Once a mistake, twice a rank idiot March 21, 2008
Posted by reformedville in : Church/State, culture, Ethnicity, Government, Media , add a commentDr. Jeremiah Wright told us a year ago who shaped his worldview and his theology. If any of the “news people” had bothered to simply check out who Dr. Wright named there would be no ‘real shock’ at the rhetoric of Dr. Wright. Mind you, “no shock” does not equal agreement with a statement, rather it means you understand a state of an existence of a theology being taught in our seminaries and in some churches.
Lets do for ourselves what the paid MSM failed to do. James H. Cone, is a Professor of Systematic Theology at Union Theological Seminary. First, Union Theological is not some backwater , obscure institution, but rather has been in existence since 1836. But many are not quite aware of the fact they proudly state:
“Our ecumenical, interfaith commitment grows and strengthens through programs of exchange with churches and seminaries throughout the world. Informed by the insights of liberation theologians, the Seminary embraces and addresses the richness and realities of religious pluralism. “
If people grasped religious pluralism then Wrights rhetoric would be no surprise.James Cone has been featured in PBS’s This Far by Faith Series
A CRISIS IN FAITH
It was the voice of Malcolm X that first made James Cone question his theology. Malcolm X proclaimed loudly that “Christianity is a white man’s religion,” and said that blacks should adopt an understanding of God that grew out of their own history and experience. He railed against a blond-haired, blue-eyed Jesus and a belief in the delayed rewards of heaven.
Still, Cone, then on the faculty of Adrian College in Michigan, continued to believe in the nonviolent, Christian love of Martin Luther King, Jr.
It was the northern riots and Stokely Carmichael’s call for “Black Power!” during the Meredith March in Mississippi that led him to a crisis in faith.
CHRISTIANITY AND BLACK POWER: REINTERPRETING HIS FAITH
“For me, the burning theological question was, how can I reconcile Christianity and Black Power, Martin Luther King, Jr.’s idea of nonviolence, and Malcolm X’s ‘by any means necessary philosophy?’” (Preface to Black Theology and Black Power, p. viii.)
Christianity, as he understood it, no longer explained or held meaning in the turbulent years of the late 1960s. “I was within inches of leaving the Christian faith.” If he were to remain a Christian, Cone would have to reinterpret his faith to respond to such demanding times.
Not exactly what most of us would find to be common in church on Sunday Morning, but how can the informed Christian be ignorant of the existence of this? Corruption of the seminary has ahistorically been the beginning of the theological shifts in denominations to a more liberal stance.
It would be good to note, both Dr. Wright and James Cone comes from the generation prior to the American Civil Rights Movement and their experiences shaped a worldview of resentment towards the treatment blacks had received in that area. That their rhetoric reflects that should no more surprise us then the rhetoric of the colonial pastors inspired the American Revolution.
Dr. Wright also mentions , Dr. Dwight N. Hopkins, whose works include: Being Human: Race, Culture, and Religion; Walk Together Children: black and womanist theologies, church and theological education; Another World Is Possible: Spiritualities and Religions of Global Darker Peoples; Loving the Body: Black Religious Studies and the Erotic (coeditor); Heart and Head: Black Theology-Past, Present, and Future; Introducing Black Theology of Liberation; Down, Up and Over: Slave Religion and Black Theology; and Black Faith and Public Talk: Essays in Honor of James Cone’s Black Theology and Black Power (editor). His previous texts include Black Theology USA and South Africa: Politics, Culture, and Liberation; Shoes That Fit Our Feet: Sources for a Constructive Black Theology; and We Are One Voice: Essays on Black Theology in South Africa and the USA (coeditor). He is an editor of Religions/Globalizations: Theories and Cases; Changing Conversations: Religious Reflection and Cultural Analysis; and Liberation Theologies, Postmodernity and the Americas.
Dr. Hopkins is a Professor of Theology in the Divinity School at the University of Chicago. This school is well known and respected for it’s scholarship in the study of religion and religious tradition.
Chicago reflects only one orthodoxy: that the rules of evidence and argument must discipline conversation, and that such rules are especially important when the topic is religion. Our faculty and students present a remarkable range of attitudes about religion as a force for good and for ill in the world. These attitudes bespeak the shared view that religion is one of our most fascinating and enduring windows into central truths about human life and being. The School aims to develop out of that conviction the richest possible conversation, and direct it to the central, complementary ends of scholarly excellence and moral engagement.
