I came upon this well written article today, that basically speaks along the same lines with my own heart, and so I asked if I could post here, and was given the "OK" by the author, Doug Groothuis.
It's important to know the truth, (as much as we can), about the next president of our nation.
From: Saturday, September 06, 2008
"Let me put it plainly: Too many Christians are supporting Obama. Perhaps they do not understand the implications of an Obama Presidency. Consider just three issues: unborn human life, terrorism, and poverty.
Abortion:
All humans are made in God's image and are such from conception. God forbids murder (unlawful killing). The killing of the unborn is, therefore, immoral and sinful--especially so, since they are utterly helpless. They are among "the least of these" that Jesus told us to care for. (I take abortion to save the life of the mother to not be sinful, but this accounts for only a minute percentage of abortions in the US).
1. Obama would sign The Freedom of Choice Act if it comes to his desk. This would annul every state or local restriction on abortion in the 50 states.
2. Obama would appoint several Supreme Court justices. They would be pro-choice with a vengeance, thus wiping out the possibility of reversing Roe v. Wade, which (along with Doe v. Bolton) opened the floodgates to abortion on demand in the United States. In other words, over 40,000,000 legal abortions in the United States since 1973.
3. Obama would fund abortions through tax payer's money. That is chapter and verse from the Democratic Platform.
4. Obama even opposed the ban on partial birth abortions, and would likely do what he could to bring them back. He opposed a born-alive statute in Illinois that would have allowed hospitals to save aborted babies that survived their own execution.
5. Obama admits he is an ignoramus on when a fetus gets any human rights. It is "above his pay grade." He has also said that we don't know when human life begins. This is a crock. Biology tells us life begins at conception (once a complete genetic code comes into being); since that life comes from humans, it is human life from conception. What else could it be? This is not difficult. But even if one is not sure when human life begins, that does not justify abortion on demand! We should, rather, err on the side of caution, given the momentous stakes at hand.
The National Right to Life gave Obama a rating of o%--the worst possible. The National Abortion Rights Action League gave him a rating of 100%--the best possible. See their documentation of Obama and Biden's views on abortion.
John McCain has become more pro-life recently. He said at Saddleback Community Church that the fetus has human rights from the beginning. He is the polar opposite of Obama on this, as is Sarah Palin.
Terrorism:
Evil is real in the world. The Bible does not forbid the use of force in a just cause. The innocent should be protected against attack.
1. Obama has no military experience. In fact, he has anti-military associations, such as William Ayers, a confessed bomber of American military sites. Like most political liberals, he views terrorism as a criminal justice question, not one of military concern. He has opposed funding for the Iraq war and would likely lose that war if elected, thus turning Iraq into a bloodbath and likely a terrorist stronghold, with the Iranians reigning down on it like vultures. They are already supporting terrorism around the world.
2. Obama views himself as a "world citizen" and would conform to international pressures rather than putting the US first. This would weaken us and make us more vulnerable to attack and lessen our ability to do good in the world.
McCain is a military man and has served in the Senate for over twenty years, getting more experience on these matters. He supported the recently successful troop surge (when it was unpopular) and realizes we cannot pull out of Iraq until the job is done.
The Poor:
Some Christians are deceived into thinking that political liberalism is better for the poor than conservatism. So, since the Bible tells us to care about the poor and the oppressed, we should support the Democrats. Not so fast. Saying you care about them and actually providing meaningful assistance are two different things. The liberal mindset is based on centralized, tax-funded programs. This slows down the economy and encourages dependence. This was the lesson of President Johnson's "War on Poverty." Poverty won. Read Winning the Race by John McWhorter (an African American) on that.
The conservative approach is to limit the power of the state, to cut taxes, and to give people more freedom to develop their skills and work on and give to the causes that concern them. It is not "Let them eat cake," but is based on a different philosophy of economics.
Moreover it is a leftwing fable that conservatives don't care about the poor. Studies show that conservatives give four times more to charity than do liberals. This is because liberals think the state should do this work, not individuals and private associations. (See Arthur C. Brooks, Who Really Cares? and The Acton Institute.)
