I take issue with his "rather than" point. Why is it either/or? Anyway, he goes about this little campaign while living completely contrary to his own stated standard. He devotes his life to political issues. Why doesn't he start preaching the gospel instead of writing about politics?
Plus, he thoroughly makes his point using Scripture himself. He is just coming to new conclusions -- rules for others to follow, not himself.
Christians are not really trying to change culture through political means. Christians are just trying to compete in the marketplace of ideas through the same persuasive means everyone else is entitled to use. Most of the time -- as with the Ten Commandments case where three-fourths of the public agree that the display should be allowed -- Christians are just trying to maintain their constitutional rights and the rights of the majority to decide these matters without unelected judges imposing their will on all. The gov't via the courts has grown hostile to religion and morality. We have a right to stand up for ourselves.
Winning hearts is NOT the issue. When the public overwhelmingly supported prayer rights in schools, the courts ruled against them. When the public did not support sweeping abortion "rights," the courts ruled against them. When the public didn't want gay marriage, the courts ruled against them. When Texans didn't want sodomy legal, the courts ruled against them.
We are not the ones abusing the system. We are just trying to be treated fairly. When we lose the hearts of the people on any given issue, then we lose. That's the way it works. We can continue to try and persuade, but we lose in the meantime.
Preachiang the gospel and winning hearts for Christ is a COMPLETELY separate issue. Cal is wrong to mix them up. A person can be against abortion who is an atheist. So when Christians argue for or against a political position (and they can be on both sides), it has nothing to do with the gospel. It just has to do with how "we the people" want to structure our gov't and society. Everyone can draw wisdom from any source they want, and then they work to persuade others on any level they want. We vote and that's it. Their spiritual status is their own business.
That's why you see Jews and Christians and atheists and whoever else joining together on some of these issues. The fact that evangelical Christians are predictable (in that they draw their wisdom and morality from Scripture) on some of these issues does not transform the issue into a gospel message. Nor does it make the Christian's political position a violation of the establishment clause.
I'm inclined to agree with you. All I was doing was attempting to state his position. He comes across disgruntled by mixing politics and religion yet continues to do so. BTW--thanks for your well thought out responses.