I saw a black man hanging from a tree with a noose around his neck. His young son stood there crying and desperately calling out to his father. Even now, I feel like crying thinking of that scene from Mississippi Burning. I am not evaluating the movie here that was based, at least in part, on actual events. It upsets me a great deal to think of the racial horror carried out against Blacks in this country—and quite frankly, against all of us. Frankly, the movie helps me appreciate the fact that a black man—albeit ½ Anglo—is now the President of the United States. A dear Christian brother of mine expressed how emotional the election of Barack Obama made him feel, especially when he thought about his father and grandfather and their civil struggles. I could appreciate that and I thank God that we are at a place where an African American, or woman, or even a Puerto Rican like me—Malta and tostones in the White House?—could be President of the U.S.
In my previous entry, I noted that In California, 70% of black voters, voted for Proposition 8 on Election Day. Californians, largely due to the black vote, chose to ban same sex marriage. Gallop reports that up to 99% of black Americans voted for our current President. Just three days after becoming our nation’s leader, President Obama signed an executive order called the "Mexico City policy," which reverses a ban on funding international groups that provide abortions. Oh…there goes that divisive, Evangelical, Right Wing, ‘A’ word again! A.P. reports, "Obama signed it quietly, without coverage by the media, late on Friday afternoon, a contrast to the midday signings with fanfare of executive orders on other subjects earlier in the week." Review: President Obama signed an order that provides international funding for abortions, using mine, and your, tax dollars. Review 2: “President Obama signed an executive order today reversing the ban that prohibits funding to international family planning groups that provide abortions, as first reported by ABC News."
There have been 49,551,703 abortions (the killing of a person being formed in the womb) in the US alone, since 1973. In Suction Aspiration, the most common method of abortion during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, a vacuum suction, 29 times more powerful than a household vacuum cleaner, tears the fetus and placenta into small pieces which are sucked through the tube into a bottle and discarded. I won’t even go into partial birth abortion which is estimated at ten per day in the U.S. When President Clinton left office, there were 1,608,600 reported abortions that year alone; 1,287,000 now as President Bush passes the torch—the lowest level since 1974. The partial birth ban, which President Clinton repeatedly vetoed, but President Bush signed into law, will likely not get off its feet under the current president of “Hope.” This has nothing to do with being a black or white or purple President. Ironically, I often hear how we are to rescue the “oppressed” and how Barack Obama is just the man for the job, because…well….because…um…just because! In fact last September he said “There are a lot of people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression.” I suppose he aims to correct this. Amos, like other biblical prophets, condemned people, who oppressed people. God, through Amos, condemned the nation of Ammon because “he ripped open the pregnant women of Gilead.” I would say that a baby being “ripped” in their mother’s womb would consider themselves to be oppressed. Wouldn’t you? God promises to judge a nation that condones such detestable practices. “Obama promised Planned Parenthood that one of his first priorities as President would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), which allows for taxpayer funding of abortion, overrules all state regulation of abortion, and could force Catholic and other faith-based hospitals to provide abortion services that are contrary to their mission.” He made this remarkable statement last year: “...I've got two daughters; 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby.” No further commentary is needed.
Is this what you voted for? Or perhaps you only voted for the “black” part, or the “change” part, or the “hope” part, but not the abortion part. Maybe you thought the abortion part was just an inconvenience; Just another distracting wedge issue. After all, what’s really at stake are things like global warming—currently referred to as climate change, since it’s been one of coldest winters in recent memory.
