House Minority Whip Gingrich and 7th District congressional candidate
Brenda Fitzgerald throw mock tea crates into the Chattahoochee River on
April 15, 1994, as part of a "Taxpayer's Tea party" in Roswell, Georgia.
GO NEWT!
GO FREE REPUBLIC!!!
Posted on 01/28/2012 2:00:32 PM PST by Jim Robinson
Thank you very much, Rev Jim Garlow, DBCJR and darrellmaurina!!
Long, but great read! Thanks for posting!
Newt gave his “baggage” to The Lord. Any one of us can do that too!
I’m glad that Newt has “gotten right”, but his spiritual state is secondary to his viewpoints for me.
He’ll fight, he’ll call ‘em out, he’ll put the flush on the garbage as best he can.
That’s key right there, for me anyway.
Plus he beats the dog-poo out of the alternatives.
He had me at "Hello"... ;^)
ping
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
Worth repeating.
Thanks for the ping! I’ll read it when I get back to the ranch.
I believe his marriage relationships were affected by the fact that an adult had an affair with him while he was still a minor. Any of us who can remember when we were 18 years old and younger, can say that this is not a good thing. I am not trying to give him a pass on personal responsibility. However, I am taking him at his word that he is a changed man. One thing about Newt is that he is quite straightforward on this topic.
He is the best candidate on the stage, with a chance to win. I think he can accomplish more of the conservative action items. He has a history of doing so. I like Santorum as a conservative (especially values and personal life), but I don't think he has the tools or the big personality to get ahead in this race.
Newt is indeed the devil, But he is our devil..
Thank you, Jim, for the thanks. I had become concerned for several days that I could become a “zotting” candidate on Free Republic. I hope my intentions are now clear — bashing Gingrich is not and never has been my goal, though he's not my preferred candidate. On the contrary, I'm trying hard to make a Christian case that we have two acceptable candidates and people of good will can choose either one without compromising their convictions.
In doing so, I'm taking some serious heat in my own evangelical circles for defending the possibility of Christians voting for Newt Gingrich. Given that one of the articles in a nationally known Christian magazine on which I've been posting comments is written by a founding member of my local church and one of my elders is for some reason a Ron Paul fan, I expect an interesting discussion over coffee tomorrow morning at church. My church knows me well and nothing in my own local church will go beyond asking me some hard questions, and that's entirely legitimate to do.
However, this year's primary has opened up a serious division within the evangelical community that is becoming quite bitter. No matter who wins the Republican presidential nomination, many of us have hard work to do in our churches over the next few months and years.
The root issue, as I see it, is that evangelical Christians have become a major force in the Republican Party but often have followed the recommendations of our leaders without thinking through how we would handle a situation like what we face now. There's a lot of overlap between the secular Tea Party movement on the one hand, and the conservative evangelical Christian movement and conservative Roman Catholics on the other, and it seems quite clear that the leaders of the two movements are pulling their overlapping followers in different directions.
I come from the Dutch Reformed theological tradition with a long history of Christian political theory dating back at least to Abraham Kuyper, the prime minister of the Netherlands, founder of what became the country's second-largest denomination, founder of a Christian newspaper and Christian university, and the major builder of a pre-existing Christian political party.
Kuyper built a theological justification for understanding that the best candidate for political office is the person best able to exercise the sword of the civil magistrate in the sphere of the state (Romans 13), not necessarily the best person according to the standards for church office outlined in I Timothy and Titus.
I believe that is a very helpful thing for us to remember. We're electing a president, not a pastor, elder, or deacon. The standards of the church are helpful guides to knowing who would be the best candidate for political office, but they're not the only things we need to consider.
I've said many times here on Free Republic that the primary purposes of civil government is to protect its people against attack. That is why, for me, opposition to abortion and opposition to gutting national defense are key issues. Lots of other things are important, but those are on the list of non-negotiables.
As social conservatives, we need to recognize that it is not liberalism or compromise to select the candidate best able to win a civil election, even if he would be disqualified from church office. Political naivete is a serious problem among evangelicals (less so among Roman Catholic voters), and we need to think through what it means to have a candidate like Gingrich.
Talk about ahead of the curve. Newt was throwing TEA Parties in ‘94!
Thank you..bookmarking
Thank you for posting that article. I so admire this man, Rev Jim Garlow. I wish I had the ability/gift of being so clear of thought and expression. Best I’ve read/heard of somebody expressing support. LOVE this article, just LOVE it!
**!! “In war, one needs a strategically and logistically sophisticated warrior, one who understands the nature of fighting and winning. Mr. Gingrich is that warrior. He is a warrior made for this war. Failure to grasp this one key issue could cost us our future. “ **!!
Newt Gingrich is the most competent candidate, in my opinion. Several others are very good and impressive candidates. But Mr. Gingrich is the one we need in this crisis.
“For those of you who say he is not the “purist” that we want, or say, “Well, he is not truly one of us,” allow me to respond.
Follow an illustration with me that pertains to my wife’s cancer battle. If I had the choice between an incompetent Christian surgeon and a highly competent unbelieving surgeon – and it was my wife they were operating on – I would choose the one most competent.”
We NEED Gingrich and I believe he is the right man, with every fiber of my being. It must be him if we are to save this republic.
I still miss Perry and think he still won on character. Best of men and he supports Gingrich. Pray.
You ain’t kidding. Credit goes to Matchett-PI, here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2839276/posts?page=18#18
This thread started with a very lengthy post by an Evangelical Pastor who knows Gingrich personally. It is a remarkable review.
Wanted to add this link and article and words from the Speakers own mouth.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/magazine/newt-gingrich-glory-days.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&nl=us&emc=politicsemailema1
“I only exist because the country is in trouble,” Gingrich said. “The question is whether I can in fact help the country work its way out of trouble. If we had 4 percent unemployment and no foreign threat, I couldn’t be a candidate. It would be absurd. There are 20 guys you could pick in peaceful, calm and pleasant times who would be adequate as president, none of whom have my liabilities.”
Go Gingrich, go Perry!
A moving and heartfelt testimonial from someone who knows the state of Newt’s spiritual health better than any of the pundits who have been shamelessly expounding on it at length.
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.