Holy Policy
Written by Tony Woodlief
link

It’s a tough row to hoe, making the case that Jesus is a capitalist. For example, there is the fact that the first church appears to have adopted voluntary socialism. And that business about seeking not the treasures of this world—that hasn’t stopped conservatives from spilling gallons of ink to refine our understanding about the camel, the eye of the needle, and the rich man until that discomforting verse almost seems to cry out for leveraged buyouts and complex derivatives. When we put our minds to it, we can work the Bible around to supporting just about anything we like.

This is all to say that it’s a bit unseemly to use religion to justify one’s policy preferences. This observation would have been less welcome at the height of the Christian Coalition’s power. After all, isn’t a believer in the flat tax and a strong missile defense a believer in truth, which is another way of saying a follower of the Truth? It requires a bit of smug self-assurance, this logic, but let’s be honest: We conservatives know we’re right. And while Jesus never released a comprehensive economic plan, we can be pretty sure he didn’t favor self-delusional economic thinking and the waste of resources.

Still, we have to admit He has more important things on his mind. Whether or not we get global warming legislation is probably toward the bottom of the list. This isn’t stopping a new coalition of leftist organizations from taking their case to the pulpit, arguing that failure to enact sweeping environmental regulations is an act of poor stewardship, i.e., sin.

It’s hard to imagine, inside the echo chamber of the right, how global warming could be a real phenomenon. I mean, we all just know it’s junk science. Likewise, it’s hard for anyone inside the left’s echo chamber to imagine how global warming could be anything other than a dire emergency. We know, of course, that we’re right and they’re wrong, that we’ve considered the matter objectively while they’ve just listened to Al Gore. But still, it’s hard to fault them for making a biblical case out of this and other policy matters, given the precedent conservatives have set over the past 30 years. When prominent self-styled Christian leaders opine on everything from health care reform to “taking out” Venezuelan thug Hugo Chavez, it’s hard to put the genie back into the bottle now that liberals want to get in on the if-Jesus-were-a-presidential-cabinet-member routine.

All of which, I think, serves the name of Christ poorly. By bringing policy disputes into the faith arena, we bolster the notion that Christianity is just a bunch of self-interested talkers using the Bible to get what they want. We create divisions among brothers and sisters who ought not to be divided. This is evidenced in our affinity for political comrades over faith comrades. By way of illustration, consider whether conservative Christians you know are more favorably disposed toward Ann Coulter or Jimmy Carter. Nothing in Coulter’s behavior suggests Christian love, whereas Carter endeavors to live it out, even when this means giving a hug to every tin-pot dictator he can reach by chartered flight. When politics get elevated to the level of faith, it’s no wonder that we begin to forget who are our real brothers and sisters.

All this is not to say that Christians should be silent about public policy, especially those policies where there is a strong case for biblical guidance (e.g., protecting life, treating prisoners with humanity, caring for the elderly). In fact, maybe it’s a good thing that leftists are coming out now to argue that Christian ethics demand this or that policy prescription. It would be nice, however, if we could all do so with a bit more reverence for the flaming sword that is the Word of God, and with a good deal more charity toward people who are, after all, striving toward the same home as we.

Read full post >>

Hawaii's state Senate has overwhelmingly approved a bill to celebrate "Islam Day," despite the objections of a few lawmakers who said they didn't think the state should honor a religion connected to Sept. 11, 2001.

The resolution to proclaim Sept. 24, 2009, as Islam Day passed the Senate on a 22-3 vote Wednesday. The bill was previously passed by Hawaii's House of Representatives.

The bill recognizes what it calls "the rich religious, scientific, cultural and artistic contributions" that Islam and the Islamic world have made.

But the Senate's two Republicans argued that radical Islamists cheered the 2001 attacks. They also noted that other religions didn't have a special day honored.

The lone Democrat voting in dissent opposed it on church-state separation grounds.

LINK

Read full post >>

Today is "Equal Pay Day" for women -- but not all women agree the day is necessary.

Equal Pay Day -- started in 1996 by the National Committee on Pay Equity -- is allegedly the day in the year when women have worked far enough to make up for the pay discrimination they faced the previous year. According to government statistics, women only make 78 cents for every dollar a man earns.

Allison Kasic with the Independent Women's Forum comments on those findings.

