Posted on 06/25/2011 6:47:53 AM PDT by Bigtigermike
2. Have you heard of / have any comments on John Piper and the "Desiring God" theology? I have a good friend who is Dutch (used to be Dutch reformed) whose house has at least two shelves of books, two books deep, along the circumference of EVERY bedroom / study / living room in the entire house. He has recommended Piper vociferously.
It's kind of odd, too, since I am an adult convert to Roman Catholicism, but he thinks the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon. Yet we get along. :-) g_w
Do you remember the movie Scanners?
>> “If those are liberal heads, you are smelling granite.” <<
.
Nah! - Cream of Wheat....
That explains it...
Since I have no internal information on the Palin campaign, I certainly agree this is possible — but if so, it is a very fortuitous coincidence. I've dealt with politics for enough years to know that sometimes the very best things that happen in a campaign are things that nobody planned, and sometimes that nobody could have planned even if they had tried to do so. I am a Calvinist, after all, and the last thing I want to do is act like I deny providence.
@ lonevoice, 9YearLurker, MestaMachine, Candor7, Virginia Ridgerunner, gov_bean_ counter, HereInTheHeartland, RegulatorCountry: Thanks for your thanks and your comments...
@ grey_whiskers: What I know about the CMA is mostly secondhand. It seems to be a conservative evangelical denomination that tolerates a fair amount of theological diversity within the general category of evangelicalism, so one church can be significantly different from another church. With regard to John Piper, I'd recommend his works on virtually anything except baptism — but I'm in the minority on that, and lots of Baptists who are inclined toward Calvinism love him, and that's a good thing. I'm not a Baptist, which makes me a very unusual conservative in the South, but I'm a lot more interested in whether people believe and understand Q&A 1 and 2 of the Heidelberg Catechism then how and when they baptize their kids.
@ arrogantsob: You're referring to Pillar Christian Reformed Church in Holland. That was the congregation founded by Albertus Van Raalte, the primary leader of the emigration of members of the Afscheiding (secession) churches into North America due to harassment and persecution from the government and the state church in the Netherlands. Pillar Church was originally RCA but joined the CRC many years later. You have quite correctly defined the way a traditional Dutch minister is supposed to act. Depending on how old you are and when you got married, there's a good chance I may know the minister who conducted your marriage, so you probably don't want to be too specific or I might recognize the dominee! ;-)
Thanks for the initial ping which lead to some very interesting discussion.
In light of the deep background information you provided, perhaps you have thoughts on the following:
The very marked division of Iowa which, graphically splits Iowa in half, very notable in electoral maps the state provides, with the western half solid blue and the east solid red.
Your previous post on this thread helped burn off the fog of my east coast ignorance of Iowa’s Caucus functioning. While I appreciate your thoughts, how does this differ from the more conventional tours through various key districts.
Prior to the internet the MSM tilted coverage by ignoring a candidates remarks on some issues or ignoring others. (See my tagline ;>). Unless there is an effort to honestly cover candidates efforts and responses voters elsewhere remain in ignorance still subject to manipulation by the MSM and two faced candidates chasing parochial concerns such as subsidies and pork barrel promises which affect others pocket books.
And lastly, how does that socialist Tom Harkin get re-elected in Iowa. It seems to be strongly at odds with the deep faith you describe.
Northwest Iowa and Pella have a major impact in the Republican caucuses, and especially on the Christian conservative demographic which is the base of Sarah Palin’s support. Northwest Iowa and Pella are less important (though certainly not irrelevant) in statewide Republican primary elections for non-presidential races, and for the general election.
Why?
To win in the caucuses requires a plurality of the vote, not a majority. That means it is very important to Palin and anyone else trying to reach that demographic to pay a lot of attention to parts of the state which have a strong Christian conservative influence. If she can “lock up” that part of the state, she can then focus on trying to get voters outside her base to vote for her.