Dr. Hopkins is more of an academic than James Cone, but whose worldview is certainly shaped by the James Cones and the Jeremiah Wrights he grew up under. Dr. Hopkins , an American Baptist minister believes,
The descendants of American slaves are due reparations. Their foremothers suffered oppression because of the slaveholding structure of American society, and they suffered injustice at the hands of individual Americans, both those who owned them and those who acted like they owned them. White Americans forced these women to work as house and field laborers, and white American men treated these women as objects, not humans, when they raped them. The ancestors of today’s Americans even suffered the additional outrage of rape as a form of profit maximization: If an enslaved woman gave birth, her child would increase her owner’s wealth and provide him with yet more free labor. The psychological damage that these women and their families suffered is incalculable. Yet enslaved American black women did not retreat into passivity. They forged a theological understanding of their relationship with a God who would one day pass judgment on the slaveholders and compensate the enslaved-In Heaven and on Earth. What we need now is a discussion of how we can best compensate the descendants of these women and thus strengthen our society today.
None of this is secretive information, but rather readily available in a google search, yet people are “shocked”. Some will even say, well that is racist and I won’t even acknowledge racism . That is like not talking about sex, 
STD’s , drugs or alcohol with our children will make it go away. It has the same effect, you leave people unprepared. And “shoocked” it even exists, instead of armed and prepared.
In all probablity this type of theology and the black experience had more effect on shaping Michelle’s worldview than it did Barack’s. This is reflected in her Princeton thesis which you can read here: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4.
Barack on the other hand was raised in a mixed cultural environment that was not walled in by the black experience (which why many claim he is not black enough). He was taught Islam, but from a political more than a religious standpoint in his home in Indonesia as a child. But Barack has more of a antropological view and reaction to society than his wife Michelle does.
I am much less concerned about Dr. Wright’s view than most, it is what it is. I tend to believe the social political aspect of Trinity UC church is part of the political reality of a Chicago politician more than a true indicator of Barack Obama’s belief system. I believe even though Dr. Wright had a lot of influence on Barack and is loved and respected by Barack as a fatherly type figure, he is intelligent enough to hold Wright’s radical (to us) views in tension and keep them in perspective.
Why? Because of his mother. HIs mother and his grandmother and his wife are powerful influences in his life. But not so much that he married a white woman. He married a true black woman-nobody will ever question if Michelle is black enough. Barack loves and respects her and she runs the house.Never underestimate the influence of a wife who b-slaps her husband in public. Early in Obama’s campaign, Michelle Obama could not restrain herself from belittling the senator.
”I have some difficulty reconciling the two images I have of Barack Obama. There’s Barack Obama the phenomenon. He’s an amazing orator, Harvard Law Review, or whatever it was, law professor, best-selling author, Grammy winner. Pretty amazing, right? And then there’s the Barack Obama that lives with me in my house, and that guy’s a little less impressive,” she told a fundraiser in February 2007.
“For some reason this guy still can’t manage to put the butter up when he makes toast, secure the bread so that it doesn’t get stale, and his five-year-old is still better at making the bed than he is.” New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd reported at the time, “She added that the TV version of Barack Obama sounded really interesting and that she’d like to meet him sometime.” Her handlers have convinced her to be more tactful since then.
Michelle Obama speaks with great warmth of her mother-in-law . “She was kind of a dreamer, his mother,” Michelle Obama was quoted in the January 25 Boston Globe. “She wanted the world to be open to her and her children. And as a result of her naivete, sometimes they lived on food stamps, because sometimes dreams don’t pay the rent. But as a result of her naivete, Barack got to see the world like most of us don’t in this country.” How strong the ideological motivation must be of a mother to raise her children on the thin fair in pursuit of a political agenda.
I think time has come to put this whole Trinity church affair in perspective and realize it is what it is. However, lets learn the lesson from it. Let’s not wake up a year from now and realize someone told us something and we missed it.Words have meanings and do not trust the Sean Hannity’s and the Fox’s and the CNN’s to do their research, do your own.
I would be much more concerned about the effect Michelles worldview has on Obama than Jeremiah’s.
Arrogance or ignorance ? March 17, 2008
Posted by reformedville in : Church/State, culture, Government, Media , 3commentsHow can the news media look into the camera with a straight face and act shocked by Dr. Jeremiah Wright? If anyone should be the source of controversy, it should be Fox News and Sean Hannity. This is the story behind the story in this “news event”. Let’s go back to Friday night the 14th of March.
With all the drum beats of the videotape of Dr. Wrights sermons, and then Sean Hannity turns up the shrill that if this is all true then Senator Obama needs to withdraw from the race and resign his seat in Congress.. I thought to myself they must be onto something really hot for Hannity to look like George Bush was just elected for a third term and picked Mitt Romney for his running mate. But the truth of the matter is, Sean Hannity and Fox News had this story a year ago and were either too ignorant or too arrogant to even realize it. I realize that is quite a statement to make, but it is well founded folks. They just failed to listen and to be able to discern what they were being plainly told.