McCain has articulated his concerns to help those out of work get reeducated and those without adequate health coverage to have more options. However, he does not want to socialize medicine and create a huge bureaucracy.
It is not an option for Christians to neglect the poor and marginalized. However, it is far from obvious that the Democrats have the best plan to help these people. They would certainly not help the unborn, the poorest and most marginalized of all."
posted by Doug Groothuis [http://theconstructivecurmudgeon.blogspot.com/]
24 comments:
Thanks much. Keep up the fight.
great thoughts on the election, glad you postd it
May the Lord have mercy on our nation, and may the people come to know Christ through the Gospel, which is the only power to save a soul from eternal damnation.
And may the Lord bless our nation with His common grace as well, as Paul tells us that it is God's will that "we live a peaceable and quiet life in all godliness and reverence." 1 Tim. 2:2
Hi Don,
I'm no fan of Obama, and I have no intensions of voting for him either, but the article pretends that we are doing good in the world, such as in Iraq. To that I say "Not so fast." We have done nothing but build obstacle after obstacle in the world against the Gospel of Jesus Christ spreading, by our high-handed preemptive military actions. The whole world thinks of America as a Christian nation and George Bush as a good Christian. The most common perception, right or wrong, is that a strong Christian nation is on the offensive attacking defenseless and weak Muslims. And it is not just Muslims who believe this. The whole world believes this.
You want to "support our troops" fine. But don't think what we have done in Iraq is furthering the Gospel. It has had the opposite affect—especially throughout the Muslim world. They hate Christians now, not merely because of Christ, but because of America's attacks. What a stumbling block our nation has laid and continues to lay among the most unreached people of the world, the Muslims. Do I sound anti-American? Not at all. Rather I am pro advancing the Gospel.
PS: I should add that I am sure God has sometimes used what we have done for good, to lead people to Himself. But the bad it has done for the gospel so outweighs the good, it is hard to see it.
Hey Triston thanks for stopping by.
God has governments in His sovereign hand to protect people. At least that's what Romans 13 teaches us. America is flawed for sure, but it's military and leaders are working to protect the people from terrorists who want to slice all our throats, and I'm glad of that.
May the lord bless them, and help them bring all those like Osama Bin Laden to justice, and may the Lord have mercy on their souls as well.
The Church isn't America, and never has been. America has been influenced by Christianity like no other nation, except perhaps Great Britain. But it's not the Church.
That's why there's a seperation of government and church.
That's how I see it bro. God bless, and give Samuel a kiss for me.
I have your fam's picture hanging in our office to remind me to pray for you all.
All for the Gospel.
God is not ashamed to be called our God because we consider ourselves strangers and pilgrims in the world, including in our own country, America. Our citizenship is in a Heavenly country. (Heb. 11:13-16)
The hearts of the leaders of the USA may well have their hearts in the right place, but that doesn't not mean what they are doing is righteous or advances the Kingdom of God. The advancement of Christ Kingdom and glory on earth are far more important than the throats terrorists want to cut.
I don't want to put words in your mouth, brother, so I will just ask: Do you believe America is the "righteous" nation, and countries like Iraq, Iran, etc. are the un-rightoues nations? I really don't believe it works that way. The leaders of those countries may well have had their hearts in the right place too, though what they do is wrong. The same is true, I believe, of what America is doing in the world. We come in nations uninvited to police the whole world, and instead of bringing the Gospel, we bring an M-16.
On another note: Samuel's dedication was Monday afternoon. It was really beautiful, and the pastor made it so evangelistic (between neighbors and Jaya's family, more than 1/3 of the 140 people in attendance were Hindu). It was a great testimony for Christ in the community.
I love you brother. Please don't take any of my comments as directed at you. I would gladly have my throat cut for you.
America is a government. Rome was a government during Paul's day; a government that beheaded him.
Here's what he says about Rome: "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
Whoever therefore resists the power, resists the ordinance of God: ... For rulers are not a terror to good works but to the evil. ...For he is the minister of God to thee for good. BUT if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he bears not the sword in vain: for he is a minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that does evil." Rom. 13:1-4
Nero was appointed by God. George Bush is appointed by God. Hitler was appointed by God.
