Monday, June 30, 2008
Posted by:
Kevin McCullough
at
11:16 PM
 Gospel of Condoms Two interesting things happened this weekend... I began separate discussions with two self-professed "Evangelicals" both of whom, I believe will likely support Barack Obama in the fall. Over the next day or so - I'd like to replay for your benefit and discussion the two sides of the debate. I'd also greatly appreciate your further thoughts - as this is a genuine attempt to hash out the evangelical's role in the election in November. Let me state up front - that I am not a supporter of either primary candidate. I have written intense criticism of both men. And if you do not believe me - go check my column archives for the months of November 2006 - January of 2007. Nonetheless Christians are REQUIRED to participate in the election of 2008 - if we choose not to we are exercising disobedience to a known command - to "render to Caesar that which belongs to him." (In this nation - WE - are Caesar therefore our duty is to rule justly and at minimum that means voting righteously! The column that began the first discussion with an evangelical named Steve was my syndicated piece from Sunday that discussed Barack's "solution" to the AIDS crisis. Not behavior, not different choices, not discernment - CONDOMS! In response this is how Steven began the conversation: You seem to be quite dismissive of Evangelicals who support Obama in this election. As one of them, I think there are more important issues than "condoms" and I'm not sure you are right about this micro-issue.
Sincerely,
Steve Savage
To which my responses began: How can you claim Biblical Christianity and support the killing of innocent children, the redefining of Biblical marriage, the sanctity and advocacy of homosexuality, the barring of teaching children Biblical truth as it relates to their development, removing the God given rights of parents and replacing them with greater state control, the fallacy of hate crimes legislation designed to silence pastors on Biblical teaching?
All of which are positions that run antithetically to Bible based evangelical Christianity... I await your explanation!
Steve's reply: First of all, the President has little if anything to do with those moral and religious issues. More importantly, the mission of the Church is far better accomplished through Kingdom means than through the "arm of man."
As for potential persecution - I don't really see that happening and if it did it would only be what Jesus told us to expect.
Presidents DO have have a role in deciding whether or not to start wars, whether or not to abandon civil liberties and violate treaties, whether or not to ignore important warnings from the scientific community, and how to resolve international issues in places like Pakistan, Afganhistan, Iraq, Iran etc. They do have an influence on whether we move to a rational energy policy. They do have a role in whether or not we can resolve important issues like Social Security, Health Care and Immigration. A responsible Evangelical voter must also consider all of these issues.
Christians who thought they were voting based on Biblical values in the last two elections were instrumental in giving us a president who made some very poor choices on the issues he could effect.
I don't support the killing of innocent children - in the US or in Iraq or anywhere. However; electing a President who might-make-a-nomination-that-might-someday-influence-a-court-decision-that-might-or-might-not-change-the-opinions-and-actions-of-still-unconvinced-pro-abortion-Americans hardly seems to be the best way to do something about killing innocent children.
Sincerely,
Steve Savage
My response, from my phone, driving about 65mph headed down 95 to DC: Yes you do support the killing of Children as Obama supported the killing of born children...
End of first exchanges... Obviously there is much more that could be said to the plethora of Steve's anti-biblical views. Which are astounding really... given that he is touting himself as an evangelical it is fair to measure him by what he claims to be. I know Obama does not wish to be, his supporters likely don't either... But for now... to claims of the back and forth... What say you?
It seems to me that Christians who suppport a candidate like Obama because of issues such as social security and healthcare are guilty of substituting their judgement about what is important with God's. Policy issues like those above are not unimportant, but they are not touched on by scriptural teaching. Jesus' teachings were about individuals, not "Ceasar" taking care of the sick and the needy.
On the other hand, scripture does deal directly with issues of freedom from bondage, the sanctity of life, and chaste sexual relations. I think religious voters should worry about the issues we have been specifically warned about before trying to acheive a state sponsored utopia. |
|
First of all, drop the "What say you" It makes you sound like an O'Reilly wannabe and O'Reilly is an absolute idiot!
Second, keep up the pressure on Steve Savage. It's not all about abortion, it is also the fact that the whole socialist agenda is against Christianity. In the end socialists hope to replace God with the State. As hambones so rightly said, "Jesus' teachings were about individuals, not Ceaser..."
Steve says, "the mission of the Church is far better accomplished through Kingdom means than through the 'arm of man.'"
