Acts 16 recounts the incident where the Apostle Paul encounters a young woman suffering oppression. According to verse 16, the woman was possessed by a demon and enslaved people who used her to make money by fortune telling. According to the biblical account, the woman was suffering a dual violation: She was exploited financially by her masters and spiritually by the demon. Paul delivers the young woman from the demon, and her masters retaliate by conspiring to have Paul thrown in jail.

Schori – the head of the Episcopal Church – preached a sermon where she claimed, “Paul can’t abide something he won’t see as beautiful or holy, so he tries to destroy it. It gets him thrown in prison. That’s pretty much where he’s put himself by his own refusal to recognize that she, too, shares in God’s nature, just as much as he does – maybe more so!”

Schori’s view of Acts 16 is inconsiderate, uncaring and unenlightened. She claims that Paul has deprived this suffering woman of her “spiritual gifts.”

There are ways that someone who did not hold to historic Christian interpretation of this incident could have represented it. An atheist could dismiss the entire episode as made up, an invention that has no basis in fact. A deist or skeptical theologian could interpret the story as being an allegory of Paul’s actual work or interaction with the young woman. It could even be treated as a fable of Christians suffering persecution for doing a good deed. Schori interprets the deliverance from demon possession as the destruction of something good, even “beautiful or holy.” There can no longer be any pretense of dealing with an Episcopal leader of serious theological caliber or competency. I thank Schori for clearing this up for Anglicans on the fence.

I admit that my ancestors’ experience as slaves in the American South produces a personal bias against white-washing incidents of slavery. However, overwhelmingly, most Americans are horrified by the idea of slavery and find it offensive. That Schori tries to spin the woman’s suffering into something “beautiful or holy” is disgusting.

Schori presents the incident as something that actually occurred and that Paul was wrong to expel the demon, and that he got what he deserved when he was thrown in jail. The believing parishioners and clergy of the Episcopal Church are therefore compelled to either end their association with Schori and the denomination she runs or they must remove her. There is no middle ground. If anything determines whether someone is in the Christian club or not, it is the belief that demons, if they exist, are the bad guys. Right?

Classical liberal nationalism is on the rise in the United Kingdom. As the Conservative Party under David Cameron continues to alienate its natural constituency in Middle England, the U.K. Independence Party emerges as a credible political challenger. Independence Party ideology is based on the premise that there are certain values that define the British nation and can only be protected and ensured by a sovereign and independent United Kingdom that represents it own interests. They believe tolerance, respect for human rights, the rule of law and protection of Britain’s unique institutions is the way to social order, stability and improvement. They are for equality, sovereignty, democratic accountability and are opposed to Islamic radicalism, Marxist radicalism, a government that plays off one group in a society against another. They want immigrants to assimilate and Britain to leave the European Union.

The Independence Party threatens the right by standing up for traditional “Britishness,” and it threatens the left by standing up for the average Briton who feels left behind by an internationalist and self-absorbed Labour Party. In other words, the Independence Party offers a new political direction without the usually fantastical myth-making or historical whitewashing.

The French National Front and the Japanese Restoration Party offer an alternative approach. These parties stress old-fashioned nationalism and assertiveness, and they promote the feeling that their countries have been “sold out” by their elites. In Japan, the Japanese Restoration Party leadership has raised eyebrows by both using government offices to purchase islands that are disputed with China – although it is fair to note that Japan has a much stronger claim – and at one point, stating that what Japan needed was a “dictator.” The Japanese Restoration Party did surprisingly well in the 2012 elections, which was its first appearance on a ballot.

In France, the National Front has done well in the recent election due to its hard line on Islamism and immigration, but it has a disturbing association with fascism, and Nazism in particular, that its current leader, Marie Le Pen, has worked hard to exorcize. However, the National Front also features a strain of thought that is skeptical of the French Revolution of 1789 and questions whether it actually benefited France. Both Japan and France offer examples of the continued appeal of late 19^th and early 20^th century nationalist populism.

