The last couple of days I’ve read a few posts where “evangelical” Christians have stated support for Obama. Even in the face of his radical position on abortion including his opposition to bills that would mandate emergency care for children born alive during botched abortions they won’t change their minds. They seem to have elevated helping the poor, protecting the environment, and stopping the war as somehow more important than stopping murder. This is troubling considering that stopping murder is the most “black and white” in Scripture of all these issues.
Josh Harris answers a possible church member in his post – “Abortion and Voting” on the Covenant Life Blog. I think he handled it well, although, I wish he would have hit on the fact that there’s no Biblical mandate for the government to take anyone’s money by force of law and give it to someone else. The Bible mandates that Christians take care of the “Widows and Orphans” and the poor. But that’s a charge to individual Christians and Churches not to governments. 2 Thessalonians 3:10 also says that “if you don’t work, you don’t eat.” Proverbs 10:4 and 6:9-11 also address the issue. All one has to do is look here in Houston in the aftermath of hurricane Ike. The local entities and charities are doing a much better job distributing aid and resources than FEMA. There’s no way I want the federal government to take over my healthcare decisions. What BO and these “evangelicals” are calling for is at best socialism and at worst Marxist/Leninism.
I also don’t think there’s any support in the Bible for an environmental policy that does nothing to help the environment and only redistributes wealth from the US to third world countries. It does say to work and have dominion over the earth. So when there’s a decision between building a dam to provide drinking water to millions of people and saving a “snail darter” the people win. Let’s face it; neither party is for dirty water or polluting the air.
One other post by emergent leader Tony Jones incensed me. His post simply titled “Abortion” states some of his reasons for supporting Obama despite the abortion issue. In it he states “Second, I really have nothing to gain from an Obama presidency, except maybe a more just and civil country.” What does this mean?
Christian Tracy from Texas puts it well in his comment to Tony’s post:
We really need to elaborate on how a BO presidency would lead to a more just and civil country. I have been listening to BO and don’t know what Tony is referring to. What I hear is very polished speaking with little substance. The guy does not have much of a voting record given his limited time in the Senate but just enough to expose his socialist leanings.
Based on what we do know about BO these statements can be made about his form of “justice and civility”:
He will bail you out if you take on more debt than you can afford and in the process make those who’ve made responsible decisions pay the bill.
Your education will be paid and he’ll take from the “wealthy” to pay for it.
He will provide you with retirement by increasing taxes on those with “lots of money” but not provide them with compensatory benefit toward their retirement.
If you are poor he will take money from America’s corporations to provide you with a better existence costing millions of Americans their jobs.
If you don’t have enough of anything he will take from those that have plenty and ensure you have what you need.
If you are a small business owner he will require you to provide benefits that you cannot possibly afford to appease those too ignorant to know that in his doing so he will force you to fire your staff and close down your business.
So, even though the abortion issue alone is enough to disqualify BO in my book there are plenty of other troubling things about him for Christians to be weary of. Communism, Marxism, and Socialism are absolutely not compatible with Christianity. Obama has a higher liberal rating than that of self-proclaimed socialist Bernie Sanders. Another fact that disqualifies him.
We’re hunkered down here at our house in Missouri City, TX. They say the storm is coming our way with expected wind in our area of about 85 MPH. Our Pastor, Travis Cardwell just wrote the following:
Dear Saints at Redeemer,
I know that I am writing to a group of people that believe Zechariah 10:1 which describes the LORD as the one “who makes the storm clouds…” We know that God’s sovereign hand stores up the waters and tells the stars when to shine. It is a humbling thing to know that we have absolutely no control over hurricane Ike as it gains strength in the Gulf. We are reminded of the way that the Psalmist described the Lord as one who “makes the clouds His chariot…who walks upon the wings of the wind! ” ”He looks at at the earth and it trembles…he touches the mountains and they smoke… (Psalm 104:3;32)!” It is a comfort to know that no matter how out of control the storm may seem, the Lord is guiding every raindrop and wave.
Obama keeps trying to comfort gun owners by telling them that he won’t come for their guns. But for me it rings hollow. I might feel different if he stated that he believed the 2nd ammendment protected the right of the people to keep and bear arms, or he had a record of supporting gun ownership rights. But in the Wall Street Journal article “Obama: ‘I’m not going to take your guns away” he doesn’t provide much comfort to law-abiding gun owners. This excerpt causes much to be concerned about:
“If you’ve got a gun in your house, I’m not taking it,’’ Obama said. But the Illinois senator could still see skeptics in the crowd, particularly on the faces of several men at the back of the room.
So he tried again. “Even if I want to take them away, I don’t have the votes in Congress,’’ he said. “This can’t be the reason not to vote for me. Can everyone hear me in the back? I see a couple of sportsmen back there. I’m not going to take away your guns.’’
So bascially this tells me that if he really wants to take guns away but believes that the votes aren’t there in Congress. Not very conforting to me. How about you? So really he wants us to not be worried about him taking away our guns but we better elect a pro-gun congress.