The mission of the Church is to spread the word of God. Jesus did this through the arm of man, and now this is not good enough for Steve? Does he know something that Jesus didn't?
|
|
I don't like either Obama or McCain, but I am voting for McCain (really voting against Obama). I do not like McCain's views supporting embryonic stem cell research, but when I compare the two, McCain is less liberal than Obama. I think it is foolish to vote for a third party candidate because it will most likely give Obama the presidency. I really hate the situation that we evangelical Christians have been placed in. It is our own fault, though. The Bible teaches that the healing of a nation comes when we Christians repent of our wicked ways. (2 Chr 7:14). Yes, that scipture is spoken directly to Israel, but the principle of for everyone: Confession and repentance lead to restoration.
I have been kind of surprised that Stephen Baldwin has been so vocal in his support for McCain. I feel like for him it is simply a case of McCain being the lesser of the two evils, but, still, if he as an evangelical is going to support him, I think he needs to be clear in what areas he agrees with him and in what areas he doesn't. There are many young people that look up to him. |
|
I wish you could edit comments because I meant to put this in my previous one.
1st subject: Rick Warren - I read Rick Warren's book "The Purpose Driven Life" and loved it, but as a a result of his union with Obama, I refuse to read any more books by him or do any Bible Studies that he writes.
Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? (2 Cor 6:14)
2nd subject: Stephen Baldwin - Have you seen this? http://www.observer.com/2008/style/one-more-reason-hollywo od-support-obama
I think it is hysterical how the press is going crazy with this. First of all, it was clear Stephen was kidding and he predicted during the interview that the press would go crazy with it. The liberal press is so sadly predictable.
|
|
If the GOP hopes to win this election, they will have to leave the "God, Guns and Gays" bumper sticker sound bytes out this time.
This election will hinge on the economy. If McCain can convince the electorate that Obama's tax plan will strip the middle class of thousands of dollars every year, the GOP can win.
If, however, Kevin and his Townhall ilk waste time trying to stir their defeated, demoralized and downtrodden base of "Values Voters" and "Born Again Evangelicals" with postings such as those above, the Democrats win. And probably win big. |
|
Irony: Someone who speaks of liberals wanting "greater state control" and going on about liberals being "socialists" advocating for quarantine of people with AIDS in the frothing-at-the-mouth, insane rant of an article linked to above. If there's anyone who wants greater control, it's the evangelicals. They want to control the way YOU live your life.
Is Kevin bringing up condoms because he's against distributing them to school children? Because he wants abstinence-only education taught in schools? No. Look at the example he brings up in the article, the abstinence education in Uganda. Uganda, for those of you who don't know, is not a high school. We're talking about preaching abstinence to ADULTS. It's the evangelicals' perverse philosophy that full-grown adults should not be allowed to be sexually active.
In short, Kevin and his ilk don't want to restrict access to birth control for children, they want to restrict access to birth control for EVERYONE. They want to tell ADULTS when and where and how they can have sex. And that is what the marriage amendment is about. It's not about activist judges and it's CERTAINLY not about child molestation. They'll tell you gay marriage is a slippery slope towards legalizing pedophilia but that's false cover for what they're doing. In reality, the slippery slope runs the other way... Once they can control homosexuals, they'll be trying to control heterosexuals. Hell, they already are!
By the way, I sort of doubt that Obama ever said he supports the killing of "born children" ...Is there a quote you can point us to, or did you hallucinate that in one of your paranoid delusions? President Bush did support the killing of many VERY born children in Iraq and Afghanistan. What say you? |
|
I sympathize with the causes of pro-life, and concerns regarding the sanctity of marriage, I just don't buy the logic that shares a Christian "must" vote, or leave God out of the political process for societal change..
When one examines the questions as to 'why' many Christians are opting out of voting this year, they need only look at a few factors which have caused most American Christian voters dismay.
Number one, while the Bush administration may, or may not, have a solid sincere adherence to Christian values, this has not greatly trickled down to addressing many Christian, and conservative, families' personal concerns, over recent years.
Number two, while no one is suggesting that Mr. Obama is the ideal choice for President. People, on both sides of the political fence, are truly tired of the old guard.
There is just NO way most Conservative spokesmen and women, and their connected parties, are going to be attractive much anymore to the average Joe, if/when he sees his voice is simply NOT being heard.
In the end, it's just not fair to say we Christians vote for the lesser of two not great choices, by choosing kind of a RHINO,(Mr. McCain), verses a true Liberal, Mr. Obama-in the choice of Barak verses McCain.
It is not a genuinely logical premise, for a generally logically thinking columnist..
Very hard times are pushing the most sincere of the faithful to vigorously examine their priorities, not because they do not prize their Christian virtues as the most important of all-
..but, because they are hedging their bets, closing one eye, and hoping a miracle protects their interests-which also have to do with health care, providing their families an adequate income, and making sure they have access to a life that is only the domain of the most well-off of Americans.
|
|
|