The most successful new way in a democracy has by the Turkish Justice and Development Party, or AK Party. The AK Party, which has governed Turkey since 2002, can boast that under their leadership Turkey has undergone a cultural transformation while becoming the fastest growing economy in Europe. The AK Party is an Islamist organization that desires a return the Turkish Islamic pre-eminence of the Ottoman Empire. The party has promoted Islamic culture openly and led to a re-emergence of popular religion on the Turkish youth. It has done so by appealing to centuries-old tradition and the legacy of their Ottoman forbears, combined with technocratic know-how that has kept the economy moving and leaving the European Union countries in the dust. The party has stoked nationalism by confronting Syria and flexed its Islamic bona fides by provoking and then diplomatically outmaneuvering Israel during the Flotilla incident. During the Arab Spring revolutions, aspiring Islamists have held the AK Party up as the standard of 21^st century Islamic political success and emulation.

With these three rival strains of political divergence, it is clear that in much of the “free” world people are looking for alternatives to the old order. In the United States, however, the tired old orthodoxies of left-right or Democrat-Republican still hold sway.

Both parties’ leadership continues to subscribe to the myth of progress that has produced such fantastical ideas from the “end of history” to the “New World Order” and the European Union – all of them abysmal failures.

The United States has always garnered legitimacy by being better than the alternatives. In the future, the U.S. may need to work harder to make that claim. America’s inflationary and insolvency troubles cannot be wished away, and the two parties will eventually have to part with sacred cows if the situation is to be salvaged.

Further, the American path is yet to be determined. A new movement could spring up in the United States that galvanizes the youth and provokes older citizens to part with the current incompetent leadership. But as other peoples begin to chart their own course and challenge the prevailing wisdom, do Americans risk being left behind if they do not tire of being badly led?

Christianity teaches that God made all mankind from one source (Acts 17). And He granted to each people the lands of their habitation. Therefore, every human, regardless of their individual condition, shares in the common dignity of mankind. They matter. And every government has a duty to govern its people justly and to consider the impact of policy on their most vulnerable citizens. It is part of the plan of redemption. I believe this doctrine should inform how we think about our responsibility to our fellow Americans and how we treat foreign governments and peoples.

While we profess many enlightened ideas, lately we have failed to consider the moral cause of the poor, the wanton risks of war and the failure our public safety policy. But I believe that for Christian Americans, the common dignity of mankind should be a compelling argument to re-examine the tired, old left versus right orthodoxies in welfare policy, foreign policy and criminal justice.

The poor on welfare are not all “lazy,” nor are “the rich” taking advantage of all of them. Real life is often a series of unfortunate events. It has always been this way. In our arrogance, we often judge these realities harshly. However, to dwell on our failings is to forget the purpose of this discussion: Real people need real help. Welfare must be rethought – if for no other reason than the current system is insolvent. Inflation is the wrong answer because it robs the poor, reducing the value of their meager savings. That is morally repugnant. Nor can we simply eliminate all welfare programs; they are now part of the economy and cannot be dropped overnight for the bottom line. This is a real problem, and it requires a real solution.

Americans can no longer see themselves solely as a force for good in the world. That view is immature triumphalism. The United States is responsible for a lot suffering in world due the military adventurism of current president and his predecessor. They were both comfortably re-elected by the American people. Yet the damage done to the reputation of the United States by our repeated interventions, drone strikes and the consequences of toppling foreign governments will take many years to repair.

Do young Americans voters who supported Barack Obama, or the Evangelicals who supported George Bush consider the anger and resentment felt by the families of the innocent civilians killed by American drone strikes and invasions targeting countries that did not attack the United States on Sept. 11, 2001? Consider that a person might understand that innocents die in war, and they might grieve their lost loved ones without blaming Americans if their government was responsible for attacking Americans in the first place. But the governments of Yemen, Libya, Iraq and Pakistan did not attack the United States. Have we held our government to the right standard in its treatment of those countries and their peoples? Left and right do not matter. The era of perpetual war must end.

We imprison our citizens for many crimes, but we do not reform them. With the war on drugs, we do not really distinguish between harming oneself and harming another. We do not provide prisons where the convicts can safely be reformed. Our criminal punishment system is corrupt. Prisons are recruiting offices for gangs, and terrorists. Prisoners are surrounded by vice, drugs, and are under the threat of assault by other inmates. This is public knowledge, and this dehumanizing system must be reformed. All the American people get for their money is the reintroduction into society of persons who have be traumatized or educated on how to be better criminals. Often they are released back into or communities, where they prey on the most vulnerable Americans. It is wrong. And there is a responsibility to address it.

These issues will continue until the American people are tired of being badly led and renew their responsibility to ensure that the government is accountable.