They will all give an account for their ministering.
Some leaders are more evil then others of course, but we are to obey the truth of God's word and live as Paul tells us here.
UNLESS, the government tells us break God's law, then we disobey man in order to obey the Lord.
I hope that makes sense.
And remember, always remember, the Church of Christ is not the government, and the government is not the Church.
The men that put the constitution together and the Declaration of Independence knew this, and knew men were sinners and corrupt. So as a human government America is good if compared to a communist government, which doesn't allow freedom.
But the Gospel is the Gospel. We need to keep the Gospel and government seperated, and distinct.
That's how I see it bro.
that's great about Samuel!
Blessings to you Triston.
I'm not sure I get your point Don. I understand God appoints all governments and government leaders. So that means He appointed the Taliban for a time in Afghanistan. God appointed the leader of Iran (whatever his name is) the leader of North Korea. God appointed Castro for the past 50 odd years to rule Cuba. And God even appointed the Maoists rebel to now be Prime Minister in Nepal. What is the point? God appointed Bush, and He appointed the dictators in the world. And the people of the countries of a dictators are to obey their dictators, and the people of countries with a Presidents are to obey their presidents. I don't see what you are getting at bro.
America is a government, not the Church. America isn't responsible for the Gospel, the Church is.
America is responsible to God for protecting people from evil. I believe that's what Paul is telling us here.
So, I wouldn't say America has to be a righteous nation as in the Christ's righteousness.
I guess I'm saying there is a difference between blaming America for being an obstacle to the Gospel, and the Church being an obstacle.
America is not the Church.
It is kind of confusing this time I write about it.
i have it settled in my head, but I have a hard time explaining it.
Sorry about that.
Moreover it is a leftwing fable that conservatives don't care about the poor. Studies show that conservatives give four times more to charity than do liberals.
The only thing studies have proven is that conservatives give more to churches than liberals (see this on generousgiving.org). Not surprising since conservatives tend to attend church more than liberals.
But it is a stretch to say that giving more to churches equates to caring for the poor. What do churches to with their financial resources?
According to the same website:
Thus, in 2000, nearly 97 percent of the entire income of all Christian organizations was spent on, and primarily benefited, other Christians at home or abroad:
Good of you to visit David.
I'm not much on stats. Like this one:"U.S. Evangelical Assets: Between $1.54 trillion and $6.72 trillion in assets"
I mean, look at the lee way they give you. Over 5 trillion $! Why even have an estimate?
I do know Jesus told the rich ruler to sell all he owned, and give the proceeds to the poor.
And when the disciples saw the expensive perfume being put upon the Lord for His anointing, they all said, "Hey, what a waste of money. We could feed the poor with that. A lot of poor people in fact."
Jesus said, "The poor you'll always have, she is doing a good thing." You think He would have said good disciples, I was testing you. Yes we will sell this and feed and help many poor people.
So there's a fine line here for me.
The Church, as a whole, is mostly generous. That is my guess. But there are surely some stingy conservatives, and some generous liberals as well.
Thanks again for stopping by.
Don,
You have a great blog. I appreciate your spirit here, and the truth in Jesus you share.
Here's another view on the presidential race, from Scot McKnight who is at least somewhat anabaptist- and I generally am in agreement with him here: on McCain, and on Obama. And here's an interesting read from a professor at Liberty University who was a friend of Jerry Falwell's to the end of Jerry's life. As I remember it, he arrived to this different understanding around 2001.
I'm unsold on the Repubicans, but neither am I Democrat. Pro-life is against abortion and to overturn Roe v Wade would be good, and would mean turning it back over to the states. Some would make abortion illegal and others legal. But a woman can order an abortion pill online, so this won't stop the problem.
I think matters are more complex and less cut and dried than Dr. Groothuis is stating here, though he is quite astute and much better read than I could hope to be. I think this is true across the board.