"Now while that is technically correct if you look at the Department of Labor statistics, it's only a single variable comparison. It's only comparing the median wage of the full-time working woman to the median wage of the full-time working man," she notes. "It doesn't take into account a variety of other factors that need to be taken into account if we're going to have a realistic conversation about wage issues."

She says the study does not consider other factors such as workplace experience, education level, or occupation. Once such factors are taken into account, she says, any "wage gap" shrinks away.

Kasic believes equal pay is mostly a non-issue, and that new legislation -- like the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, or the Paycheck Fairness Act -- is not needed to tackle any perceived problems. She argues that sponsors of such measures are "exploiting" the wage gap to advance their own agenda.

ARTICLE

Read full post >>

Social conservatives tolerated John McCain as the party's nominee, but never trusted him, and he now appears to be facing a serious primary from the right in Arizona next year.

Chris Simcox the founder of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps and a prominent figure in the movement to clamp down on illegal immigration, will be announcing tomorrow at an event on the Mexican border that he's resigned from the group to run in the 2010 Senate primary.

From a forthcoming release:

"John McCain has failed miserably in his duty to secure this nation's borders and protect the people of Arizona from the escalating violence and lawlessness," Simcox said. "He has fought real efforts over the years at every turn, opting to hold our nation's border security hostage to his amnesty schemes. Coupled with his votes for reckless bailout spending and big government solutions to our nation's problems, John McCain is out of touch with everyday Arizonans. Enough is enough."

McCain was forced to abandon his own immigration reform legislation during last year's Republican Primary, a move that may have cost him substantial Hispanic support to which his record could have given him access.

So he's basically getting it from both sides on this one.

Simcox, with a national base and a high profile on the right, is well positioned to give McCain a serious local headache. He'll find some allies among the conservatives who recently took over the Arizona Republican Party from McCain's allies, and he has a national fundraising base.

I remember seeing Chris Simcox at an event and multiple protesters were arrested. I must say that Chris Simcox was very polite and calm. I would like to hear him discuss other issues besides immigration. What would the perception be of the Republican Party be if the presidential candidate lost the following election? It would be a primary so I guess it would show either no leadership in the party or shifting more conservative or both.

ARTICLE

SIMCOX CAMPAIGN WEBSITE

Read full post >>

Even with the president on its side, the Democratic National Committee's (DNC) fundraising woes continued in March as the party earned fewer individual donations than did its GOP rivals.

The Republican National Committee, under new Chairman Michael Steele, pulled in $6.7 million in March, padding the committee's swollen bank accounts and ending the month with $23.9 million cash on hand. That's higher than the $5.26 million the RNC raised in February, Steele's first month as chairman.

The DNC, which hosted President Obama's first fundraiser since being sworn in in January, posted just $5.57 million raised from individual donors, down from the $6.6 million raised in February. Obama's fundraiser brought in $3 million, a DNC source told The Hill.

Still, the party got a boost from Obama's presidential campaign, which transferred $2 million to the DNC in March. In total, the DNC will report $7.57 million in contributions last month, with $9.7 million cash on hand.

But Democrats still face a pile of unpaid debt. The committee reported $6.9 million in debt at the end of February, and a DNC spokesman estimated that the number for March would be about the same. Exact figures were not immediately available Monday morning.

Republicans, meanwhile, remain debt-free.

Democrats said their February numbers were artificially lower thanks to the committee's new chairman, Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine (D), who was barred by state law from raising money while the state legislature was still in session. But money did not start flowing once legislators adjourned from their regular session Feb. 28.

And Republicans apparently went on a spending spree in March. In a press release Friday, the committee claimed it would report $23.9 million on hand, $100,000 less than the party had in the bank at the end of February. Though operating expenses remained largely static, the RNC transferred $1 million each to the National Republican Congressional Committee and the National Republican Senatorial Committee in March.

Fundraising numbers for both parties' congressional and senatorial campaign committees, as well as for the national committees, are due by the close of business Monday.

ARTICLE

Read full post >>

Monday night on CNN's Larry King Live, Pastor Rick Warren apologized for his support of Prop. 8, California's voter-approved marriage protection amendment, saying he has "never been and never will be" an "anti-gay or anti-gay marriage activist."