WhiteHouse.gov is “the official web site of the White House and President Barack Obama.” It says that our new President “will make preserving women's rights under Roe v. Wade a priority in his Administration. He opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's decision in that case.” Mother Theresa made some powerful statements about abortion: "What is taking place in America," she said, "is a war against the child. And if we accept that the mother can kill her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another." "Any country that accepts abortion, is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what it wants." "It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
Our new President has also posted on the White House website his plan to move the gay rights agenda forward. Focus on The Family and others comment, "This is the most bold and comprehensive pro-homosexual, abortion-friendly administration agenda we've seen." President Obama opposes a ban on same-sex marriages and wants to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). DOMA provides: “The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.” Obama states he gives his full support to the Lesbian Gay Bi-sexual and Transgender community. Evidently, based on how African Americans voted in California, most of them do not agree with the President. Will they stand on the side of the Bible and continue to fight for what they believe is right, or will they dismiss it with a holy, “Whatever!”? I really hope not. I choose to believe people will eventually stand for what is right, especially if they claim to live according to the Bible that includes evidence of God ordained life in the womb: “When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb,” (Luke 1:41) and “For he did not kill me in the womb, with my mother as my grave,” (Jer. 20:17) and "This is what the LORD says— your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb” (Isa. 44:24). Could people honestly ignore the oppression of 1.2 million babies per year so that they could delight in the fact that we have a black or charming or young President? Incidentally, if that wasn’t a human baby, leaping in Elizabeth’s womb, what was it exactly? Or is this question above your “pay grade” to answer?
Openly-gay Bishop Gene Robinson who lives with his male lover, was Obama’s choice to open inaugural weekend. He prayed: “Bless us with anger—at discrimination, at home and abroad, against refugees and immigrants, women, people of color, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.” The main sermon, given by Rev. Sharon Watkins: “She and her church have not taken a stand on gays, but they are “incredibly diverse politically, theologically, and socially,” and “her appeal is that she delivers a message of unity and inclusivity and tolerance and hope.” Her church has not taken a stand on gays, but Jesus has; Love them, but reject the sin. Not a very difficult concept to understand. Also on the high profile inaugural prayer invitee list was Dr. Ingrid Mattson, President of the Islamic Society of North America, who “heads an Islamic group named by federal prosecutors as a co-conspirator in a terrorism-fundraising trial in Texas.” Interesting, no? A Hindu woman priest was also among six religious leaders—including some Evangelicals—who were specially invited to participate in the National Prayer Service.
Obama thought that the following text from Leviticus was too extreme: “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable.” Do you as well, Christian person? Maybe we should each have customizable Bibles where we could pick and choose what we want to include as “acceptable.”
There are many issues that President Obama has already put into action, or will put into action, that are contrary to the Christian faith. Now let’s be honest. Forget Bush—you all do know he is no longer President, right? Get over the fact that Obama is black—i.e. stop being racist. Was it not Martin Luther King who said, “I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”?
I will end with more of Dr. King’s words: “I am not interested in power for power's sake, but I'm interested in power that is moral, that is right and that is good.” May Christians support what is moral, right, and good.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
The bible says that man does things in the darkness so that no one will know. It goes on to say, though, that the things that one does in dark will be exposed by the light. I found it curious that President Obama sent this revocation of the earlier Presidential memorandum concerning the Mexico City Policy without the pomp and fanfare of the other executive orders that he signed that same day.
To add a bit more clarity to your description of the policy, it not only provides for those that provide abortion, but it allows US funding for these non-US entities that “engage in a wide range of activities, including providing advice, counseling, or information regarding abortion, or lobbying a foreign government to legalize or make abortion available.” So not only can these organizations perform the act, but they can advise, coerce, suggest, and influence our young women to abort their babies.
Focus on the family had a program last week on which a woman (I’m sorry, I don’t recall her name) who formerly worked at an abortion clinic for multiple years spoke of the process of ‘counseling’ that the staff was trained to do. She expressed how they were taught to influence a caller to make an immediate decision...not giving them time to re-think or talk themselves out of it. She expressed how they’d find buzz phrases and fears and exploit them. For example, if they could discern that the girl was concerned about money, they’d elaborate on how expensive it is to raise children. I wonder if the President understands these training techniques. President Obama describes the limits on the international funding to groups that advice or counsel our local woman as being “excessively broad” and “unwarranted.”
