God is not a conservative.

He did not come here to set up a political kingdom or lay out his political beliefs. He came here to die for all of us, that our sins are taken away, so that we can call on His name to save us from everlasting punishment in Hell (1 John 2:1-2).

Jesus lived the perfect life. He lived a sinless life. His resurrection vindicated His deity and sinless life. The fifth chapter of Romans Epistle speaks of the necessity of Christ’s death. Even Jesus was quoted as to the real reason He was here — to seek that is lost, to save sinners.

By the way, the court that condemned Jesus to death was not a liberal court. In fact, it’s quite contrary, as it was made up of some of the most conservative Jewish religious leaders. To be sure, Sadducees did make up a part of Sanhedrin, and they were “liberal” in their religious beliefs.

Having said all of that, it is true that there are some principles in the Bible that are quite close to conservative beliefs, however, it is not intended to be a political guidebook. That was not the main reason; the Bible was written with one central theme — the Lord Jesus Christ. It is the special revelation of God to instruct us how we might be saved, and what to do after saved in Christ, and anticipate the Second Coming of Christ.

Let’s not reduce our Lord God to a set of political beliefs that we think God might be partial to. Please, let’s not do that. Okay?

that Jesus is the ideal for us as conservatives. He nicely demonstrates that our values are really His.

Thanks for this, sir.

If you are reading this, I am curious,

would you be for reinstating the sodomy laws of the UCMJ if Liebermann succeeds in getting that repealed later this week? This weakens the moral fabric of our society, as it mainstreams the homo-fascist agenda.

Thank you.

and not mass political movement.

He said render unto Caesar and not join some political party and start na Const. Congress.

As for what kind of car he would’ve driven, he would have ridden a donkey or walked.

The Bible teaches us to work, take care of our own, and give. The Bible does not teach us to expect government to take from the wealthy and give to the poor. Calling Jesus the ultimate socialist is a perversion of His life and teaching, and of the message of the Bible as a whole. Work and give. Give, because we are only stewards on earth of what God ultimately owns and entrusts to us. He owns the cattle on a thousand hills, and we manage it according to our ability. Those unable to work and take care of themselves should be cared for by those who are able. Those who can work, but choose not to are not to be cared for. They are to suffer from their laziness. “If a man will not work, he shall not eat.” 2 Thessalonians 3:10 Now how is that socialist?

… The name Herman Cain has not been beyond the periphery if my awareness until recently. I really, really like what the man has to say, his delivery, his demeanor, and his vision.

I saw that he won the RedState poll, which frankly surprised the heck out of me based purely on my perception of Herman’s visibility compared to that of other potential candidates. Someone posted a couple excellent YouTube videos of Herman at my forum. But in that thread on my forum, I’ve seen it asked – Herman’s nice presentation in the videos notwithstanding – whether this is the guy we want. I haven’t been able to begin forming an opinion on the information I’ve gleaned by osmosis until now. This essay by Herman gives me the first inkling of whether or not I believe Herman Cain to be Presidential material. And I’m sorry to say, I now have my doubts.

Running for the Presidency cannot happen successfully without an astute sense of messaging acumen. While I love Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior, and I believe deeply that without a return to Judeo-Christian values we will most certainly decline, I also become very suspicious when people use God or Jesus Christ to score political points.

Talk about dividing the electorate right out of the gate!!! Conservatives need to find a messenger who will be able to articulate the case for conservatism in ways that will garner not only the votes of conservatives, as well as persuade independent/non-ideological/uneducated/centrist voters and disgruntled Democrats that conservatism holds their interest.

I happen to agree with Herman that Jesus was the quintessential conservative. But he throws down a gauntlet here that simply doesn’t need to be thrown IF he intends on running for President. This doesn’t just divide the Left and Right. It divides the conservative end of the spectrum as well.

I think what Herman has given us is a glimpse at poor political judgment, plain and simple. There’s a reason he lost the primary to Johnny Isakson.

When conservatives rally against abortion, liberals shout. “Separate of Church & State!”

However, when liberals promote ObamaCare, unemployment benefits, and raising taxes, the Left sure elikes to invole the name of Jesus.

and Cain pushing people here via twitter and facebook which is Rondulan like behaviour.

I like Herman as a talk show host, but he would be very far down my list of people to elect as President due to a lack of experience and unlike when Lincoln was elected, there is a need for experience these days in the Presidency.

for a piece like this, if you really believe what Jesus said.

His words have inspired great philosophers, but He was not a philosopher.

If we follow His teachings, we will all be better people, but He was not just a teacher.