Sean announced as they came on air that they are going to be interviewing Senator Obama on their program on Friday evening so I watched their show to see that interview. While I am waiting to hear the interview (actually done by Major Garrett) Sean starts bragging that he had interviewed Obama’s pastor a year ago and they were going to play it in full. As I sat there and watched the interview my jaw dropped in disbelief. No, not at Dr. Wrights answers but at Sean Hannity’s incompetence as a investigative journalist. Dr. Wright was telling him a year ago what he is just now understanding and Sean was too busy wanting to one up him to get the real story, that Dr. Wright was trying to give him! Sean was too busy telling him he studied theology to even grasp it and Dr. Wright was even telling him what theologians world view shaped his. But due to either arrogance or ignorance (or both) everyone missed the story.
Ok, Sean Hannity is not the best investigative journalist, that isn’t breaking news. But what about the entire staff at Fox or CNN, NBC,ABC, CBS or MSNBC for that matter? After I saw this I emailed “my group” and tagged Fox as being “Hillary’s do-boys” and not realizing it. (Mc Cain endorsers worldviews were also being compared in argument that night but not a word about Hillary’s and I started to laugh thinking, Hillary’s team actually listened to that interview a year ago and compiled this for the right time -purely my speculation-educated guess)
On March 6, I posted “How can you cure what you don’t understand?” (link) referencing the false claim of Senator Obama being a Muslim, and examining his judgement on issues. I also asked readers to examine the doctrines of his church. While it seemed to be liberation theology, it did not appear to be the classic liberation theology I was familiar with so I made reference to the social gospel and compared their doctrines to biblical doctrine, and left the reader to draw their own conclusion. Again, once I saw the interview from a year ago, I understood it was indeed liberation theology and that most people don’t understand it.
Today, while reading Asia Times Online,I saw Spengler had run a column on “The peculiar theology of black liberation“.
Spengler, in his own style and worldview,explains black liberation theology. In the event you are not familiar with it nuances, and are trying to reconcile it with your own Christian beliefs I have included excerpted pieces of the article below:
” Senator Barack Obama is not a Muslim, contrary to invidious rumors. But he belongs to a Christian church whose doctrine casts Jesus Christ as a “black messiah” and blacks as “the chosen people”. At best, this is a radically different kind of Christianity than most Americans acknowledge; at worst it is an ethnocentric heresy.
What played out last week on America’s television screens was a clash of two irreconcilable cultures, the posture of “black liberation theology” and the mainstream American understanding of Christianity. Obama, who presented himself as a unifying figure, now seems rather the living embodiment of the clash.”
He references the interview that Hannity was bragging about and I referenced:
Wright asserted the authority of the “black liberation” theologians James Cone and Dwight Hopkins:
Wright: How many of Cone’s books have you read? How many of Cone’s book have you read?
Sean Hannity: Reverend, Reverend?
(crosstalk)
Wright: How many books of Cone’s have you head?
Hannity: I’m going to ask you this question …
Wright: How many books of Dwight Hopkins have you read?
Hannity: You’re very angry and defensive. I’m just trying to ask a question here.
Wright: You haven’t answered - you haven’t answered my question.
Hopkins is a full professor at the University of Chicago’s Divinity School; Cone is now distinguished professor at New York’s Union Theological Seminary. They promote a “black power” reading of Christianity, to which liberal academic establishment condescends.
Obama referred to this when he asserted in a March 14 statement, “I knew Reverend Wright as someone who served this nation with honor as a United States Marine, as a respected biblical scholar, and as someone who taught or lectured at seminaries across the country, from Union Theological Seminary to the University of Chicago.” But the fact the liberal academy condescends to sponsor black liberation theology does not make it less peculiar to mainstream American Christians. “
Spengler further notes, (and please note when he says black theology he means black liberation theology)
During the black-power heyday of the late 1960s, after the murder of the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr, the mentors of Wright decided that blacks were the Chosen People. James Cone, the most prominent theologian in the “black liberation” school, teaches that Jesus Christ himself is black. As he explains:
Christ is black therefore not because of some cultural or psychological need of black people, but because and only because Christ really enters into our world where the poor were despised and the black are, disclosing that he is with them enduring humiliation and pain and transforming oppressed slaves into liberating servants.
Biblical theology teaches that even the most terrible events to befall Israel, such as the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BCE, embody the workings of divine justice, even if humankind cannot see God’s purpose. James Cone sees the matter very differently. Either God must do what we want him to do, or we must reject him, Cone maintains:
Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community … Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love. [1]
In the black liberation theology taught by Wright, Cone and Hopkins, Jesus Christ is not for all men, but only for the oppressed:
In the New Testament, Jesus is not for all, but for the oppressed, the poor and unwanted of society, and against oppressors … Either God is for black people in their fight for liberation and against the white oppressors, or he is not [Cone].
That is the “biblical scholarship” to which Obama referred in his March 14 defense of Wright and his academic prominence. In his response to Hannity, Wright genuinely seemed to believe that the authority of Cone and Hopkins, who now hold important posts at liberal theological seminaries, was sufficient to make the issue go away. His faith in the white establishment is touching; he honestly cannot understand why the white reporters at Fox News are bothering him when the University of Chicago and the Union Theological Seminary have put their stamp of approval on black liberation theology.