His subject line for this Mexico City Policy calls this “Voluntary Population Planning.” How beautiful, harmless, concerned, and pleasant that sounds. I guess it would not have the same ring if it was referred to as “voluntary fetus slaughtering.” At some point Americans must look past the man’s race and, particularly Christians, look at the results of the man’s perspectives. It is understood that there are organizations that will seek to coerce our women toward abortions – but I don’t believe that you and I and other tax payers need to pay for it!
-VGC
Joel you raise some good points and your observations of the inconsistancies in the voting patterns of our fellow Christians show that you possess an astute mind. That said, I wonder why Christians get worked up over gay marriage when the divorce rate among "born-again" Christians is higher than other faith groups and even higher than Atheists and Agnostics, according to a Barna Research Group study. How about abortion? We fight for the life in the womb, yet many Christians are content in fighting for God and country in war that ends human lives. I can hear the words of Isaiah telling Hezekiah the words of the Lord, "Set thine house in order..."
Now does it really matter what Obama or this government does? We know that Paul says that governments are useful in establishing order, but even as he was penning Romans 13:1-7, he was proclaiming Jesus as Lord (the implication being that Caesar was not), which was as much a political statement as much as a theological one. We cannot look to Obama or the government as the answer to the world's problems and then chastise him if his policies do not square with our beliefs. The answer for this world obviously is Christ through his body of believers known as the church. Jesus' words in Mark 10:42,43 are relevant in discussing the present now as it was 2,000 years ago, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them and their great officials exercise great authority, but not so with you..." (Mark 10:42,43).
Anonymous, you too make excellent points, and I agree with your final assessment: "The answer for this world obviously is Christ through his body of believers known as the church." Now the question is what is the church to do? Just pray? Hope? Cross our fingers? The Bible exhorts us to act. If we don't have the information, we won't act; we won't pray. So it is essential that we proclaim the truth, or at least open the discussion, because in this way, we might begin the process of getting our house in order. I think what you wrote is crucial, and I concur, we need to get ourselves together. Starting with me. I have repenting to do and I need to pray more than I ever have.
Now, as per the divorce rate among Christians, this is a problem. But let's not take this out of context. First of all, this has nothing to do with abortion and other issues. You can't possibly be suggesting forgetting about the 42 million babies aborted because Christians get divorced. Right? Another thing, many non-Christians don't even marry anymore, so that statistic is somewhat skewed. Further, what's a Christian? Is that statistic based on genuine believers, or people who simply classify themselves as believers or say they go to church? What is the criterion? God hates divorce, according to the Bible, so we have to deal with it. Gay marriage is contrary to Scripture, so we have to deal with it. And you cannot compare "fighting for God and country in war that ends human lives," with killing innocent children. In the Bible, God ordered His people to kill other people sometimes. That same Bible condemns the killing and punishment of the innocent. If there was no war, fighting for God and country, we might still have slavery, or we may never have won our independence from England, or Hitler may have been the ruler of the world. Because of war, hundreds of thousands more Iraqis do not have to die under Sadaam Hussein. If we would have gone and killed a few hundred militants in Rwanda, a million innocent people might have had to die. War has always been, and will always be, part of God's plan (cf. the book of Revelation). It should not be compared to abortion. You yourself might kill someone in order to protect your family, that is totally different from abortion.
You asked if "it really matter what Obama or this government does?" Did it matter what Pharaoh did? Castro? Mussolini? Does it matter that he condones, supports, and initiates policies that condemn innocent babies? Does it matter that he will facilitate/excuse sins that the Bible calls detestable? I think it does. And I think that the "body of believers known as the church," need to become a little more proactive in the political process and fight for the oppressed. That is what just about every Bible leader did.
Joel, by no means is the church supposed to just pray and hope for the best. The church is supposed to act, but how is the important question. I disagree that we need to get more involved with the political process. We have seen the Pat Robertsons, the Jerry Falwells, and the like trying to gain political influence, but this has cheapened the message of Christ I think. While the Gospel is as much a political message (Jesus is Lord, not Caesar) as a theological one, the mixing of Christianity and this-world's-politics has indeed been messy. That was why I quoted from Mark 10:42,43. The church is called to be different: to be in the world, and not of the world, but proclaim Christ to this world. Our actions have to speak louder than our words. I agree with discussion, but we have to also back it up with acting like Christ.
