From Bill Bennett's American Patriot's Almanac:
October 11, 1986, brought the opening of a two-day summit in Reykjavik, Iceland, between President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev—a turning point in a four-decade-old Cold War with a Communist empire that threatened the liberty of the world.
Gorbachev, desperate to cut his ailing nation’s military spending, offered major weapons cutbacks if the United States would do the same. Reagan was astounded and delighted. Previous Soviet leaders had answered nyet to serious proposals for nuclear arms reductions. The U.S. president responded by suggesting that both sides scrap all offensive missiles within ten years. Soon both leaders were trading breathtaking proposals to dismantle nuclear stockpiles. We have negotiated the most massive weapons reductions in history, an exultant Reagan told himself.
Then Gorbachev threw a curve: “This all depends, of course, on you giving up SDI.” The demand angered Reagan. He had made it clear that the Strategic Defense Initiative—a U.S. research program to develop a defensive shield against incoming missiles—was not a bargaining chip. In his view, SDI would ultimately prove the best defense against foreign threats.
Reagan could have left Reykjavik hailed as a great statesman for making the deal. All he had to do was give up SDI. Instead, he ended the summit. “The price was high but I wouldn’t sell,” he wrote in his diary.
Critics accused the president of being too stubborn. But others believed that standing firm would pay off. “You just won the Cold War,” an administration official predicted on the plane ride home. Reagan was confident that the bankrupt Soviet empire could not stand up to U.S. resolve. “I’m convinced he’ll come around,” he wrote of Gorbachev. Sure enough, the Soviets came back to the bargaining table, and the two countries soon reached historic agreements to reduce nuclear arms.
Every day, Bill Bennett provides via email--for free--a reading from his American Patriot's Almanac. You’ll read about heroes, their achievements, and key events that took place “On This Day” in American history. Click here to subscribe.
Welcome to the Intersections Blog, where I try to work out where politics, pop culture, and the Bible meet
So What's This All About?
In case you didn't know, I'm in the multi-year-long process of posting a Christian devotional at the TAWG Blog. The TAWG Blog is, and always will be, mostly apolitical. For the most part, Bible-believing Christians will find little to disagree with there. But I also firmly believe that God's word can--and should--inform everything in life, and this should include politics and popular culture. How should we vote? How should we respond to hot topics such as abortion, capital punishment, taxes, and other issues? Which party, if either, is closer to the Biblical ideal? Tony Campolo and Ron Sider, Evangelicals whose political leanings are on the Left, have made the case in several of their writings that God wants his followers to vote politically on the Left more than on the Right. At times, some of them have gone so far as to equate voting on the Left with obedience to Christ, either subtly or not-so-subtly contending that the converse is true as well: If you vote Republican, you're sinning against the Savior.
I don't agree. I think that to the degree they actually resort to the Bible, they're misinterpreting it. With a whole bunch of caveats, I think politically conservative positions are a lot more compatible with the Scriptures than the Leftist positions.
Just to clarify, I would never accuse people who disagree with me--especially siblings in Christ--of what they accuse me of. I don't judge my own heart, much less anyone else's, and I don't equate political disagreement with theological fidelity to God. I have no reason to doubt their love for the Lord and "for the least of these," but I believe that they're sincerely wrong.
Just to clarify, I would never accuse people who disagree with me--especially siblings in Christ--of what they accuse me of. I don't judge my own heart, much less anyone else's, and I don't equate political disagreement with theological fidelity to God. I have no reason to doubt their love for the Lord and "for the least of these," but I believe that they're sincerely wrong.
So there are two main purposes for this blog. One is to make a case for my political beliefs based on Scripture. The other is a bit more vague, basically to work out my political beliefs and figure out what's based on Scripture and what's based on my own biases. I certainly don't have all the answers. Some of this stuff I'm still figuring out. And I'm certainly open to correction. As long as you make your case civilly and based on Scripture, feel free to make a comment, and I promise I'll post it and consider your arguments thoughtfully and prayerfully. Who knows? Maybe we'll learn a little something from each other.
May God bless our common striving together towards both the "little t" truth and "Big T" Truth. Our watchword here is a line from C. S. Lewis's The Last Battle: "Further up and further in!"
P.S. -- Below on the left is "Topics I've Covered" which lists everything I've posted topically. It's come to my attention that some people would like to see everything just listed for them. If that's you, you can get it here. Thanks to my friend Stephen Young for the tip!
No comments:
Post a Comment