For example, there are lots of Republicans who may not be Christian conservatives who may be very willing to listen to the mother of an enlisted soldier explain her views on defense policy. Still others may have a lot of concern about the oil industry, and that's an area where Palin can claim legitimate firsthand experience. Palin has parts of her resume that attract voters beyond her Christian conservative base, but those are voters who could easily gravitate to someone else in the Republican caucuses, so it only makes sense to work now on solidifying her base.
An important side point here is that evangelicals are going to have a default position of being suspicious of Mormonism. Any Romney supporters in Iowa's conservative Christian counties are going to be “soft” voters — people who are backing Romney because they think he's the candidate most likely to defeat Obama, but whose opinions could be changed if his flip-flopping on abortion or other issues became better known.
How can Sen. Harkin, etc., be explained?
Some of it is that Harkin and other key Democratic leaders in Iowa draw much of their support from the state's major urban areas, which are much less conservative overall, and their manufacturing operations may look much like the rest of the “rustbelt.” Des Moines definitely is not Detroit, but a tractor factory and an auto plant both generate many of them same blue-collar demographics.
However, the urban-rural divide is at best a partial explanation. Iowa has lots of rural Democrats, just like many parts of the rural South. Unlike rural Southern Democrats, in parts of the state which do not have a “Bible belt” character, many of Iowa's Democrats hearken back to an older rural Democratic tradition which is all but dead in most of America. A rural Southern Democrat is likely to be very conservative on social and other issues and generally will vote Republican on national issues; that definitely is not true of an Iowa rural Democrat.
Despite population shifts, Iowa is still a predominantly rural agricultural state, and more than that, its agriculture is based on types of farming which are increasingly mechanized and therefore fewer and fewer people are required to be more and more productive. The effect is that the state skews toward an older demographic of people who stay in agriculture because they love it but know there's a good chance they'll never pass their farm on to their children and will end up selling their farm to a neighbor.
Iowa has some of the most productive farmland in the United States, and a century ago, that drew large numbers of small farmers who knew they'd never be able to own their own land in Europe (at least not on anything beyond a small scale). The result was the creation of large numbers of ethnic communities which have preserved many European traditions, much like you might have seen in many large cities in the 1800s. The difference is that in rural America, people who want to be part of those traditions — often fairly narrowminded traditions — are the ones who stay, while those who don't want to be part of them can easily move somewhere else, and actually have strong incentives to do so.
The same dynamics that make certain parts of the state strongly conservative also create voters who are very concerned about the survival of their family farms or their small businesses or Social Security. The modern Democratic Party is an urban party, but in the not-too-distant past it was also the party of agrarian populism. Men like Harkin are able to appeal to a segment of the Democratic vote which basically no longer exists in national politics, but which still is a factor in rural America.
Iowa makes it possible, once every four years, to force the most important politicians in the United States to pay attention to the issues of rural farming and the elderly. That's not necessarily a bad thing in the Republican side of the aisle; elderly Republicans and rural Republicans aren't that different from other Republicans in other states and big cities since their primary issues tend to be those of economic conservatism, nationalism, and the religious right. Other than ethanol issues and farm-related subsidies, I don't see any major difference between Iowa Republican voters and national Republicans.
For the Democrats, however, Iowa becomes a way to push social programs. When combined with the vote of Iowa's university towns and industry, which aren't that relevant for the Republican caucuses but are **DEFINITELY** relevant for the Democratic caucuses, it can result in strange situations like a black inner-city Democrat from Chicago who manages to outshine union organizers like John Edwards and traditional liberal party leaders like Hillary Clinton.
As bad as Barack Obama has been for the country, his performance in Iowa shows what Iowa can do — namely, take a relatively minor candidate, give him the opportunity to talk to several thousands of people one-on-one and tens of thousands of people in small groups, and persuade them of his ideas.
A very similar strategy worked for Mike Huckabee in Iowa in 2008 and for Pat Robertson a generation earlier, and could very easily work for Sarah Palin in the upcoming Republican caucuses.
One complicating factor is that the Democrats won't have a contested race. Four years ago, Republican-leaning independents and Democratic-leaning independents generally caucused in support of the candidates in the party for which they usually voted. Iowa's caucuses are very different from an “open primary” in other states and there won't be much crossover voting because of the need for advance party registration, but some of that will happen and it will strengthen RINOs, not conservative Republicans.