Recent reporting by WND and Politico detail how the increase in voters from Latin America and the Third World will increase the voting base of the increasingly left-wing Democratic Party. If comprehensive immigration reform passes, the Democratic Party will eventually be in a position to push through some of its more divisive policies.

Support for Israel in the United States is beginning to mirror the increasingly desperate social-issues battles between the left and right. The increasing secular disposition of college campuses and the Democratic Party has been accompanied by a rise in anti-Israel sentiment and sometimes hostility to biblical Christianity. The embarrassing episode at the 2012 Democratic National Convention where the platform committee removed references to God and the position that Jerusalem is the capital of the state of Israel, only to be overturned in a contentious public disagreement, is one of the most recent events to highlight this change in the Democrats’ center-left coalition.

In the 2012 general election, Hispanics, the population believed to make up the majority of illegal aliens, voted overwhelming for the Democratic candidate President Barack Obama, by a margin of 71 percent to 27 percent. Further, immigrants from Islamic countries comprise up to 10 percent of legal immigrants to the United States and an unknown percentage of the Other Than Mexican, or OTM, illegal-alien population. These data are problematic for conservative Christian leaders who are supporters of comprehensive immigration reform, as many in American evangelical community rate support for Israel as one of their most important litmus test for adhering to core principles. In recent decades evangelical Christians have emerged as the most ardent supporters of Israel. Witness the unprecedented growth in the United States of Christians United for Israel and the credibility of The International Christian Embassy Jerusalem and its network of supporters worldwide.

The traditionally close relationship between the United States and the state of Israel is unique in international affairs. The relations between Israel and the Latin American countries have been mixed. Mexico and Brazil supported the infamous “Zionism is Racism” U.N. Resolution 3379 in 1975 but voted to rescind it in 1991. Of greater concern for pro-Israel advocates are the recent diplomatic actions by the Latin American governments. The majority of democratically elected governments in Latin America are left-leaning by American standards and generally favorable to the Palestinians. Evo Morales, the president of Bolivia, threatened to take Israel to international court over what he said were war crimes against the population of Gaza. In late 2010 and early 2011, the governments of Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Bolivia, Ecuador and Chile passed separate resolutions recognizing Palestine as an independent state. Of the group, only Chile had a right-leaning government. Nicaragua suspended relations with Israel in response to the successful Israeli repulse of the Gaza flotilla.

The affinity of the growing Hispanic voting bloc for the Democratic Party is motivated primarily by economic concerns. Democratic policy is increasingly aligned to general global left-wing opinion. Further, the evidence suggests that even if it could be shown that Hispanic voters share the opinions of social conservatives, their votes are not swayed by these arguments. No one suggests that the 71 percent of Hispanic voters who supported President Obama did so because they were pro-Second Amendment or pro-life; Mr. Obama’s left-wing views on those issues were well-known before the election. As was his controversial treatment of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Comprehensive immigration reform is on track to make the conservative Christian bastion of Texas a battleground state in U.S. Senate and presidential elections. If that happens, the left wing in the United States will have a clear path to majority rule for the foreseeable future. The increase in Democrat voters will likely be enough to maintain a Democratic majority even if Jewish voters were to split with the party’s left wing over Israel.

The WND and Politico stories are not the only bad news for Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., and the other supporters of comprehensive immigration reform. A report released recently by the Center for Immigration Studies reveals statistics that demonstrate that in 466 out 472 recognized civilian occupations, native-born Americans make up a majority of the workforce. This reports contradicts the widespread belief that immigrants are doing the jobs native-born Americans will not do. Immigrants were the majority in only six occupations; in those occupations native-born Americans still comprised 46 percent of the workforce.

As the fallout from Boston continues to develop and immigration is seen increasingly as a national security issue, some conservative Christian leaders will find it hard maintain the separation of their support for comprehensive immigration reform from their advocacy for Israel. They will also have to explain their contradictory approach to the issue of national sovereignty over borders and demographics. It will become increasingly difficulty for them to side with the left by arguing that “no person is illegal” while advocating for the right of illegal aliens to remain in the United States, and simultaneously adhering to conservative orthodoxy that opposes the Palestinian push for a “Right of Return” to Israel. They may have to choose.

It appears that a post comprehensive immigration reform America will be an America dominated by the Democratic Party that will in turn be dominated by the left-wing opponents of Israel.