The world would like to reduce Him to these titles, but Jesus was so much more. His own words say so. He said “I AM the way, the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.” He claimed to be the Son of God.

If you believe that, then to attempt to subjugate Him to a political philosophy on the Left or Right – to attempt to claim that Jesus Christ was either a liberal or a conservative – is disrespectful, at best, blasphemous, at worst, and displays a lack of understanding of what Jesus really came to Earth to accomplish. He did not come to perfect our political institutions, or to teach us how to be better people. Those are side affects. He came to change human hearts, to draw them into a right relationship with Almighty God.

Are there political beliefs that more closely align with a proper interpretation of Scripture? Yes, undoubtedly. God spends much time in the Scriptures addressing many concepts central to politics, including how to handle money, how to treat fellow human beings, to cherish freedom and liberty, to respect human life, to punish evildoers via the auspices of the state, etc.

But human institutions are only strengthened when they align with those principles taught in Scripture and espoused by Christ. They are weakened when they attempt to appropriate to their philosophies the endorsement of the Living God.

Once upon a time He defined what it is to be American. That’s the sadness of it, isn’t it?

Mr Cain, my personal congratulations for tweaking a lot of little noses here that need tweaking. Happy Christmas, and many Blessings on your House.

Since I know you write your own stuff, simply great. This isn’t the season of Festivus, This is the Season of Christ. Let the hair-splitters bring their complaints up around President’s Day. This is OUR holy-day.

VB

“A Merry Christmas to all, and to all, a good night!”

He has revealed many of them to us. He has told us many of his attributes. But we should not take names or attributes that we have created to describe a philosophy (however true) or group or movement (however right) and use them to define God.

I have a problem with Him being called a Puritan or a Calvinist though I agree with much of those philosophies. I have a problem with Him being called Baptist though I believe that is the correct theological system. That’s why I’m uncomfortable with calling Jesus a Conservative, even though many conservative principles are directly derived from His revelation in the Bible and his moral laws found in nature.

Let us not confuse Judeo-Christian principles with being Jewish or Christian. Does one need to be Christian to “love thy neighbor” or can others get in on that?

The real danger is when religious beliefs enter into political discourse. That’s when we get crusades, inquisitions and jihad. How many have died in the name of God? Do religions that reject non-believers as not being “saved” like Christianity and Islam, interfere with rationale political discourse?

I, for one, embrace the principles, but believe the discussion of divinity as inappropriate for politics. One can reject divinity but still live a divine life.

since the tone of your thoughts nicely echoes those of Rev. James Allan Francis’ 1926 sermon which has since been anonymously reworked into the beloved and ubiquitous “One Solitary Life”:

… He never wrote a book. He never held an office. He never had a family. He never went to college. He never put His foot inside a big city. He never traveled two hundred miles from the place He was born. He never did one of the things that usually accompany greatness. He had no credentials but Himself…

… today He is a centerpiece of the human race and leader of the column of progress.

Far fewer, however, may be likely to recognize your characterization of the person and work of Jesus Christ as having far deeper roots in early Protestant liberalism than in the Scriptures.

The liberal churches of the mid-19th century, having tired of defending their lost belief in the divinity of Christ, began experiment with ways to make “the real Jesus” be an idealized version of “someone just like us” rather than the incarnated 2nd person of the Trinity. Their early products included a Jesus who was the embodiment of civic morality, one who maintained burnished rows of steel along the Union lines, and one who was willing to take a lesson or two from Mr. Marx. Over time, however, some theologically conservative Christians wanted to get in on the fun as well; grievous hilarity could ensue when opposing Jesuses occasionally met at midfield, as the teetotalling and the home-brewing, or the hippies’ hope and the dispenser of lawn order.

Missing, of course, in all of this, including your own inspiring piece, is any substantially correct reference to Jesus’ role in redemptive history.

You state: He led without a mandate. But you are contradicted by the most widespread Protestant confessions:

It pleased God, in his eternal purpose, to choose and ordain the Lord Jesus his only begotten Son, according to a covenant made between them both, to be the Mediator between God and man; the Prophet, Priest, and King, the Head and Saviour of his Church, the Heir of all things and Judge of the world; unto whom he did from all eternity give a people to be his seed, and to be by him in time redeemed, called, justified, sanctified, and glorified. (WCF, Savoy, BLC “Of Christ the Mediator”, I)

You state: He taught without a script.Not only manifestly untrue, but ironically so: every word out of the Lord Jesus’ mouth was rooted in the Scriptures which, according to his own testimony, speak of him.