To unpack what I said a little further, let me clear up something. I was not linking abortion with divorce rates among Christians, but with war. I know the Bible, particularly the Old Testament, is replete with examples of war often waged by righteous men. However the early Christians did not take up arms. In fact they fled Jerusalem during the Jewish War of 66-70 A.D. to avoid getting caught in the bloodbath that was to ensue. Jesus chastised Peter in the garden for taking up arms and later said to Pilate that his kingdom is not of this world. The early Christians knew that abortion is wrong (..."you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born..." Didache 2:1, an early text in the Christian period), but also taking up arms. They were consistent Christians; not so with us. That's the point I'm trying to make. Now if we look at the United States and our actions in the Middle East, I want to ask whether our actions there was really to oust Sadaam from power or to increase our influence in that volatile region? Power plays are what we see here. Nothing good can come out of a platform that says Christ is Lord, now lets go to war and show the Muslims who is boss. Do you think God felt himself represented fairly in the rhetoric that was spewed from the pulpits after September 11. I know that the Bible is filled with examples of Pharaohs and oppressive kings and empires. The whole of biblical literature was written in the background of empire whether it be Egypt, Babylon, or Rome. Jesus was born under the Roman empire and saw his own people bitter about being under foreign rule, but he told the masses to go the extra mile, abandon their ways of war and revolt, and take up their cross and follow him.
Now I agree that sometimes war is necessary, but there are few wars that can be justified. One example of a necessary war was World War II. Hitler needed to be overthrown before he can kill more innocent people. Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrestled with the commandment to not murder and thought that taking Hitler down was necessary in spite of the biblical command. I disagree about the Civil War, which was fought primarily to keep the nation as a whole. Slavery was only invoked later as a moral rallying cry. England got rid of slavery without war through the actions of William Wilberforce and other Christians. You cannot justify the war in Iraq. It involves more bloodshed and made Iran powerful. War is something that nations do, and the church should operate independently of governments, because governments are only for themselves, their interests, while the church is for Christ and for the world. That is how come there's no such thing as a Christian nation. If we are a Christian nation then how frightening it must be for those innocents caught in the crossfire of war between their people and a superpower (you can even say empire...50% of our taxes go to our military, the same amount the Romans spent on theirs) that they consider to be Christian. The church are the called out ones. We need to hold governments accountable from the outside, not hope to reform through our own efforts. The kingdom of God will not come by holding to the world's standards. Christ said, "...but not so with you..."
Anonymous (strange name you were given), you said “ I disagree that we need to get more involved with the political process.” I think you are very wrong. Biblical personages ALWAYS had to deal with political leaders. Back then they were called Kings, and Pharaohs, etc. These were people like Ahab, and Pilot, and Ramesses, and Caesar, and Herod, and so on. Name a biblical hero, he (or she) had a political counterpart. Moses had to deal with Pharaoh, Daniel dealt wisely with Nebuchadnezzar and Darius, Elijah dealt with Hillary…I mean, Jezebel. All the prophets dealt with what was going on politically. Paul used his Roman citizenship when it was expedient for him. Why are we so special and spiritual and holy that we cannot touch politics? This is how we could affect certain changes. We pray and deal with things spiritually, of course, but we also have to confront the cultural and political leaders. There is no way around it.
Of course I agree that we are to be different and Christ-like. And Christ has so blessed this nation that we could actually stand up and call something sin and proclaim it to be wrong. So of like, I don’t know, John the Baptist confronting Herod. He didn’t just go pray and be “different.” Wasn’t Joseph a political leader—the number two man in the land? YES, HE WAS. Good thing no one was there to say, “HEY! Stop Joseph! You can’t do that!” It’s also a good thing—no, a GREAT THING—that the founders of country and framers of our constitution were adamant about keeping God in the political process; Hence, the great nation that we have enjoyed and has blessed the world. Furthermore, there is NO nation that does not have its God and religious system. That’s the way it always was, and always will be. Whether it’s the Middle East, India, China, or the secularism of Europe. Frankly, it is ignorant to believe we could separate religion and politics.