The threats facing the United States are nontraditional. As we progress technologically, we become more dependent on the technology. As our knowledge of the universe expands, we become more aware of how the universe can pose challenges to our technology-based standard of living.

Many Americans are familiar but the threat posed by electromagnetic pulse weapons and how they could disrupt our electrical grid. However, solar flares have the potential to do the same amount of damage. While we may trust that the State Department will be able to defuse tensions with the North Koreans, the sun is a harsh master.

As we’re now aware of the threat through our scientific discoveries, a responsible national security plan would include the protection of America’s electronic infrastructure and power plants from EMP-like occurrences, be they man made or natural. If we don’t, such a disaster could cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans – either from the loss of power at critical locations like hospitals or devastation of our food supply through the lack of electricity for refrigeration.

But the news from space does not get any better, as the recent tragedy in Russia shows us. The threat from meteorites and other solar system bodies colliding with Earth has always been real, but now we have reached level of technological sophistication where we do not have to be resigned to planetary extinction. The American government should prioritize the development of countermeasures to extinction-level events originating from space. At the very least, efforts should be made to protect our water supply from contamination.

Immigration reform and securing the borders and ports have been issues brought to the forefront of the national security debate. Immigrant screening is a neglected tool of defense. White guilt over past crimes – mostly against black Americans –- has prevented a dispassionate look at the facts regarding immigration.

After the Boston bombings, we should be able to discuss the issues with candor. Should American citizens in the 21st century be put in harm’s way to further the agenda of a few policymakers in Washington with little benefit to the American people? The U.S. is the third most populous country in the world. Only India and China have more people. If American companies need workers, it is a social problem – not a demographic one. Public safety from terrorism, crime and infectious disease brought to America by immigrants must be the primary concern of a responsible government.

The states must take the lead on defending their people from biological and chemical attack. With their independent taxing authority, they do not need to wait on the stubborn government in D.C. If quarantine is ever needed, state authorities will be the first to recognize it and implement it. Federalism gives the U.S. flexibility that other countries do not have. Let’s use it.

American armies are useless against EMPs, solar flares and asteroids, but they can help prevent unauthorized access to American land. NASA can be reinvigorated with a mission to protect the U.S. – and, by extension, the planet – from asteroids and other spatial threats. States can begin stockpiling gas masks, storing vaccines and antidotes and educating their populations about the threats. This will not happen until the American people are tired of being poorly led.

This is a real defense agenda; drone striking Yemenis is not.

The United States has bases around the world. That did not prevent 9/11, and there is a credible argument that our bases in Saudi Arabia provoked that particular attack. But that is not entirely germane to this column. Rather, the question is: In the absence of a Soviet Union that requires global vigilance, are the American people truly defended by an expensive global military presence?

This is not a question of “intervention” or “overreach.” We should want to know: What does the global military presence actually accomplish? And does whatever that is actually defend the American people?

This week, I will establish the parameters for examining our current defense posture. Next week I will conclude with an analysis of whether the American people are actually defended and, if not, what we can do to defend them.

To defend ourselves is to protect our homeland and our people from aggression. The focus is on denying our enemies access to our territory.

The old slogan that “the most dangerous place in the world is between a Marine and his country” is an example of that mindset. Another objective is to prevent the enemy from directly impacting the lives of the American people; this can include obstructing the enemies’ ability to interact with American people or deceiving the enemy into targeting areas where their efforts will be in vain. Denying an opponent access to your county is purely defensive; it does not threaten anyone, and is usually not directed at any particular country. It is situational.

If that fails, the duty of the government is damage mitigation. This involves immediate measures and providing refuge for the people. This can be the deployment of the U.S. military to intercept the enemy or repel it, which would require that the U.S. military is strong enough in North America to accomplish that. Additionally, the people must have areas of safety to which they can retreat where the government’s power can protect them from national enemies. Of course, the people would need to know the whereabouts of those areas.

Further, there is no guarantee that the people would be able to reach those areas in time in case of an attack using EMPs, biological, chemical or atomic weapons. In those situations, the government has to provide the people with the tools necessary to survive ­– to the extent possible – the initial failure to prevent a successful enemy attack on the United States.