Whether Obama takes seriously the doctrines that Wright preaches is another matter. It is possible that Obama does not believe a word of what Wright, Cone and Hopkins teach. Perhaps he merely used the Trinity United Church of Christ as a political stepping-stone. African-American political life is centered around churches, and his election to the Illinois State Senate with the support of Chicago’s black political machine required church membership. Trinity United happens to be Chicago’s largest and most politically active black church.
Obama views Wright rather at arm’s length: as the New York Times reported on April 30, 2007:
Reverend Wright is a child of the 60s, and he often expresses himself in that language of concern with institutional racism and the struggles the African-American community has gone through,” Mr Obama said. “He analyzes public events in the context of race. I tend to look at them through the context of social justice and inequality.
Obama holds his own views close. But it seems unlikely that he would identify with the ideological fits of the black-power movement of the 1960s. Obama does not come to the matter with the perspective of an American black, but of the child of a left-wing anthropologist raised in the Third World.”
1. See William R Jones, “Divine Racism: The Unacknowledged Threshold Issue for Black Theology”, in African-American Religious Thought: An Anthology, ed Cornel West and Eddie Glaube (Westminster John Knox Press).
Again, my inclination is that Senator Obama does not really hold to the same doctrine of Dr. Wright but to watch him squirm in that interview and carefully parse his words, makes me leery. Why? I served with people in churches who never wanted to offend anyone, by using a pluralistic formula of agreeing with everyone. In the end you not only offend more people but become known as standing for nothing. I managed businesses where people were afraid to make a decision and run with it for fear it is wrong or would hurt someones feelings. They never see their failure to take a position is in itself a position and makes one question their judgement.
In conclusion, the MSM, Fox News really blew this story a year ago. Now we will have a examination of ministers and what they believe and have to hear denials in which I have no interest and is a distraction. I believe this may have ended any chance of a VP position for Mitt Romney as well-if you can’t live with liberation theology, KOBOL, and Mormon doctrine may be too much as well. Ironic as it may be, I thought the press pushed a separation of church and state and we were for the right to believe what we wish, rather than bring our pastor to be interviewed.
Spengler concluded, with what well may be the question of the convention:
“It is possible that because of the Wright affair Obama will suffer for what he pretended to be, rather than for what he really is.”
Grassley should focus on 501 (c) (3) political abuses February 12, 2008
Posted by reformedville in : Church/State, Government , add a commentFebruary 12th, 2008 by reformedville
Last November, Senator Grassley (R-IOWA), opened an investigation on six major television evangelists and their lifestyles. This came on the coattails of the Oral Roberts University scandal and lawsuit this fall. A frhiend of mine e-mailed me a article about the investigation knowing my interest in church-state matters.
Understanding that the ministries are not required to file 990’s, I figured it wouldn’t amount to anything so dismissed it. Grassley,a Baptist, is also walking a real legal tightrope in his investigation of Word of Faith ministries. Senator Grassley is no fan of disclosure himself, so to want television evangelists to provide him information beyond what the government requires makes we wonder just how conservative he is. (This letter is unbelievable.)
It is ironic that the senior senator seeks people to cooperate upon his request when he himself will not.Senator Charles E. ‘Chuck’ Grassley REPEATEDLY REFUSED TO PROVIDE ANY RESPONSES TO CITIZENS ON ISSUES THROUGH THE 2004 NATIONAL POLITICAL AWARENESS TEST. Senator Charles E. ‘Chuck’ Grassley REFUSED TO PROVIDE THIS INFORMATION WHEN ASKED TO DO SO BY:Major News Organizations and key national leaders of both parties including,John McCain, Republican Senator
Geraldine Ferraro, Former Democratic Congresswoman
Michael Dukakis, Former Democratic Governor
Bill Frenzel, Former Republican Congressman
Richard Kimball, Project Vote Smart President.
One starts to ask why Grassley is investigating the televangelists all of a sudden and then it becomes a bit clearer. Many of the television evangelists were part of the Board of Regents of Oral Roberts University . In May 2006, ORU was contacted by the Internal Revenue Service over a complaint about the school’s involvement in a local political campaign in potential violation of its 501(c)(3) status. Now that is fair game. If a organization wants a 501 (c) (3) exemption, and especially a religious organization, it should abide by the rules of the law it places itself under., and if they violate it , be subjected to the penalty of the law. Now to the rescue of the televangelists comes Garry M CCaleb : “We’re not representing any of the parties involved, but when I see a senator charging into organizations, wielding this kind of budget ax and laying bare religious figures and expenditures, huge constitutional questions are being raised,” said Garry McCaleb, senior counsel at the Alliance Defense Fund, a religious liberty legal group founded by Focus on the Family and other influential evangelicals. Interesting to find, Robert “Bob” S. Waliszewski ,Media and Culture Director, Focus on the Family, sits on the Board of Oral Roberts .