You state: His common sense parables filled people with promise and compassion. This is certainly the liberal interpretation of the parables–as akin to Aesop and Ben Franklin–but it does not square with the reality that they caused division and anger, and, again from Jesus’ own testimony, were not “common” at all but rather divine revelations intended to confute: “for others they are in parables, so that ‘seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not understand.’”

You state: He never condemned what others believed–just sin, evil and corruption. You have perhaps unknowingly demonstrated one of the hallmarks of Protestant liberalism: its externalization of sin into structures rather than persons. Certain remarks concerning snakes, broods of vipers, blind guides, an adulterous and wicked generation, and “you, being evil” come to mind for rebuttal.

You state: everywhere He went, it turned into a rally, attracting large crowds, and giving them … inspiration. Not necessarily so; by the end of the “rally” that had begun with the feeding of the 5,000, many deserted Jesus due to his “hard sayings”, until there were only 12 left–”and one of you is a devil!”

You state: The liberal court found Him guilty of false offences and sentenced him to death, all because He changed the hearts and minds of men. Spending a little more time in the gospels or under sound exegetical preaching is advisable. The court was egregiously conservative. The death sentence had nothing to do with changed hearts and minds–as highly rated as those entities are in both narcissitic evangelicalism and liberalism–but rather because Jesus had, in the court’s eyes, uttered blasphemy both throughout his public ministry and at its close, by claiming to be God.

That implications of that last fact, curiously, is notably absent from your piece, Mr. Cain. We seem to have read about remarkably different Jesuses. I’m afraid I will need to leave you with the one you found who is just like you in so many ways, and remain rather with the one who does not need us to be his defenders.

I’n NOT a Religious Conservative; I AM a Constitutional Conservative. There IS a difference. The future of our County lies in Constitutuional Conservatism not Religious Conservatism.

A belief in God or a Supreme power is a necessary requirement for our Constitution to be understood properly and therefore to work properly. The 1st Amendment underscores the need NOT to impose tyranny of religious standards in government but not to exclude religion from those in government.

I cannot but wonder why more political play is not being given to Ron Paul; he is the closest thing to a real Statesman in the current political arena. He obviously has religious real convictions that transcend merely verbal epithets. He has been consistent in his behavior and has shown a willingness to go against the winds of popular political opinion and practice. I WILL support Ron Paul as a presidential candidate; I believe that he is the person that can best take the first steps to restore our Republic.

t

“judge not that ye be not judged”. I have no way of knowing for certain what was in Mr. Cain’s heart when he posted this diary. For all I know, his heart could have been touched by something specific in the life of Jesus Himself, and Mr. Cain could easily have meant this as a way to try to provide encouragement and inspiration to conservatives during times of trial.

Based on what I know at this point about Mr. Cain’s character, I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he meant well.

To me, the life of Jesus is by far one of the most inspiring examples of what can be accomplished and achieved. He knew from the start what He was here to do. He had a clearly-defined sense of purpose and direction and let nothing distract him from that purpose. He was generous, tenderhearted, and caring, but he didn’t put up with any foolishness either. He knew how to use discretion as the greater part of valor. He had more determination in His little finger than most of us develop in our entire lifetimes.

But it was the faith that He frequently displayed that never fails to amaze me. Faith to move mountains. Faith to calm the seas. Faith to heal the sick. Faith to provide hope. Faith to die in our behalf.

He set up riches in a heavenly kingdom, not an earthly one. He sowed the kind of seed to reap blessings for our sakes day in and day out, asking nothing in return from us.

Merry Christmas to us, and Happy Birthday, Lord Jesus. Thank you.

Mr Cain, I’m a big fan, but you’re making the mistake that Marxists make by making the personal political: actions outside the context of government aren’t political, they’re expressions of individual will. Giving to the poor isn’t a “liberal” action, it is the action of a caring human being. Killing an intruder to protect your family isn’t a “conservative” action, it’s the right thing to do. Treating women without prejudice isn’t a “liberal” action, it’s a decent thing to do. Assigning political value to personal (or divine, in this instance) action cheapens the value of said actions, and waters down political philosophy. Likewise, Jesus’ actions cannot be assigned political motivations: it cheapens the divine nature of those actions.

Your characterization of the Lord Jesus as the perfect conservative seems to have gotten some folks worked up. I will not join in the debate, since people are free to make their own way.

I will observe that the connection is not that Jesus read up on (or anticipated) Edmund Burke. Rather that conservatism was conceived as governance that ensures maximum freedom of the individual from both tyranny on one end, and anarchy on the other. It was designed for the most part by men who aspired to Godliness.

It is perhaps an obtuse term that many will deny, but conservatism was fashioned by love for people. THAT is the connection.