connelly who started a mission work and school that’s still going strong in Tanzania (our congregation has a group that goes every year to help). The other is Goebel Music who has written many wonderful books and was a wonderful preacher before he became too ill to preach. Just wondering if you’d ever heard either of these great men.

  • avagreen

    for your comments.

    I see that I was a bit behind the conversation as I took time to read this thread a little more closely this. a.m.

    I’m still limited in the time to read all the comments on a thread (still doing the recall verification thing on Gov Walker which about 85% completed)……before commenting. I’m glad to see that others have already explained so eloquently the issue on which I was posting.

    And, Melody, I’m envious of your links you’ve embedded which also quite clearly spoke to the point I was trying to make. I have spotted success at getting them embedded correctly. I admire a smooth presentation, the kinds I’m seeing on this thread. *sigh* One day…….

    No, Melody, I do not know of these brothers in Christ that you mention, but I do know of Batsell Barrett Baxter. He’s been around a long, long time.

    I had no idea of how many non-denominational folks we had on this website. Which makes sense……the most conservative politically are most often the most conservative religion-wise. Very encouraging (very!) to see this group so politically active when we as a nation have so much to lose at this point in our history!

  • westcoastpatriette

    check out the thread under DeVine’s diary (on reco list). If you have the time, you will see more comments regarding “Protestantism”.

    Reading these threads, though, makes me ashamed of the mess the church has made over the centuries. Especially when you read Jesus’ prayers in John 17 asking the Father to make us one. You cannot blame people for walking away from it all in disgust.

  • avagreen

    The breaking away of churches of Christ from the Disciples of Christ was in the early 1900′s……not “1990′s”. :(

    Thanks Melody for the thread. I will read it as soon as I can.

  • avagreen

    From the latest email I received this a.m., which makes all this effort well worth the time and effort!

    Just a quick note… Why is Verify The Recall important? Here’s one specific reason: over 130 people signed a Senator Pam Galloway recall petition AT LEAST three times, and, in fact, two people signed a Galloway recall petition 11 times! VTR found this information as a direct result of your data entry efforts, so THANK YOU!

    We are over 87% of the way done with the gubernatorial recall data entry process. More than 3.2 million signatures have been entered so far (all signatures must be entered multiple times over to ensure the accuracy of the data). Please continue to enter petition data so that VTR can weed out fraud from the gubernatorial recall!

  • pm270x

    Living Faith (LCMS)
    http://www.livingfaithlutheran.com/index.html
    103 Buford Dam Road
    Cumming Georgia 30040

    We’re a mainline denomination consistently opposed to ordaining women, gays, etc… We believe in the two kingdoms and separate the law & gospel of the right hand of God; while respecting the civil left hand realm of God. We respect & engage but don’t compromise to the will of the flesh in the civil realm regarding the social structure of the Church.

    The gift of grace by faith alone through God’s undeserving love.

    Most of the religious denominations listed above have had major splits without actually changing their names due to modernized constitutions and beliefs that change with the social spectrum. It’s the religious groups who change their names the most that are often battling Satan the most to preserve a one true faith to the best of our ability.

  • pm270x

    LCMS uses the Eucharist in our Order of Worship.

    Weekly or bi-monthly, we participate in the true body & blood of Christ himself and acknowledge the presence of the Holy Trinity in full with this sacrament of the alter; and likewise with other sacraments: infant baptism & marriage.

  • pm270x

    You’re technically incorrect.

    Catholic is the Greek word for “universal”. It’s not a Church at all, no more than anyone else who claims Catholic. It’s just a term used to describe a universal faith in Christ’s name and “universal” is used to display that it’s available outside of mainline orthodox Judaism in addition to Jews.

    The Catholic Churches have fallen apart a split apart well before the Reformation ever came to light. Catholics are split between West Romans, Eastern Greeks, Eastern Oriental, Russian Orthodox, Egyptian Coptic, & etc…

    The Seven Churches which establish the cornerstones of Christian faith and doctrine are listed in the 1st chapters of Revelation. These Seven Churches represent the the Seven Lamp-stands of the Old Testament. Just as the Seven Lamp-stands represent the witness of the Holy Spirit following the Seven Days of Creation; these New Testament Churches represent a new renewal of the Holy Spirit through Christ Jesus.

    The Roman Catholic Church isn’t mentioned by Christ in his Revelation to John in as one of the Seven Churches used as a cornerstone of Christian faith.

    Rather, the eagle will pluck off its fruitful branches, leaving the cedar to whether, while the new vine is planted to become fruitful elsewhere. As Catholicism or any other denomination fails; what’s good will be saved by God and planted safely elsewhere to preserve the body of the Church. Oddly enough, the eagle is the chosen mascot of the Roman Catholic Church.

  • pm270x

    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+28%3A49%2CJeremiah+48%3A40%2CJeremiah+49%3A22&version=NASB

  • pm270x

    We had two Lutheran candidates for office this year. Now down to one.

    Both candidates abandoned their Churches because there’s no confusion where a Lutheran stands on issues.