Where Senator Grassley gets legal authority to conduct such an investigation is beyond me (though this has been the trend in government ); investigating tax exempt organization that abuse their status and disregard the spirit of the law is quite another. Last week I am listening to the news and on comes Dr. James Dobson, claiming to speak as a private citizen, not just endorsing a candidate, but also speaking against another. Now of course, CitizenLink (http://citizenlink.org ) makes sure it is “not really” the voice of Focus on the Family, so that Dr. Dobson can speak as a private citizen and thereby skirts the rules of the internal revenue service. But when someone hears Dr. Dobson, it carries the weight of “ Focus on the Family”with it , disclaimer or not.I have no problem if Dr. Dobson wants to register as a 527, register as a lobbyist, or be part of a political organization of his choice. That is HIS right. However, his feigning of speaking as a private citizen reminds me of “it depends on the meaning of is”.
Focus on the Family’s Dr. Dobson Says GOP has Abandoned Values VotersTuesday’s Losses Suggest “The Big Tent Will Turn into a Three-Ring Circus”
http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/797901467.html
Contact: Gary Schneeberger, Focus on the Family, 719-548-5853, culturalissues@family.org
COLORADO SPRINGS, Nov. 9 /Christian Newswire/ — Focus on the Family Chairman James C. Dobson, Ph.D., issued the following statement today on the results of Tuesday’s election:“Laura Ingraham said it best. When Congressional Republicans wait until the First of October to begin reaching out to their base, they are destined to lose. That was the GOP’s downfall. They consistently ignored the constituency that put them in power until it was late in the game and then frantically tried to catch up at the last minute. In 2004, conservative voters handed them a 10-seat majority in the Senate and a 29-seat edge in the House. And what did they do with their power? Very little that Values Voters care about. “Many of my colleagues saw this coming. I said in an interview with U.S. News and World Report shortly after the 2004 elections, ‘If Republicans in the White House and in Congress squander this opportunity, I believe they will pay a price for it in four years — or maybe in two.’ Sadly for conservatives, that in large measure explains what happened on Tuesday night. Many of the Values Voters of ‘04 simply stayed at home this year.…Someone should tell him that without the support of that specific constituency, John Kerry would be President and the Republicans would have fallen into a black hole in ‘04. In fact, that is where they are headed if they continue to abandon their pro-moral, pro-family and pro-life base. The big tent will turn into a three-ring circus….”
Senator Grassley, it is not your place to dictate lifestyles and salaries of televangelists, no matter how distasteful their message may be to your Baptist theology. Constrain yourself to the law.
Dr. Dobson, please quit giving religion a black eye with your lack of forgiveness to Senator Mc Cain for tagging some evangelical leaders ” the ‘’self-appointed leaders” of the religious right, depicting them as intolerant empire builders who ”have turned good causes into businesses” while trying to exclude all but ”card-carrying Republicans” from the party.
Mr. McCain singled out for criticism two of the Christian right’s best-known leaders, Pat Robertson, the founder of the Christian Coalition, and the Rev. Jerry Falwell, the founder of the Moral Majority. He compared Mr. Robertson to ”union bosses who have subordinated the interests of working families to their own ambitions,” and he accused both men of trying to distort his opposition to abortion and ‘’smear the reputations of my supporters.””The politics of division and slander are not our values,” Mr. McCain said in a somber address to some 4,000 people who packed a high school gymnasium here only a few miles from the headquarters of the Christian Coalition. ”They are corrupting influences on religion and politics, and those who practice them in the name of religion or in the name of the Republican Party or in the name of America shame our faith, our party and our country.”
The names of the ”agents of intolerance ” in 2000 may have changed but the description is spot on.. You are making his case for him and endangering legitimate non-profits tax exempt status by abusing yours. Please stop the transparent power struggle and Focus on the Family, not republican politics. God is not a republican and isn’t draped in a American Flag.
Give Me A New Law February 8, 2008
Posted by reformedville in : Church/State, culture, Government , 2commentsHave you ever had a song just stop you in your tracks? About two years ago I was listening to the radio and across came lyrics that perfectly depicted American Christianity:
don’t teach me about politics and government , just tell me who to vote for
don’t teach me about truth and beauty, just label my musicdon’t teach me how to live like a free man ,just give me a new law
i don’t wanna know if the answers aren’t easy, so just bring it down from the mountain to medon’t teach me about moderation and liberty,i prefer a shot of grape juice
don’t teach me about loving my enemies,don’t teach me how to listen to the Spirit, just give me a new lawwhat’s the use in trading a law you can never keep, for one you can that cannot get you anything, do not be afraid ,do not be afraid do not be afraid.