To be pro-life to me is different as a person who is to a significant extent, Anabaptist theologically, but good Christians like C.S. Lewis would differ from a good Anabaptist. So these are matters in which equally committed Christians will disagree.
Thanks for bearing with my comment here.
I pressed the wrong button, I meant to say for Scot McKnight, that I think he's mostly Anabaptist, and I probably fit somewhere in that spectrum.
Ted,
I enjoyed the articles on both McCain and Obama. But why such allegiance with Anabaptists? What most attracts you to the Anabaptists? I don't know anything about them.
Triston
Ted,
Good to hear from you.
Pro-life to me simply means pro-baby-in-the-womb.
The Church is to preach the Gospel as the Lord commands us, and that's first and foremost.
However, the Father seeks us to worship Him in Sprirt and truth.
The truth is, God hates abortion. He hates for us to kill innocent children. He gives life and takes it.
On the other hand, we are called to protect innocent people from being killed by wicked men, and so we save life this way. Always remembering, "But for the grace of God, there go I".
There's much more depth to all this for sure. But that's my opinion in a nut shell.
Thanks, Don. I appreciate your thought and used to essentially be where you are on pro-life. God is concerned about life from conception to the grave. And we're of the one holy nation scattered all over the earth. The gospel should critique both left and right. If Jesus was here, neither would be comfortable. Kind of some of my thoughts on this in a nutshell. :)
Thanks, Triston. I was raised Anabaptist and in recent years have come back to something of their theology, though not entirely, in my case. Mennonites are one major group that comes from them, Menno Simons probably being the Reformer who like Luther and Calvin, was a prominent leader. The Amish come from them (from the Mennonites) and other groups. If you go to wikipedia, you can probably learn more, if you like.
So it's my background, and I think it reflects Scripture in some important ways, as for example their emphasis on The Sermon on the Mount. They were considered The Radical Reformation, because they didn't want to reform the Roman Catholic Church, but start all over again, based on the New Testament. That did get them in trouble, since initially they didn't want to consider the creeds, but later came to know better (as the language of the Trinity formulated in the creeds, and other things) have their place, as they reflect Scripture.
By the way, Triston, many early Anabaptists were drowned by Lutherans and Roman Catholics both. Anabaptist means to baptize again, as instead of accepting their infant baptism, they embraced believer's baptism.
Not to get in a debate over any of this here or anywhere else, but just as to what they believed and how they were persecuted by other professing Christians. (Of course more in it than this, but this is essentially what happened.)
Thanks for sharing Ted.
Ted,
I also was baptized Roman Catholic as an infant, did not accept it and got baptized again at 20 years old. Funny. I didn't know I had anything in common with Anabaptists.
Seems like an awful lot of legalism in the Mennonites and Amish to me. All the rules make me question how well they actually understand grace, though I know little to nothing about them. Driving into Lancaster, PA and seeing all those horse and buggies and odd people in odd looking clothing feels like walking on Mars to me—as strange as when I lived in Pakistan, and that is a strange place!
Thanks, Don for graciously listening and interacting.
Your blog is an honor (2 Corinthians 8:23) to the Lord because of the grace and truth in Jesus I find here.
Triston,
I agree. I really think some of what even good Mennonites who believe in grace, some of what they do, is really a distraction to the faith. I think they try to do some things literally found in Scripture, which should be lived out in a different manner today. Two possible examples: head coverings, and feet washing in communion (a small example: the same sexes greeting one another with a holy kiss- among the more conservative Mennonites).
I agree with the Mennonite/Anabaptist position in general with regard to Christians going to war, and of course with believer's baptism. And disagree with some legalistic aspects, which probably every Christian body, and person in principle struggles with, in some way.
Good points Ted.
Just curious. What is the position they\you hold on war? Are they against war for any reason? I really don't know.
Just to answer you here, Triston, but then we can carry on with email on it, if you like, they don't believe a Christian is to kill another human being for any reason. I agree.
There are a number of reasons for that, and I won't spell them out here. There are strengths and weaknesses on each side and certainly a Christian can serve in the military, do their work and walk with the Lord. Even taking life as part of that. But I believe that is a mistaken position.
Post a Comment