Finally, the government must identify the sources of American power and American vulnerability. The people must be educated about these issues to ensure they understand the behavior of their government and are willing to support the measures necessary for their defense. The government must strengthen the sources of American power and tighten security where the American nation is vulnerable.

With this understanding, we can ask the question: Is the current posture of the American defense establishment really protecting the American people?

The United States should begin talks to turn over the defense of South Korea to the strong and industrious South Korean people.

The North Korean government is a bully. It cannot feed itself or grow its economy. But it can bully the South Koreans because it has nuclear weapons. North Korea can frighten Americans because the U.S. government has neglected civil defense for two generations.

So America – the nation that prides itself on being the “most powerful” in the world – is subject to blackmail.

The irresponsibility of the American government stems from pride and incompetence; arrogance and folly are a dangerous combination. The reality is that much of the world no longer needs swaggering American generals or the State Department to protect them or advise their governments. In fact, the South Korean and German economies – just to give two examples ­– are in better shape than the U.S.

In any event, the world has changed but successive U.S. administrations, the Pentagon and Foggy Bottom seem oblivious to the changing national interests – or to the existence of a national interest. Perhaps the fastest way to eliminate a North Korean threat to America is a nuclear South Korea and a nuclear Japan. As China and Russia continue to play proliferation games, and new powers like India and Pakistan join the nuclear club, it is time for America to disentangle and reassert itself.

If the U.S. were to secretly OK the development of South Korean and Japanese nuclear programs, and also agree to withdraw U.S. troops from South Korea and Japan when the programs are complete, it would give the Chinese and North Koreans something to think about other than the United States. It would also impose a penalty for threatening the United States.

Furthermore, it will be harder to rally their subjects against an American threat if the American forces leave Asia and return home. They will need other boogie men to frighten their people into loyalty. Let their communist propaganda explain why they antagonized the Japanese into getting the bomb.

This is the course the United States should pursue. It time for America to leave the East Asians to their rivalries and concentrate on rebuilding its own economy and society. The North Koreans think they can manipulate U.S. presidents; they have done so before, but let them try that on Japan or an independently armed South Korea.

Either way, we must ask ourselves why this is still our problem.

The simple message of the gospel that man is lost and is need of a Savior – and luckily God has supplied that Savior – is often forgotten in the midst of political battles and attempts to turn the church into a tool for social change.

Is it any wonder that as American denominations move away from the simple message of the gospel, those church organizations notice a dramatic drop in membership?

This is the crisis of modern heresy. Heresy means “a thing chosen” or, more specifically, as it has come to mean in Christianity: things people choose to believe contrary to God’s Holy Scripture.

When we choose to believe things that are contrary to what God wants us to believe, it has to be noted that small heresies make room for larger ones. After all, even heresy can be logical; if you reject God’s standard in one instance, why can you not reject his standard in another instance? If you persist in rejecting God’s standard in one instance and you do not appear to suffer a penalty, why should you not go even further? Hence, error only leads to new errors.

Unfortunately, these attempts to modernize the church have only served to drive out Bible-believing parishioners. However, it has not brought in new members who were previously disinterested in the precepts of Christianity. How could it be otherwise? If the presets of Christianity come from God, then they cannot be changed by human whim.

If, however, the precepts of Christianity are not from God and were the opinions of men – which can be changed over time – then why believe in the religion anyway? Hence, any change in major Christian practices must be shown to be in accordance with scripture and, therefore, the continuation of the true biblical orthodoxy.

Slavery was a great denial of God’s sovereignty, and racism as practiced by American Christians was, and is, heresy. In the 1960s, it was used to destroy the moral credibility of the churches, particularly in the South. Because of its persistence in error, the church has its proclamations of actual scriptural prohibitions compared to its prior racism. Perhaps what the churches need is a public declaration that racism and slavery were heresies and sins for which those who participated in them had to repent to be saved.

But this state of affairs only serves to remind us of the importance of Resurrection Sunday. Mankind needs a Savior, and God provided that Savior.

As we partake in the memorial of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the American church must be rededicated to the truth of Scripture. Truth is not a choice; it is a reality.

If your church can’t agree about this, is it any wonder few want to attend?

World War I, Korea, Vietnam: These were all Democrat wars. But after the Bush family’s two adventures in the Arabia peninsula, the GOP is seen by the American people as the war party.