I was searching the internet yesterday morning for any news out of the CPAC Conference when I saw Dr. James Dobson in the news. “Dr. James Dobson released a statement to The Laura Ingraham Show. He stated his “personal opinions “of this critical election:
“I am deeply disappointed the Republican Party seems poised to select a nominee who did not support a Constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage, voted for embryonic stem-cell research to kill nascent human beings, opposed tax cuts that ended the marriage penalty, has little regard for freedom of speech, organized the Gang of 14 to preserve filibusters in judicial hearings, and has a legendary temper and often uses foul and obscene language.
“I am convinced Sen. McCain is not a conservative, and in fact, has gone out of his way to stick his thumb in the eyes of those who are. He has sounded at times more like a member of the other party. McCain actually considered leaving the GOP caucus in 2001, and approached John Kerry about being Kerry’s running mate in 2004. McCain also said publicly that Hillary Clinton would make a good president. Given these and many other concerns, a spoonful of sugar does NOT make the medicine go down. I cannot, and will not, vote for Sen. John McCain, as a matter of conscience.
These decisions are my personal views and do not represent the organization with which I am affiliated. They do reflect my deeply held convictions about the institution of the family, about moral and spiritual beliefs, and about the welfare of our country.” “
Where do I start? James Dobson does not get on Laura Ingraham if it is not for his being recognized for his position as Focus on the Family leader any more than he would be put on ESPN for his personal predictions on the NFL draft. So, the premise is flawed from the gate .
Secondly, as an evangelical leader if he is to make a statement about someone it should be true. Kerry approached John Mc Cain and asked him to consider being his running mate. According to the Boston Globe;
“The union of a Democrat and a Republican “would make good on the president’s promise to be a uniter, not a divider,” said one Kerry aide, who like the others spoke on the condition of anonymity. Such a ticket could offer Americans the prospect of a reduction in the partisanship that has increasingly gripped Capitol Hill during the past decade, as well as a return to the national unity experienced in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attack.”
Some of Dr. Dobsons claims are just untrue and several judge and assign intent to the action in clear violation of biblical precepts. Bottom line, it is just partisan politics, using his position as a evangelical leader in a questionable manner. He should be well aware that walking a tightrope of personal and professional statements could endanger his 501 (c) (3) status; especially in light of the Oral Roberts crisis and Senator Grassley’s hearings. While I am well aware that the “little disclaimer” legally protects Dr. Dobson’s Focus on the Family organization, that is exactly what the Grassley hearings are about.
I believe Phil Gramm (Tex.), nailed it yesterday in the Washington Post when he said; “They say they have principles, but some of it is their ego and power, too. They’re well-known, and they’re used to having power.” Gramm acknowledges. “Some people, in their own minds, think they have exerted a strong influence over the party, and now they are seeing that influence passing,” he said. “There’s some bitterness on their part. They’re people who put their dogma in front of the interests of the country.”
But I have even greater concern for a trend we have discussed for years having a negative influence on the church, namely Americanized Christianity. It is a form of Christianity that has a different worldview than we have in the Bible. Perhaps this is why so many evangelical leaders could vocally endorse Romney, as his worldview may be closer to theirs than the Bibles.
Over at Political Punch Jake Tapper notes (Editor’s note — that’s not true. Kerry approached McCain, McCain said no.) and then brings up David Kuo’s response to Dr. Dobson:
And there, in a nutshell, is the Christian worldview as James Dobson pronounces it:
- cutting taxes
- a Constitutional amendment “protecting” marriage
- elimination of embryonic stem-cell research
- a US Senate stripped of the very powers that the Founders gave it
- not cursing.Darn. Is there a more succinct and stunning summation of the reason why evangelical voters are throwing off self-appointed evangelical mullahs like James Dobson? And why, according to a new Barna study, 40% of evangelicals would vote for the Democratic candidate if the election were held today (versus 28% for the Republican candidate).
Evangelical voters are saying that they think a Christian worldview should include tackling issues like poverty and health care. They are saying that perhaps Jesus would oppose the wanton torture of other human beings. They are saying that perhaps obeying God’s first command - to care for His creation - matters. And they are saying that the idea of deporting 12 million illegal immigrants sounds cruel and frightening.
By putting himself out there so forcefully, Dr. Dobson risks playing the role of Dr. Kevorkian in ushering in the end of the old-line religious right.
After the passing of Dr. Falwell I did a post entitled When the truth becomes a liability on another site that stirred great response and emotion from people.
Just as the climate for spiritual abuse is set by biblical illiteracy; so is the climate in every other arena. Failing to hold our political leaders to account and first to be truthful, rather than parrot a line, then to assault truth and call it unwelcome, or term it unpatriotic is inexcusable.
The truth is an unsettling matter and tough to deal with. A song comes to mind from years back from Fleetwood Mac: Tell Me Lies. We should be very careful of who we lend our support to publicly when we don the title Christian and associate it with ourselves. Don’t be used as a stooge and parrot lines, it reflects on the body of Christ.
Do you feel like the republican party has been honest with the American public? Do you in any way equate someones political affiliations with their Christianity? Are you comfortable with political messages from the pulpit? Do Christians really have a public voice that represents them or are they just thrown a bone now and then to keep them in line and quiet?