It might be nice if a major Democrat decided to challenge Obama to keep Democrats in their own caucuses and primaries, but that's probably not going to happen, so we need to face the fact that there will be some crossover voting that will help RINOs and hurt conservatives.
Yep, my mother-in-laws funeral was recently held there so I attended that and a recent family wedding. I had a nice conversation with the current pastor about Mozart at the latter. Rev. Hasper was the minister I referred to I hope he is still with us and happily doing the Lord’s work.
That is what I am seeing.
The founding strategy for what became the Democrat Party was the alliance between Jefferson and Burr which put J in the White House. Tied the NYC machine of Tammaney to J’s agricultural South. Gave him victory in 1800 and has been the axis if the party for the centuries since. When the Democrats lose every southern state they lose the presidency.
I can’t see Urkel winning any southern state in 12.
I regret that I need to be the one to say this, and to do it via cyberspace; I'd give you a phone call if I knew how to reach you since this is not the right way to convey this sort of news. Rev. Jacob Hasper passed away a few weeks ago. Here's his obituary from the Grand Rapids Press:
http://obits.mlive.com/obituaries/grandrapids/obituary.aspx?n=jacob-hasper&pid=151434526
Ps. 116:15 “Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints...”
Palin NOT Reaching Out to Key Iowans Ahead of Visit
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2740688/posts
It's always possible to go hunting for loopholes here. For example, what does “key Iowans” mean? Will showing the film to 340 people inside the Pella Opera House and then meeting a thousand Pella residents at a post-film BBQ accomplish more to reach a key potential constituency than formal meetings with leaders?
But I think taking Sarah Palin at face value is important.
Much higher in this thread I wrote this: “This **IS** Sarah Palin, after all, who I think trusts her gut and her instincts more than detailed analysis. That is both a strength and a weakness for a candidate. But as I said, even if Palin and her campaign staff (is that better than “handlers”) didn't plan this deliberately, they sure got lucky and hit on a really good idea by accident.”
Based on the statements from former Iowa GOP executive director Chuck Laudner and unofficial Palin supporter Peter Singleton, it looks like the Pella connection was totally unplanned.
Fair enough — again, as I wrote early Monday morning: “I've dealt with politics for enough years to know that sometimes the very best things that happen in a campaign are things that nobody planned, and sometimes that nobody could have planned even if they had tried to do so.”
Again, let's take Palin at face value. It looks like this wasn't planned. Sometimes stuff that looks deliberately planned isn't — remember the Huckabee “cross” imagery in an advertisement that Huckabee absolutely insisted was not planned?
No regrets are necessary. This forum is just fine since it will allow others to read the obituary of this fine man a dedicated laborer in the vineyards of the Lord.
This brings to mind the Sunday my wife and I were listening to his sermon which referred cutting off a bad branch from the good fruit tree. As we were leaving she said “did it look like Rev. Hasper was looking right at us when he was speaking.” I just laughed and told her that was what good speakers could appear to do, even if he wasn’t.
Thank you for the information.
Thank you for the thanks. I'm sorry to be the bearer of bad news in regards to the death of a pastor who obviously meant a lot to you.
With regard to being the branch cut off, you're absolutely right about what the Reformed faith has historically called “separating preaching” — the concept being that people should be challenged in their hearts to ask whether the warnings of the sermon apply to them. Traditional Reformed preaching may very well have been quite “scholastic” in the sense of a heavy emphasis on correctly explaining Scripture, but that in no way implies a lack of personal application of the text to the hearts of the hearers. Unfortunately, the importance of personal conversion was not always emphasized in the Christian Reformed Church to the extent that it should have been, and that's a major part of the CRC’s theological collapse into liberalism during the last two generations. Knowing right doctrine doesn't help if the people in the pews don't personally know Christ.
I know people in nearly all of the Christian Reformed congregations that Rev. Hasper served during his ministry, and while it's obvious that most of his former members have long since passed away, one can tell a great deal about a minister by the types of churches he pastored, as well as who preceded and succeeded him in the pulpit. The church he attended at the time of his death surprises me a bit, but he was attending with his children, which makes sense.
