by William Thornton » Mon Feb 10, 2020 4:28 pm
The Peeples article was part screed and part a lame string of sound bites. The liberal churches have been intensely political (and partisan) for decades. It's just silly to write as if they have not. I'm fine with that. I am not obligated to conclude that the impassioned plea she makes is anything original. It's mostly boilerplate, warmed over stuff like we've heard for a long time. I understand what Peeples is saying. It's nothing new. Do you not understand that?
Is it lost on you that even with caveats and provisos, repeatedly putting Hitler/Nazi in is a silly attempt to connect Evangelicals (undefined, of course) with them? This is an old rhetorical technique. I'm sure a smart guy like you is familiar with it.
Your explanation of church and state is all opinion. Has nothing to do with the constitutional issue normally meant when using the phrase. Your links merely attempt to support your opinion. Concrete public policy matters are not theology, but politics. If you want a theocracy where your version of what God wants is imposed through public policy, then have at it. God wants Medicare for all? God wants this or that immigration policy? God wants this taxation level, this welfare level, etc. You are hopelessly incoherent here.
There is not now nor should there ever be any law against any big C, little c, parachurch, pastor, imam, rabbi endorsing any candidate. All of these may endorse candidates, advocate for various public policy measures, and the like.
Old friend, you are at your worst when you start whining about forum policies. I suggest you respond if you wish or ignore if you wish. No one forces you to do either.
My stray thoughts on SBC stuff may be found at my blog,