The last time I checked the Canon was closed and the law was fulfilled in Christ. Is our hope in Christ or are we just humanists in a church putting our faith the state? As political as I am, my ultimate faith for my future is in Christ, not a political party.
Using the fringe to get to the core February 1, 2008
Posted by reformedville in : Church/State, Government , add a comment“Then they came for the dangerous cult groups, but I didn’t belong to a dangerous cult group, so I said nothing.”
Always notice how the MSM or the Feds go after the fringe to either make light of the faith, or destroy the credibility of Christians? They enact legislation to go after cults and Christians applaud. Sometimes I wonder if Christians are using their head for a hat-rack rather than to think.
Admittedly this guy is not main stream in His beliefs, but support Him being shut down and silenced and you are next . The war with humanism is real folks, it is just a matter of when you are going to look it in the eye and accept we are at war. They declared it long ago and we sit quietly and politically correct. And we wonder why judgment is on our nation? Because of Christians-not the goats!
Choose this day whom you will serve-God or the IRS US Government Through the IRS Outlaws Preaching on Second Coming of Christ
One of the reasons the IRS gave to Texe Marr’s Living Truth Ministries for removing their tax exempt status is as follows: “Much of the material you disseminate promises to address possible conspiracies or threats, either from individuals, groups or various agencies, against Christianity, freedom or other rights. This is evident from a review of your newsletters and order forms. The titles and promotional materials are designed to sensationalize and grab the readers attention. They usually imply that the works will expose certain prominent groups, individuals, politicians or government agencies as being part of or linked to some threat or conspiracy.” One of the titles that the IRS gave as an example included “Bible Prophecy and The Conspiracy.”
Any grade school child in Sunday School knows that you can’t teach or write on Bible prophecy without dealing with the second coming of Jesus Christ. But just as the Russian pastors under communism were forbidden to speak on this subject, we are now coming to the same place in our beloved land. It is obvious that if one believes in the literal return of the Lord Jesus Christ that they will be considered a domestic terrorist. In that the Lord Jesus will destroy wicked government upon His return in great glory and break the back of Gentile world rule, this message isn’t popular with the in-for-hells and the high-heeled-belles that run our country today. Of course, they don’t believe that He is coming, but they believe that we who do will be involved in what they call self-fulfilled prophecies and try to hasten His coming by blowing up everything in sight. Further evidence of this type of anti-Christ thinking surfaced recently when a brochure put out by the FBI in Phoenix, Arizona, named “potential domestic terrorists” that law enforcement should be aware of. One of those groups is “Doomsday/Cult-Type.” Obviously, this would include all Bible believing preachers and churches in America. We not only believe that there will be a literal doomsday, we believe that the Lord Jesus Christ will bring the doom when He comes (Rev. 6:12-17). It won’t do any good to claim that your church is not a “cult”. The IRS definition fits the average Bible believing church to a tee.
the entire article may be found at: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/600502/posts however, some readers may find some of it’s content offensive, and I do not agree with all parts of the article theologically. The import of the post is the effect of the 501 (c) (3) on your church. John
The Harvest February 1, 2008
Posted by reformedville in : Church/State, Theology , add a commentThey promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity…” 2 Peter 2:19The 20th Century has seen the worst atrocities ever committed. The word ”genocide”, a new term coined in the 20th Century, describes what has occurred repeatedly in secular humanist states - which had first disarmed their populations. Darwinian evolutionism with its ”survival of the fittest” ideology has devalued human life. If man is not created in the image of God, and if there is no God in heaven Who will judge the living and the dead, if there are no objective standards of right and wrong - then life becomes cheap. When you devalue God, you devalue life.
When atheism takes hold of a society, moral relativism is inevitable. Nothing is sacred. There is no objective standard of right and wrong, no God, no eternal Day of Judgement. No hope of eternal justice. Life becomes cheap.
At least 180 million people have been killed by secular governments in the 20th Century. And that is a very conservative estimate. We are not here talking about people who have died in wars caused by secular humanist states, because that would massively increase the body count. No, over 180 million people have been killed by their own secular humanist governments in the 20th Century. The greatest threat to life in the 20th Century was not firearm accidents, or crime, or even wars! More people were killed by their own governments in peace time than were killed by foreign invaders in war time.
If we were to add to the number of those victims murdered by their own government in the 20th Century, the pre-born babies who have been killed by abortion, and those old and sick people killed by euthanasia, in secular states, the death toll would approach one billion people. That is 1000 million victims killed by secular states in the 20th Century alone.
The bitter harvest of atheism proves that humanism is the most destructive religion in all of history. The secular state is the greatest killer ever, and secular states have made the 20th Century the bloodiest century of all time. Whats on the plate for the 21st century?