For every person who may not have represented the Gospel well publically or politically, there are 10 who have been champions in it. Cf. John MacArthur, Billy Graham, James Dobson, etc. Incidentally, don’t judge your Christian brothers like Jerry Falwell until you could prove where he has screwed up. Don’t side with the world in this, because as you have noted, we are not to be like the world.
You said, “We have seen the Pat Robertsons, the Jerry Falwells, and the like trying to gain political influence, but this has cheapened the message of Christ.” I think that what cheapens the message of Christ is (a) a President who thinks he could decide what Scriptures are valid for today, (b) supports legislation to extinguish innocent life, (c) utilizes homosexual “ministers” for his political purposes, and (d) the masses of Christians who support him and look for cheap excuses to do so.
The early Christians may not have taken up arms, but who would they have fought against? Were the 120 at Pentecost to attack Rome? Was the underground church supposed to gather an army, rescue Paul from prison, then attack the city of Galatia? I mean, common sense. God has empowered Israel, currently, to protect itself militarily. How was Israel supposed to take their land back? Prayer and communion? Paul said “For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.” Revelation 19:21 is kinda nice: “The rest of them were killed with the sword that came out of the mouth of the rider on the horse, and all the birds gorged themselves on their flesh.” How are the finals wars to be fought? By giving out tracts? Did God punish our country because we killed British soldiers to gain our independence. Face it, the only time and place where there will be no war is heaven.
You said, “if we look at the United States and our actions in the Middle East, I want to ask whether our actions there was really to oust Sadaam from power or to increase our influence in that volatile region?” It seems you have another theory of why we REALLY went to war. Join the club. If you could prove your conspiracy theory, you will be famous. Sadaam is dead, the people have freedom they have never known. Only God knows how long it will last. The actions of the US military has helped to keep us safe since 911, when we all thought we would be hit again. Innocent lives saved—that’s Christ-like.
You said, “Now I agree that sometimes war is necessary, but there are few wars that can be justified.” First of all, make up your mind. Could we go to war or not? Secondly, who decides if the war is justifiable. You? You said WWII was necessary because “Hitler needed to be overthrown before he can kill more innocent people.” Let’s substitute his name with Hussein. “Sadaam needed to be overthrown before he can kill more innocent people.” What’s the difference?
You said, “I disagree about the Civil War, which was fought primarily to keep the nation as a whole. Slavery was only invoked later as a moral rallying cry.” You said a lot of good stuff that I agree with, but this is just utter nonsense. It doesn’t even make sense. We killed each other to keep the nation as a whole? Why were we divided? Why was it the north versus the Southern SLAVE states?
You said, “England got rid of slavery without war through the actions of William Wilberforce and other Christians.” You just made that up. Wilberforce led the parliamentary campaign against the British SLAVE TRADE. And what do you know? HE WAS A POLITICIAN!!! Dude(ette), make up your mind!
Say what you will about the war in Iraq; that another essay for another day. Don’t use that as a distraction. I did not blog about that. I blogged about President Obama, his immoral policies, and the Christians who support him.
Joel, first I want to apologize for detracting from your discussion on Obama and the voting patterns of our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. I hope you haven't misunderstood me: I agree with everything you say on Obama. I myself did not vote for him primarily because of his policies, many of which are so far left, and because I felt that he did not have enough experience for the presidential office. When it is all said and done, I stand with you in disagreeing with Obama on same-sex marriage, abortion, and some of his other policies.