    Orthodox Lutheranism uses the God Head terminology with God at the Head, served by man, who’s served by woman. So much for women’s suffrage from the liberal point of view. Not unlike the Trinity, all three parties: God, man, and woman function as one through the Holy Spirit, in our deaths and Resurrection in the Tribulation.

    Limited government, don’t support ordination of gays or women, and etc…

    My little sister-in-law was approached by Mormons and was attending service with them. She came to me with some questions and was reading out of the Book of Mormon with me. They gave her no Bible at all. I gave her one of mine and compared their scriptural references. There’s no presence of God in the Book of Mormon. They teach strait out of the Book of Mormon and have little or no use of the Bible. They we giving her sacraments of the alter without even baptizing her 1st.

    The angle Moroni and angle Gabriel allegedly proclaimed the true faiths to Muhammad in Mecca and Joseph Smith in America. I have no use for the false prophetic doctrines of either.

    I’m leaning Ron Paul even though he left the faith and converted Episcopalian followed by Baptist. Now a Baptist, I can come to terms with that. I do rather dislike his foreign affairs, but feel certain he’ll react appropriately if pushed hard enough.

    Papal ineffability is a false God and unclean doctrine so I’m leaning away from Newt and Rick.

  • pm270x

    I’m LCMS, and no we’re very solid across the nation since the Seminex walk-out in the late 1970′s. That’s when LCMS divided into LCMS, WELS, and ELCA. We’re already past our struggle for the Baby Boomer generation. Our Churches are growing well since few Confessional Lutheran Churches are left after the walk-out; and now people are coming back to their roots.

    WELS being the most fundamental followed by LCMS. ELCA has gone ultra-liberal and is pushing the progressive Kool-Aid. ELCA has gone so liberal that it has now fractured into 2 or 3 other groups mention somewhere above that are trying to go back to at least being moderates. ELCA is an open communion Church.

    WELS and LCMS are closed communion Churches.

    I lean Libertarian on many issues due to the Lutheran belief that the two realms or kingdoms have to be dealt with separately. Civil and Religious. Marriage with God as the God Head is in and of itself a religious institution and I don’t feel that it should even be recognized by the civil authority. I don’t think common law marriage by civil servants or government authorities is appropriate. Using the military/police to protect the meek, for self-preservation, and sustained simple civil obedience are fine with me.

    I’m leaning towards Ron Paul; with Rick & Newt battling for 2nd & 3rd for my vote. I believe Progressives are like sleeper-cells in Congress within both parties waiting to enact awful laws once the right social president is in office. Rick, Newt, and Romney have social progressive agendas and voting records that leaves me to believe Ron Paul is the only one who could balance out the Progressives regardless of which Party they’ve infiltrated.

    I do agree that those who call themselves Lutherans in America right now are by a majority falling from the Grace of God daily. The traditional orthodox Church is still steadfast, strong, present, and growing again, but it’s a slow process in rebuilding your core foundation. My Church is mission status and is about to be on our own as we move into a 10,000sqt building. We should have a parochial school Pre-K and up established within 8yrs.

  • Dave_A

    If you don’t understand why, then you simply don’t understand economics or the actions required to formulate a responsible & informed foreign policy.

    Reducing the money supply or pegging our money to a volatile commodity such as gold can NEVER help the economy. It can, however, bankrupt every single consumer & small business in our economy – and it would.

    Eliminating the CIA and cutting the military by 80% are NOT responsible ways to address the deficit.

    We CANNOT formulate a responsible foreign policy without spies & spy agencies to give us information on what’s going on out there.

    We CANNOT defend America and American interests solely from within our own borders.

    P.S. Does WELS have any real presence outside Wisconsin & the Midwest?

  • Creedo

    Paul will allow the destruction of Isreal, where everyone else make Isreal a national imperative. Libertarianism is a nice utopian vision, but it doesn’t account for reality. You’re looking in the wrong direction if you think Paul has any answers. He’s a crazy old man without a brain in his head whose sole purpose is the destruction of America and repealing the last century.

  • pm270x

    Western Catholic Church & Eastern Orthodox Church
    1418: 16th Ecumenical Council of Constance (Conciliarism: the popes serves under the council)
    1517: 18th Ecumenical 5th Lateran Council (Conciliarism: condemned with council serving the popes)

    Reformation: Congregationalists (later Presbyterians)
    1510: 3 Doctorates of theology from the University of Wittenberg to Karlstadt (Augustinian Priesthood-Western Catholic Church)
    1515: Andreas Rudolph Bodenstein von Karlstadt “Carlstadt” Reformation of Western Catholic Church against Pope Leo X & Sylvester Mazzolini
    1521: Excommunication of Luther & Karlstadt
    1523: Congregationalist Reformation established: Martin Bucer, Huldrych Zwingli, John Calvin, Matthew Zell, Wolfgang Capito, and Caspar Hedio followed Karlstadt’s Congregationalist movement.

