Monday
Oct292007
Who Said That?
Monday, October 29, 2007 at 08:01AM 
Who Said That?
"Right now the United States is in many ways a theocratic state, not dissimilar to some of the other religious states in the world where religion has a huge part to play in government."
You know the drill! Please, no google searches, or cheating. Leave your guess in the comments section below.
Update on Sunday, October 28, 2007 at 06:47PM by
Kim Riddlebarger
Kim Riddlebarger
These words come from Canada's former ambassador to the United States, Frank McKenna. I'll bet our theonomist friends would be surprised to learn that a theonomic state already exists. I guess Canada has fallen so far that the presence of any Christians in government is taken as "proof" of a theocracy.
Reader Comments (26)
Why wasn't Echo called a contrarian when he said, "And I just know this will ruffle some feathers..." and I never said anything of the sort?
Anyway, to his larger post, why is it "unfortunate" that false gods are worshipped in the culture? Isn't that how it is supposed to be? It really only matters that God is worshipped correctly in His Church. It would seem to me "unfortunate" if the latter wasn't the case.
that democracy leads to anarchy seems really simplistic. Are you saying that a monarchy is the right way to go? Are you sympathetic to the theonomist Reconstructionists who want to see a revival of Xian monarchies? (see how I am asking directly, Ivan?) I never know whether to laugh or be scared at such suggestions.
I say all human systems are faulty and the Gospel stands opposed to any and all. What system is in place matters very little. It will all be laid bare in the end. So pick your poison in order to necessarily hobble along in this present evil age, but nobody has a corner on a system that has either God's approval or disdain; divinely heroizing or demonizing one system or another is vanity.
Nice swipe at Edwards though. It has also been said that the Gospel was taken from its churchly contours evers since Whitefield landed. Ouch. (That was a "hoo-rah" to echo for any keeping tabs on my contrarianism.)
Zrim
Just what are you implying? :)
Seriously, any thoughts at all on the suggestions of a silent versus an embodied theocracy, one of the most intriguing, and I daresay important, topics in our time? It seems to me that would be a great "point of the post." But maybe you're right, a game of psuedo-Carnac might be better, so: it was Frank McKenna, Canada's former ambassador to Washington. I have no idea if he was an atheist trying to malign Christianity or an atheist who shows more insight than many believers or a Christian betraying the unspoken oath to make every effort to marry up faith with the traditions of men, contra the Gospel itself. But whatever motivates him, you still have to contend with what is being said. I would suggest reading Hart's A Secular Faith, you know, the guy that Dobson put a fatwa out on because the latter at least knows how to *infer* the devastaing *implications* of Hart's arguments.
Zrim
Maybe you should start journaling? You could still "wonder aloud" without spoiling and hijacking an otherwise brilliant and entertaining blog.
Yeah, I think you are right. I guess this isn't the best place for out loud reflection, just entertainment and mere pontification of some.
Ironic how entertainment is bad when the Evangelicals do it, but OK when we Reformed do. They mayn't but we may.
Zrim