I realize that some of what I wrote was inconsistent and at times contradictory. This suggests, at least to me, that I have not thought the argument through enough, or maybe that I have not made myself clear on some points. The fault of course is mine. The topic of faith and politics is complex and there are no clear answers because we as Christians are called to wrestle with these issues just as we are called to wrestle with an imperfect world until Christ comes again to set it right. I agree with you that we have to confront the cultural and political leaders, and you are right when you said "...it is ignorant to believe we can seperate religion and politics." The early Christians knew politics well. They proclaimed Christ as Lord (as opposed to Caesar) and this made them clash with the authorities (beheadings, crucifixions, lion food, etc.).
A few points:
1. Yes, Wilberforce was a Christian and a politician who led the parlimentary campaign against the British slave trade and supported the complete abolition of slavery in Britain until his death.
2. As far as the Civil War, the issue was slavery, but against the backdrop of state's rights versus the federal government. Of course slavery had a role, and the South felt their economic interests threatened, which was why they suceeded from the Union. The Civil War is complex and my previous statements oversimplfied this and I was wrong.
3. I disagree that my views on the war in Iraq are conspiracy theories. Our military actions have made us safer and there have been no attacks since September 11. However one can make the argument that removing Sadaam from power has made Iran more powerful. Iraq was a check on Iran for a long time. As far as increasing our influence in the region, I'm not alone in saying this. Two good books that discuss this at some length are Jesus Wants to Save Christians by Rob Bell and Jesus for President by Shane Claiborne and Chris Haw. You cannot dismiss this argument and call it a conspiracy theory when it is simply an observation based on where we are at right now in world affairs. You can disagree with the argument but don't dismiss it as nonsense. You are better than that. A conspiracy theory would be if someone said that Bush and the government orchestrated the events of 9/11. You and I both (and practically the vast majority of people) would think this ridiculous and on the level of those who believe that we didn't go to the moon.
That said, I hope I have clarified myself, shown you my shortcomings, and apologized for going off topic. I will no longer detract from the topic at hand, which is Obama, his policies, and the Christians who support him.
Anonymous, I’m sorry for publishing your comment so late. I attempted to do it from a remote location and just realized tonight, that it never took.
I appreciate your thoughts and opinions. All of your comments are welcome whether I agree with them or not. The point is that we are discussing them and can both learn from the dialogue.
As for your Iraq war ideas, I am saying that I have heard various reasons as to why we really went to war there, but nothing that could be substantiated. You know what I mean? It’s OK to be of the opinion that there was something more to the war than just liberating them, I guess that is always the case with wars, but the view has to be substantiated. Someone has to prove their antiwar ideas and logic. It’s not enough to say, “We went in for oil,” or “Bush had a personal vendetta,” or “Bush made a deal with Bin Laden,” or “Bush did it because he got a lot of money to do it,” as my barber told me. Furthermore, the facts are the facts. We are safer. Hussein HATED us, had a great deal of wealth (more than enough to fund terrorists), and never reported what he actually did with all those weapons of mass destruction that he used to kill thousands of Kurds, and that he used during the first Desert Storm war. President Bush said the goal, was "to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger." This was accomplished to a great extent. Resolution after resolution was passed to uncover what ever happened to those WMD Saddam was supposed to have destroyed. Nothing ever came of them and Iraq never headed the warnings. Rob Bell—and I am a fan, by the way—talks a great deal about oppression. Well the people of Iraq were greatly oppressed. They are now a free voting, democracy in progress. This is incredible! A great oppressor is dead. Praise the God who hates oppression!
You said, “One can make the argument that removing Saddam from power has made Iran more powerful. Iraq was a check on Iran for a long time.” You are insinuating that it is better for Saddam to be alive and back in the mass murder business. Iran was a check on Iraq? That’s like saying Demon One was a check for Demon Two. I believe that God in His sovereignty and grace used our country, and our former president to remove a dictator and his evil family, and free a lot of oppressed people. Only time will tell what will happen from here. I am terribly concerned due to the current president we have at the helm.
Interesting site: http://www.joelrosenberg.com/
Be blessed, Anonymous.
Post a Comment