For whatever it's worth, based on the church Rev. Hasper was attending at the time of his death, you can be pretty sure he did not have a problem with your wife being a bad branch cut off from a good fruit tree by marrying someone who isn't Dutch.
Not saying you said that, but it can be an issue for some “outsiders” who marry into the Dutch world, and there were ministers a couple of generations ago for whom that **WOULD** be an issue. There was once a very strong sentiment in the Christian Reformed Church that most American churches were liberal, which was an entirely correct concern that too often turned into being afraid of non-Dutch people rather than recognizing that orthodoxy is based on doctrinal faithfulness, not Dutch ethnicity.
Most of this is irrelevant to the original topic of Sarah Palin coming to Pella, but for those who are trying to make sense of Northwest Iowa and Pella from a political and sociological perspective, it may explain a bit about the Dutch mentality and mindset. The CRC and RCA are best understood as historically conservative denominations that have gone bad at their upper levels, but those problems have not yet percolated down into the more conservative parts of the denomination. Pella and Northwest Iowa are among the most conservative major segments of both the CRC and RCA.
Your views on the CRC are pretty much spot-on. CRC preaching is almost uniformly bad. Never heard mention of a personal relationship with Christ in any sermon. As for NW IA, you are correct. My former inlaws never liked me because I wasn’t raised in the CRC. The whole “If you aren’t Dutch, you aren’t much” was pretty acurate.
Do you know Jack Gray?
Your comments have been extremely insightful and are a welcome sight around here since there is too little of this and too much inflammatory nonsense spread about.
Yes, going back to when he was stated clerk of his classis (for the non-Dutch, a regional group of churches comparable to a presbytery, district, association, or conference in some other denominations). But I haven't seen him for years.
SeaHawkFan posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2011 2:23:03 PM: “Your views on the CRC are pretty much spot-on. CRC preaching is almost uniformly bad. Never heard mention of a personal relationship with Christ in any sermon. As for NW IA, you are correct. My former inlaws never liked me because I wasn’t raised in the CRC. The whole “If you aren’t Dutch, you aren’t much” was pretty acurate.”
I was trying to be polite, but I would caution that older Christian Reformed preaching was better than what you'd see today, or for the last generation or so. There was a day that while Christian Reformed preaching might not have been openly “evangelistic,” it would have placed great stress on the covenant obligations of those raised in the church with an emphasis on the truth that not all who profess Christ possess Christ, and that Esaus and Ishmaels in the visible church will be severely punished for rejecting the faith in which they were raised.
You won't hear me disagreeing about the Dutch issues with ethnicity. I understand the desire to protect children from dangerous outside influences, but biblically speaking, the “dangerous people” are those who are from outside the faith, not those who are outside the ethnic group. I have a decades-long history on that issue. Ironically, being non-Dutch and an “outsider” who had a background working in an inner-city church, I was able to thoroughly befuddle a fair number of liberals who couldn't figure out how a conservative Calvinist could be interested in outreach and evangelism.
arrogantsob posted on Tuesday, June 28, 2011 2:37:09 PM: “Your comments have been extremely insightful and are a welcome sight around here since there is too little of this and too much inflammatory nonsense spread about.”
Thank you. I do believe it's important that conservatives not be known not only as “bombthrowers” but also as builders. That means we need to be constructive in our efforts to promote conservative principles, think through what we're saying, and provide rational alternatives to the liberal agenda, not just scream about everything the liberals are doing wrong.
Also, our personalities need to show a true love for America and Americans, not merely a hatred of those who are trying to destroy our country. Both are necessary. There's a time to attack and tear down. It needs to be done, and at times the best defense is a good offense. But is yelling necessary ALL the time? Not every opponent is a wicked evildoer; some honestly don't know any better and can still be convinced they're wrong.
From experience, the most effective conservative is a former liberal who has realized that the road he was walking will lead to destruction, and wants to save others from making the mistakes he once made.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.