The More Later

So by now anyone remotely interested in Evangelicals and politics is familiar with the Worldview Weekend people and the quiz you can take to tell how good of a Christian you are, but to recap:
As far as a ranking of thought goes:
Social and economic conservatives who adhere to the Westminster Confession* are best, although they get lumped into the category of social and economic conservatives who believe in some type of deity, but reject the reality of Jesus. That's probably as it should be.
Social and economic conservatives who reject the very idea of a God are good.
Social and economic progressives who are Christians are liars.
Social and economic progressives who are atheists are communists.
And anyone who believes that being a follower of Jesus transcends labels like conservative or liberal and requires a unique ethic modeled after Christ's sacrifice is completely off of their radar.

There are plenty of problems with the breakdown of categories given by the Worldviewers, but there are plenty of problems with the test as well. I doubt they care since they are mostly interested in getting folks to sign up for their re-educational seminars and material. Which really aren't meant to re-educate anyone at all. They're just jamborees and self-affirmations for gun nut, home-schooling, John Birch types. I took this quiz three times, registering with three different email accounts I took it once as myself, answering the questions honestly and failed to demonstrate I have a Biblical Worldview. Then I took the test another two times, once giving answers as if I were an ultraconservative atheist (to prepare for this I sniffed oven cleaner for about an hour), and again as Michael Reagan might (to prepare for this I imagined what it would be like if made a living off of my father's reputation even if he didn't love me, made me sleep on the couch when I went home to visit him, or completely ignored my revelations of childhood sexual abuse). I now receive their propaganda on a regular basis. This is odd to me. It seems it would be more of a mission to reach the real me than the fake ones who already buy into their garbage.

So I get a ton of crap in my inbox from radical clerics and fundamental Christianists as well as advertisements to invest in Gold. My guess is all the "enlarge your member " and "size matters" junk mail comes from them too. That's where I got this article on whether the American revolution was Biblically justified or not. Their short answer: Yes, because so many of the revolutionaries were Protestant church members and frequently made reference to a generic deity. The longer answer is summed up here:

The Presbyterians, Lutherans, Baptists, Congregationalists, and most other Christian denominations during the American Revolution believed that Romans 13 meant they were not to overthrow government as an institution and live in anarchy. This passage does not mean they had to submit to every civil law. Note that in Hebrews 11, a number of those who made the cut in the “Faith Hall of Fame” as heroes of the faith were guilty of civil disobedience—including Daniel, the three Hebrew Children, the Hebrew Midwives, Moses, etc.…
... Unless you are a thoroughgoing pacifist, there is no basis for saying the Founders sinned in defending themselves against King George’s troops and their terrorist tactics against the colonists. The Founders’ fight was not a  “military insurrection.” Our early leaders took seriously their standing before God and believed He could bless a war of defense but not a war of offense. They fought to protect their own lives and those of their family and friends.

Here's my problem with this, this argument is excrement.

Note they (Brannon Howse and David Barton) don't make the case that these people correctly interpreted Romans 13, only that a whole bunch of people interpreted a passage of scripture in a way that justified their chosen course of action (sounds like something a liberal would do if you ask me).

The thing is Romans 13 endorses every government by virtue of God's order. King George III was a legitimate authority, as is W (kinda'), as was Clinton, as was (here's a tough nut to crack) Idi Amin, Nixon, Stalin, Hitler, Nero, and on and on.
All of these people's power came form God. Even if you don't like the idea, it doesn't change the fact that God allowed it. It doesn't mean they were good, but that doesn't matter. Now they are right in saying that this doesn't mean we have to obey every law (obey is a better word choice than submit given the passage in question) but we are still under the authority of a ruler. This simply means if we chose to disobey a law, we are subject to whatever the government decides is an appropriate response; being pursued by chariots, thrown into a lion's den or a furnace, beheadings, being fed to lions, being burned at the stake, beatings in Roman or Southern jails, lynchings are all par for the course. And if we do choose to disobey, violence does not seem to be a color on our palette. We really should note their "Faith Hall of Fame"- not a violent insurrectionist in the bunch. Revolutionaries for sure, but not really the kind to trust in their chariots (or swords, or cavalry, or muskets, or galleons, or grenades, or machine guns, or jet fighters, or laser satellites, or nano assault weapons...) or in the multitude of their warriors.

Now, I'm no thoroughgoing pacifist and I am just as happy to blow stuff up on the 4th of July as the next guy (maybe even more so) but come on, the Revolutionary War was a whole lot of sin. Deal with it (I mean deal with it honestly and in the grace of God- not with these lies).

So Happy Freakin' Birthday, America you founded in sin, 229 year old cuss, you.