The American people have never had a problem fighting for their own defense, but they have always been less than enthusiastic about fighting for someone else. They have no interest in going after the Iranians, for instance. If Iran is a legitimate threat to the United States, it will take a lot of convincing.

The U.S. legacy in Iraq is destruction: the reputation for the United States as a force for peace, the ancient Christian communities of Mesopotamia, the primary Arab check on Iranian aggression and the hope of balancing the U.S. governments budget any time soon, all destroyed.

The war on al-Qaida should have focused on punishing their financial backers, their safe havens and the elimination of their covert and overt supporters in North America. The war should have been fought using the FBI, CIA, ICE and U.S. Special Forces. The defeat and occupation of Iraq moved the U.S. away from the completion of its goal. America is divided, unfocused and unsecured.

When a population can neither name nor identify the enemy, a nation should reconsider whether the war is worth fighting. That is the position of the United States in 2013.

The previous decade was defined by Bush’s war. Without the discovery of weapons of mass destruction, the American people believed they were lied to about the reasons for going to war; as a consequence, everyone who hailed George W. Bush as a hero was viewed with suspicion. No one lost more moral authority during this period than the Christian right. During the 2000 election campaign, many hailed Bush as the moral anti-Clinton. But as thousands of American veterans and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians paid the price of the president’s folly, that claim became a millstone around the neck of social conservatism. Bush was lampooned as the incompetent, failed leader who was the worst kind of cruel and callous buffoon, save the Christians who supported him.

Bush’s GOP began the irresponsible push for “democracy” in the Arab Islamic Near East. Before the fall of Mubarak, before the Syrian civil war, before Benghazi, before Obama in Cairo, there was Bush. In his 2003 State of the Union report to the United States Congress, George W. Bush said, “Our nation and the world must learn the lessons of the Korean Peninsula and not allow an even greater threat to rise up in Iraq. A brutal dictator, with a history of reckless aggression, with ties to terrorism, with great potential wealth will not be permitted to dominate a vital region and threaten the United States.”

The North Koreans are still around and the Iraqi government is Iran’s new buddy. Miserable failure, indeed.

At the beginning to the military campaign in Iraq, Christianity was almost in vogue. Go back and look at the various bandwagoners who touted their faith “tradition.” Now sincere Christianity is “uncool” in the extreme. It is viewed as lame, backward and warmongering. The linkage of Bush and Iraq with American Christian Zionism – however tenuous ­­­– has allowed anti-Zionists to criticize the U.S.-Israel partnership with growing confidence. The time has come for the Christian right to rethink its alliance with the GOP’s neoconservative war faction. The legacy of Iraq is a Middle East and an America that are less hospitable to Christianity. That is the definition of failure.

Ideologically, the Democratic Party and Republican Party have become European-style political factions. The Democrats seem to be more comfortable with the mantle of the social-democratic movement and its moderate socialism. The GOP, however, is uncomfortable with the Christian-democrat tradition that has served postwar Germany so well. The Republicans are in a battle between the narrow interests of the Wall Street-and-war faction of the Bushes, the Paulite-libertarians and the religious right.

While CPAC served to air the grievances of the libertarians and the religious right against the neocons who have failed to win the Senate and the presidency since 2006, it was not the platform to address the core intellectual failing of the religious conservatives: Political activism cannot replace evangelism.

They have wasted time trying to win voters among the churchgoing, black American community with little success. They have been able to form bonds with the black churches over various state referendums, but those bonds of community rarely last past November. If they want to win long-term political converts, they have to take a permanent interest in their coreligionists.

The failure of the religious right has been its substitution of political activism – protests, marches and petitions – for religious achievement. They have retreated from intellectualism, popular culture, arts, sciences and social works, the fabric of American society. This ground has been occupied by other Americans. Members of the religious right lose their children by attrition to the “world” because the “counterculture” they have created has little to offer the curious human mind. Americans crave expression and creativity. If the religious right wants a “Christian” society, it needs to re-enter society.

The apostles did not turn the world upside down by living as hermits in the caves of Judea. America cannot be saved by carrying water for the GOP establishment’s corrupt ideology. But Americans are open to a fully thought-out theology. The slogans of the prosperity gospel and other religious fads must be discarded and thrown away. Orthodox theology that incorporates a concern for the poor, education and just war theology must return to the mainline denominations and the evangelicals alike.

There must be change in priority. Don’t try to make new Republicans; go out and make new Christians.