The media won’t report the wild gun laws Obama proposes but a December 13, 1999 article in the black newspaper the Chicago Defender reported on Obama’s proposals at that time, as he ran and lost a primary against Congressman Bobby Rush the next year:
Obama is proposing to make it a felony for a gun owner whose firearm was stolen from his residence which causes harm to another person if that weapon was not securely stored in that home.
I definatly don’t want this guy in charge of appointing supreme court justices.
Ok, It’s no secret that I’m somewhat impressed with Sarah Palin. The issue of whether a woman can serve as VP or President for that matter, is not cut in stone or black and white in my book. In my previous post I tend to agree with what Dr. Mohler says on the issue. There are a few folks that I respect and love (In the case of my son, Richard.) that have a different take than I do. That’s ok. So in support of balance I commend their posts on the subject to you.
I was saddened by a response to a blog I read a few days ago where an individual stated that a woman should put God before her husband, which of course “gives her some allowance to go against her husband,” in the event “God is telling her” to do something her husband does not approve of. Friends, if we have set our minds on loving God and doing what he commands, then we cannot ignore His created order. Yes, women are ultimately accountable to God for their actions, and not their husbands. But this Biblical concept does not stop here! It means furthermore that they will give an account of their obedience to His commands, one of which is to submit to their husbands!
I agree with the statement and think that it applies to children as well. What I’m not settled on is that it totally applies in this situation.
I also respect Richard’s pastor Voddie Baucham. In his post Did McCain Make a Pro-Family VP Pick? He raises states his thoughts that VP is “Not a Pro-family Job” and her pick is “Not a Pro-family Message.” He gives me something to think about in the quote…
Are we really saying that we want to completely erase the distinctions between men and women. Do we really believe that it is good for our country to promote the view that women are merely men who happen to be biologically capable of having children (when it does not interfere with career advancement, of course)? I don’t think so. What do we do with the Bible’s admonition in Titus chapter two? Are Christian conservatives saying that Paul’s instructions concerning women’s duty to be “keepers of their homes” has somehow been overturned in light of recent discoveries? Or are we saying that pro-family means one thing when we’re in church, but something else when we’re trying to beat the Democrats?
Lastly James McDonald has a thought provoking post, Voting in Faith, where he makes that case that voting requires prayerful consideration in the dichotomy of voting based solely on principle vs. voting on a combination of principle and strategy. Here’s his statement that makes me think…
The Bible says in Romans 14 that anything not done in faith is sin. Could it be that two Christians could vote in faith but vote for different men? Could one vote on what he believes to be principle, for a candidate he knows will not win, and do so in faith? Can another believer vote in a strategic fashion, recognizing his choice is not “perfect,” but represents some of his most important values, and has a chance of winning? Can this one vote in faith as well?
All good men who I respect greatly. To be honest I have no idea at this point who I’ll vote for except that it won’t be Obama. I rest in the fact that a sovereign Gods sets up our leaders and takes them down.
Putting aside whether Sarah Palin should be a stay-at-home mom or not, I think it’s a brilliant political strategy. Even with the latest revelations about her family she’s energized most conservative who were luke warm at best over John McAmnesty McCain. Instead of restating things I’ll point you to a couple of blog posts. The first over at Right Wing News is an post by John Hawkins titled The Top 7 Reasons Why Palin Was A Brilliant Choice For VP. I especially like point 3:
Palin has particular appeal on the Pro-life issue: Palin isn’t just pro-life; she talks the talk and walks the walk. She didn’t consider aborting her child with Down Syndrome and when her 17 year old daughter became pregnant with a child and decided to keep it, she supported her, which stands in stark opposition to Obama who famously said, “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.”
Another is point 5:
The #1 charge the Left has launched at Palin, that she’s inexperienced, better applies to their own candidate for President. Palin is more qualified to be the President than Barack Obama, so you just have to smile every time some liberal says, “She’ll be a heartbeat away from the presidency.” I mean, can’t the exact same thing be said about Obama? I mean, what if something happened to Biden and we had Obama in charge and…oh wait, the “heartbeat away” candidate is on top of the Democratic ticket.
Another post is by Al Mohler titled An Unexpected New Motherhood Debate. I think these three paragraphs sum up the thoughts of a lot of Christian social conservatives:
…………Do I believe that a woman can serve well in the office of Vice President of the United States? Yes. As a matter of fact, I believe that a woman could serve well as President — and one day will. Portraits of significant men of history hang on the walls of my library –but so do portraits of Queen Elizabeth I of England and former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.
The New Testament clearly speaks to the complementary roles of men and women in the home and in the church, but not in roles of public responsibility. I believe that women as CEOs in the business world and as officials in government are no affront to Scripture. Then again, that presupposes that women — and men — have first fulfilled their responsibilities within the little commonwealth of the family.
Is this kind of public role what most women want? Clearly not, and for that I am honestly thankful. The tasks assigned to women within the home are monumental. The maternal role is crucial, and the vast majority of women find their greatest fulfillment in this role — and for good reason. In the roles of wives and mothers women do what no one else can do so naturally and so well.
Though I might have some religious convictions around the role of motherhood vs. working when I look at the alternatives I can’t see many better choices.
