Is it necessary for a Christian politician to keep his beliefs "private" and never let them influence his policymaking?   Or ought he to try to set up a theocracy?  Or something in between?  Or is "Christian politician" actually an oxymoron?

I think it should be "something in between", though that is of course a non-trivial fine line to walk in practice.  But it is an absolutely essential area to understand.  The secular folk insist that Christians are no different from Muslims and want to impose a theocracy on the rest of the world.  We Christians have to be ready at an instant's notice to show to inquirers what the Bible really says about how Christians should get involved in politics.   In certain parts of the world it is much more difficult already (and some day we may face the exact same situations) - for example Nigeria's Muslim north and Christian south.  Here the police/government and the religious beliefs are harder to separate.

Here's a very cool seven-part article that I came across today that carefully and practically expounds the place of the church and the state from the Biblical/Christian viewpoint - http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/pacifism1.htm.

Also, here's a neat article about Europe and current trends, called Why Europe Abandoned Israel.  As you know I enjoy reading/pondering "big-picture" analyses like these, though of course only if they are based on true historical details.

If you only have time to read one link, read the one by Arlandson about the church and the state!

"Ignore it and it'll go away"?    Or "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out"?

This is an interesting discussion.

Is there a middle way?

As is probably obvious, I've been thinking some more about "self-defense" recently, and how Christians should view it (and/or practice it).

I searched online to see if anybody else had written about it, and I found this really excellent article: ( http://www.foxven.com/s-self.html ) and some others supporting its conclusion - that while 'self-defense' may not be biblical, defense of others is quite in line with agape love...

In the interest of balance, I also read some articles from pacifistic (and even anarchistic) perspectives, such as this one ( http://home.aol.com/XianAnarch/pacifism/streets.htm ).  I found it intriguing that even a pacifist like this would say: "I have physically broken up racial conflicts involving 2-by-4's and chairs. I have taken knives away from people. I may be a "pacifist," but I am a Christian pacifist, and I am not going to stand idly by when someone created in God's Image is physically threatened."

Very interesting.   What are your thoughts on this issue?

This essay claims that Americans must choose between freedom at the cost of war, or "Geneva"-pacifism resulting in anarchy.  There is allegedly no middle way.

I've thought about these issues a lot, and followed the news closely and looked at historical analogues from previous centuries, and my conclusion is that the author is right.  America's postmodern liberal crowd (which is the majority I think, and certainly a majority of the elite) is on a collision course with radical Islamist fundamentalists (notice that there is a difference between "Islamist" and "Islamic").   It will prove impossible (yet again... recall Neville Chamberlain) to achieve stable peace and freedom without war.  The choice is: "peace, safety, and dhimmitude," or "freedom at any cost"/"Give me liberty or give me death".   But sadly, America no longer has the moral and spiritual drive to seek that liberty which once their founding fathers sought.   America is now weak.  America wants peace, freedom, and liberty, without having to pay the price for these precious statuses.   As Ben Franklin wrote, "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

The collision is coming, and the first few shocks are beginning to be felt.  The homosexuals and the islamist fundamentalists will soon clash.  (here's an interesting question - who will win?  perhaps the cartoon row was a hint...)  But by the grace of the true God, the Christians will be there right in their midst, overflowing with love, making peace wherever possible, and telling everyone who is willing to listen that the only hope for mankind (corporately and personally) is Jesus Christ.

I don't know where the world will be politically one hundred years from now.  But in a sense, to us Christians, it doesn't matter.  All that matters is blooming where we are planted... serving our King in our commissioned ambassadorial role...   because this world will be passing away shortly, and it is completely ephemeral compared to eternity.   I'm not saying that our actions don't matter... they do!  but the world itself is only temporary... it's only a stage, and we are the actors.

Meanwhile this annotated speech (from a UN official!!) explores the beatific role that the United Nations has played over the past few decades, and patiently informs us that the only thing holding back the UN from bringing full-fledged peace to the entire world is......  the lack of US funding.     The speech is actual... the commentary sarcasm is exquisite...   highly recommended reading.  

Finally, the discussion about the Resurrection is still continuing... though it may be winding down in the next few weeks...  feel free to add your thoughts if you have some time!   Thanks to all who have participated... (especially Spoonwood).

Here's a fascinating essay on war and Jesus' "Sermon on the Mount."

Also, don't miss the discussion on the resurrection and the objectivity/subjectivity of history that is occurring in the  thread on the Resurrection!