Church and State issues -The Flag February 1, 2008
Posted by reformedville in : Church/State , add a commentWith cultural Christianity and the social gospel running rampant in America today, do you view a American Flag in the sanctuary as a violation of the first or second commandment or as a conflict between kingdoms when we are to be focusing on our worship of the Triune God? Why or why not?
Not a peep October 11, 2007
Posted by reformedville in : Church/State, Government , add a comment
Life Chain in DuBois Sunday October 7, 2007
Did not hear a word spoken while taking these pictures
Let’s cut through the theological jargon and think about the church for a while. September 29, 2007
Posted by reformedville in : Church/State, Government, Uncategorized , add a comment
|
The Church and the State Relationship, Part 4 May 15, 2007
Posted by reformedville in : Church/State , 1 comment so farMany legitimate questions have been raised in the first three parts of this series, and the feedback received, as it is established there is no pure separation of the church from the state, and in fact the state wields influence on the church’s internal activities by the very nature of its incorporation and tax exempt status. My friend ECD Pilgrim is concurrently looking at other aspects of the relationship, as well as internal governance issues.
Jesus Christ addressed a situation very similar to what the church in the United States faces today. In his famous interaction in Matthew 12:13-17 (cp. Matthew 22:15-22, Luke 20:20-26), where He was entrapped into a lose-lose situation, Our Lord showed his ensnarers were no match for Him. We must realize that at the time the Temple had aligned with Caesar in a quid pro quo relationship, and backed the oppressive tax render going to Caesar and his minions for their own benefit. There was a legitimate dispute about whether it was legitimate and there was a resistance among many of the believers to pay the tax because it was illegitimate. Our Lord, clearly separates the kingdoms here and shows that the state is always under and subject to God’s authority as it is all His.
So, as pointed out in Part 1, the church has ceded its diaconal ministry to the state and I would further state ,I believe as a matter of convenience or expediency, or at best as a serious lack of discernment. Consider it for the best part gone, as the taxation by the government has placed many church members diaconal gifts rendered to the state as they are the ones whose care we have placed our widows, orphans, elderly and disabled under.
So as we look at governance we need to look at the larger issue, to whom do we ultimately depend on as Christians, Our God or our state? I am not condemning anyone who by nature of the system we live under, has been forced to paid into and receives retirement or disability from the state. Ex post facto condemnation is wrong and is the worst of monday morning quarterbacking.
Our legitimate areas of concern of the church needs to be how we can be faithful to our Lord and live in both kingdoms, rather than making the church a subsection of the state to be used. The first area I think we must meet with strong resistance is liberation theology. In that article I quote Hoyos, “When I see the church with a machine gun, I can not see the crucified Christ (or the risen Christ)in that church”
How do Christians effect change in society? How does that meld with the great commission? I am not for one minute suggesting that Christians take no part in the earthly kingdom of the state, I am suggesting however, it becomes wrong for the church to be a political arm of the state. There are current theologians who have watered down their effectiveness for the gospel of Jesus Christ by wrapping Jesus in the flag. There are others who promote our alliance with the state for programs the “church can’t afford otherwise”, by taking public funds. You can justify it by working within the system and using to our benefit pragmatically. I will agree on one point, “the church can’t afford” to be in such a relationship as she cedes even more authority every time she takes a single dime from the state (all inclusive of government).
We are not our own, and we have been bought with a price . Until we start taking our worldviews and our eschatologies out to the grander scale we see scripture dictating, we have to end our reliance and alliances with the state in any future actions we take. While each of us has our particular worldviews, there is one thing we have in common as the mission of the church, and that is to spread the good news until the day of the Lord.
We must stop where we are and think seriously about our actions and the message the church is sending to the world. Many view us not as an offense, but either just plain offensive, as malcontents, or just plain idiots, and who do we have to blame?
In our common missions, in preaching Christ crucified, in preaching the risen Savior, in equipping the saints and worshipping the Living Triune God, who is alive and well, we need to start to remove the stumbling blocks we place in the way of the gospel. There are so few faithful churches todays, our core message should not be our politics, our activism, our economic theories, it needs to be the whole counsel of God, preached faithful, and worship of our Triune God in spirit and in truth. When we do this, we will affect the earthly kingdom and being obedient to our Master, the one who owns us. We can work across most worldview lines. We have allowed Satan to use this to our detriment in our effectivesness on influence in our community and our culture.
I believe at the same time we need to have systemic theology taught, our children need to be brought up in the faith and properly trained in the confessions of the faith, so they know their own comfort in life and are able to share the hope that lies within them. It is then we build a strong family, a strong church and a strong community. Until those occur we are just fragmenting and spinning wheels with some illusion of what could or should be with no practical implementation of it.
The church needs to put the cart back behind the horse, clearly focus on its scriptural mission and work within the earthly kingdom. Until our own houses and houses are in order, and our reliance is on God and not the state to effectualize change, we are like the jeep stuck up to its axles in mud. Jehovah Jireh , He is our Provider .Soli Deo Gloria.