    Martin Luther “Luder” at University of Erfurt
    1502: Bachelor’s degree of law
    1505: Master’s degree of law

    Martin Luther “Luder” at University of Wittenberg
    1507: Ordained monk, (Augustinian Priesthood-Western Catholic Church)
    1508: Bachelor’s degree in Biblical Studies
    1508: Wittenberg theology professor
    1509: Bachelor’s degree in the Sentences by Peter Lombard
    1512: Doctor in Biblia

    “Luther’s followers” Protestants of Western Catholic Church under Pope Leo X & Dominican professor of theology, Sylvester Mazzolini
    1517: Luther’s 95 Theses
    1518: Heidelberg Disputation
    1520: Condemnation of Luther
    1521: Excommunication of Luther & Karlstadt from Western Catholic Church
    1521: Diet of Worms (Emperor Charles V of Saxony) ordered to confine Luther and disband “Luther’s followers” (Protestants of Pope Leo X)

    Radical Reformation: (Non-Trinitarian) Ana-baptism, Amish, Hutterites, and Mennonites
    1521: Established by Thomas Dreschel, Nicolas Storch, Mark Thomas St?bner, & Ulrich Zwingli
    1596: Established scientific method & rationalists movements
    1724: Transcendental Idealism; realism, internationalism, rational choice, utilitarianism, empiricism, & liberalism

    Lutheranism Established by Martin Luther “Luder”
    1522: New Testament translated into German
    1529: Admonition to Confession
    1529: Luther’s Catechism for Children
    1529: Luther’s Large Catechism
    1530: Johann Eck’s 404 Theses
    1530: Luther’s Exhortation
    1530: Roman Confutation
    1530: Augsburg Confession
    1531: Apology of the Augsburg Confession
    1534: Old Testament translated into German
    1537: Articles of Small Catechism

    Reformation opposition to Luther: Carlsdt’s Calvinism, Congregationalist, Zwinglianism, Presbyterianism
    1549: Consensus Tigurinus
    1577: Form of Concord
    1580: German Book of Concord
    1592: Saxon Visitation Articles

    Counter-Reformation: Catholic Revival or Roman Catholic Reformation
    1538: Pope Paul III, excommunicated King Henry VIII of England
    1545-1563:Popes-Paul III (1534?1549), Julius III (1550?55), Paul IV (1555?59), & Pius IV (1559?65)
    1545-1563: 19th Ecumenical Council of Trent: Western Catholic Church abolished with a new Roman Catholic Church
    1545-1563: 19th Ecumenical Council of Trent: abolished the Catechism of the Catholic Church
    1545-1563: 19th Ecumenical Council of Trent: new Orders established Capuchins, Ursulines, Theatines, Discalced Carmelites, the Barnabites, and Jesuits
    1566: Pope St. Pius V (1566?72) established new Roman Catechism (1992: Roman Catechism changed to Catechism of the Catholic Church)
    1563-present: remnants of the Western Catholic Church “Old Catholics” associate with Orthodox Christianity, High Church Protestants, Anglicanism, Roman Catholicism
    1950: Pope Pius XII established policy of uniformitarianism
    2009: Pope Benedict XVI established policy of Intelligent Design by Catholic scholars

  • Dave_A

    Although there are a few (Episcopalians) that have that problem…

    It’s usually WRT the preaching of a ‘social gospel’ which essentially tries to ignore everything about Christ as God, morality, and such and ‘whittle him down’ to ‘a good person who helped the poor and campaigned for ‘social justice’….

    Now, it’s indisputable that Christ commanded us to help the less fortunate… But that doesn’t allow for the ignoring of the rest of the Bible and the re-casting of the Lord as a liberal activist.

    On the other extreme, there is the equally heretical ‘Prosperity Gospel’ found in some non-denom Churches, which essentially turns Christ into one of those over-hyped motivational speakers – ‘God wants you to be happy – if it makes you happy, TAKE IT, blah-blah-blah’.

  • arthurjake

    When a country becomes so secular that it places the state above the church then you start to have problems. I am currently living in Germany and can see the problems with it. A true Christian would know it is not the job of the state to take care of you but people to take care of themselves and each others. Attacking back at a liberal state that has been attacking Christian and Jewish values that this country was built on and that western civilization prospered from for 2000 years does not create a divide.

  • arthurjake

    It had nothing to do with social issues. The reason Santorum one Iowa was social conservatives wanted someone they could turn to when they thought Perry had no chance of winning.

  • clintonformccain

    1) He failed to understand the way being perceived as similar to G. W. Bush would kill hiis chances (accent, mannerisms, not wanting another “dumb Texas hick”, etc.) His early gaffes and tongue-tied stumbles killed any chance he ever had of breaking out of that stereotype.

    2) He ws oblivious to the potential pitfalls of his record on the national stage. For example, he had no clue the impact his immigration tuition stand would have on a national Republican audience and was completely unprepared to spin it appropriately, even if it meant weaseling like Romney would have done. It’s incomprehensible that he had such poor preparation/instincts.

  • Flagstaff

    It’s interesting to me that there is an undercurrent of anti-Mormonism going on here, yet Mormons are about the most reliably conservative people, as a group, that you could find. Notwithstanding Harry Reid.

  • http://www.erickerickson.org Erick Erickson

    Good catch. My original draft had it specifically as ELCA. Not sure why I made it generically “Lutheran” and would have never even noticed had you not pointed it out. Thanks.