For those “excited” about Reformation fervor — and I'm one of them — I think Thabiti Anyabwile reminded us well in this blog page to which [Boundless contributor Motte Brown] linked:

The potential for making biblical truth a fad seems quite high. All fads die. If the resurgence of robust biblical theology rides an emotional crest until that superficial, emotional wave dies, so too will interest in robust biblical truth. We're all familiar enough with church history to have seen this several times over.

3. The media attention forces some superficial attempts at self-definition, and the inevitable result are “camps” of Reformed types. Add a little carnality, and then you'll hear folks saying they're of Paul, or Appolos, or Peter, or Dever, or C.J., or MacArthur, or Driscoll, or the really, really Reformed, etc when those men weren't even looking for groupies.

[. . .]

[S]o much of the talk about the “new Calvinism” “winning the culture” ends up taking too many eyes off the cross, off the gospel, off the local church, off the great commission, and off the great commandment. Not all such talk does this, but enough does.

Wouldn't it be just absolutely hilarious for the Devil to see all the Reformed fervor, supposedly anti-man-centered and hoping to point toward the Cross and God's glory, turn back on itself?

I daresay this would certainly please the Church's true human enemies as well — Churchians, compromisers and liberal divergents posing as Christians, along with well-intended yet “free willie” semi-Pelagian malcontents in the true Church.

That, along with the fact that such an anti-“establishment” movement becoming itself the establishment, would be bad. (I was just thinking earlier today, remember when “The Simpsons” used to be so edgy and “anti-establishment”? Now it's everywhere and constantly imitated.)

But worse would be the truth that God's glory and the centrality of the Cross and Christ's Grace would be exchanged for even trace amounts of mere emotional fervor about a “movement.”

Thus the Church's enemies would chuckle softly to themselves — the Devil, especially — he's turned even non-man-centered doctrines back around to worshiping man all over again. And so the cycle toward yet another mini-Reformation begins anew.

After reading through [Boundless webzine editor Ted Slater's] excellent evaluation [“Nudity in Art,” March 12] and the responses above, I certainly agree that the don’t-tempt-the-eyes arguments are solidly Scriptural and based in common sense and men’s honest admissions of what causes stumbling.

But let’s consider this also from the perspective of making “art,” such as a movie, not just viewing it.

And I will be more aggressive than usual in trying to get my questions actually answered by the “sex acts onscreen have artistic merit” proponents who’ve posted here.

For all you people who think watching naked people and portrayals of sex is acceptable, and not much different from watching portrayals of violence:

• Question 1: In movies with violent scenes, are the movie actors actually conducting real acts of violence, such as shooting, stabbing, torturing?
  
  
  
• Question 2: In movies with nudity or sex scenes, are the movie actors actually appearing naked, touching other actors in private areas or acting out sex scenes?
  
  
  
• Question 3: Would you appraise the “artistic merit” of a movie, if its actors were actually being shot at, stabbed or injured for the sake of the movie?
  
  
  
• Question 4: If not, then why would you appraise the “artistic merit” of a movie when actors are really unclothed and acting out sex scenes?
  
  (Unlike ways to simulate or act out violence, do actors somehow have any other method of directly portraying nudity and lewd acts onscreen without actually being naked and doing lewd acts?)
  
  
  
• Question 5: If you as a Christian were also an actor, would you sincerely believe God would be glorified and His standards of purity upheld if you participated in acted-out representations of violence, for a movie with a storyline that ultimately upheld a Biblical worldview and concepts of good versus evil?
  
  
  
• Question 6: Would you, as a Christian actor, sincerely believe God would be glorified if you took off your clothes and exposed yourself for a movie scene, or engaged in private touching or lewd acts with a co-star? What about your spouse? Boyfriend or girlfriend? Your mother? Your sister?

Finally ...

• Question 7: In the New Heavens and New Earth (Revelation 21), could films be made for God’s glory that portray good versus evil and the ensuing violence that once marked the rebellious Old Earth?
  
  Would such films also include representations of nudity — could glorified saints actually take off their clothes or portray acts of lewd behavior for the sake of “art,” accuracy or “authenticity”?

Again, I look forward to reading any responses to these questions, especially from “but-it’s-art” proponents.

BDB, the only way your point has any validity is if Republicans in 2008, especially John McCain, had actually been implementing philosophy-based political conservativism the way Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity advocate it.

You cannot logically or seriously argue that national Republicans took those pundits' advice.