"During the whole Proposition 8 thing, I never once went to a meeting, never once issued a statement, never -- never once even gave an endorsement in the two years Prop. 8 was going," Warren told the CNN audience on Monday. "The week before the -- the vote, somebody in my church said, 'Pastor Rick, what -- what do you think about this?' And I sent a note to my own members that said, I actually believe that marriage is -- really should be defined, that that definition should be -- say between a man and a woman."

However, just two weeks before the November 4 Prop. 8 vote, Pastor Warren issued a clear endorsement of the marriage amendment while speaking to church members. "We support Proposition 8 -- and if you believe what the Bible says about marriage, you need to support Proposition 8," he said.

The following is a complete transcript of Warren's comments just weeks before the Prop. 8 election:

"The election's coming just in a couple of weeks, and I hope you're praying about your vote. One of the propositions, of course, that I want to mention is Proposition 8, which is the proposition that had to be instituted because the courts threw out the will of the people. And a court of four guys actually voted to change a definition of marriage that has been going for 5,000 years.

"Now let me say this really clearly: we support Proposition 8 -- and if you believe what the Bible says about marriage, you need to support Proposition 8. I never support a candidate, but on moral issues I come out very clear.

"This is one thing, friends, that all politicians tend to agree on. Both Barack Obama and John McCain, I flat-out asked both of them: what is your definition of marriage? And they both said the same thing -- it is the traditional, historic, universal definition of marriage: one man and one woman, for life. And every culture for 5,000 years, and every religion for 5,000 years, has said the definition of marriage is between one man and a woman.

"Now here's an interesting thing. There are about two percent of Americans [who] are homosexual or gay/lesbian people. We should not let two percent of the population determine to change a definition of marriage that has been supported by every single culture and every single religion for 5,000 years.

"This is not even just a Christian issue -- it's a humanitarian and human issue that God created marriage for the purpose of family, love, and procreation.

"So I urge you to support Proposition 8, and pass that word on. I'm going to be sending out a note to pastors on what I believe about this. But everybody knows what I believe about it. They heard me at the Civil Forum when I asked both Obama and McCain on their views."

During his CNN interview on Monday, Warren expressed regret for backing Prop. 8. "There were a number of things that were put out. I wrote to all my gay friends -- the leaders that I knew -- and actually apologized to them. That never got out," he admitted.

Additionally, Pastor Warren said he did not want to comment on or criticize the Iowa Supreme Court's decision last week to legalize same-sex "marriage" because it was "not his agenda."

ARTICLE

Transcript

Video of Warren endorsing Prop. 8

Read full post >>

Six Things You Should Know About the “Stimulus”

1.) The House of Representatives has broken a commitment to posting the legislation online for no less than 48 hours before a vote.

Only a few hours after the U.S. House of Representatives passed a motion to instruct conferees on H.R. 1 mandating that the conference report be posted online in a searchable and downloadable form for no less than 48 hours before it may be voted on, negotiations began under the cover of night behind closed doors with no representatives of the Congressional minority present. Ultimately, the Democratic House leadership did not make the bill's language available until around 11:00 p.m. on Thursday, giving the public a mere 15 hours to scrutinize the bill (mostly overnight hours during which most Members of Congress were no doubt sleeping), of which only 5 hours were working hours. Congressional Record, page H1096.

2.) In signing this bill today, President Obama is violating his own transparency pledge.

Consider his campaign promise: “No more secrecy. … when there's a bill that ends up on my desk as president, you, the American voter, will have five days to look online and find out what it is before I sign it, so that you know what your government's doing.” Manchester, New Hampshire, June 22, 2007 http://tinyurl.com/dl2wog (time: 20:20) Today, the bill will have been posted for only four days – not five.

3.) No Member of Congress voting for the bill confirmed prior to the vote that they had read the bill.

Americans for Tax Reform had asked all Members of Congress intending to vote for the conference report to sign and fax back/email to ATR the following form:

I, _____________________________, commit to the taxpayers of the (___________________ district of the) State of _______________________, that my vote in favor of the conference report on H.R. 1 will be an informed vote, because I will have read the full text of the bill and the conference report by the time I cast my vote.

All Members who voted for the package refused to make this commitment. http://atr.server278.com/even-one-democrat-read-bill-a2887

4.) No Member of Congress voting for the bill confirmed that they were not looking to personally benefit corruptly from the bill with their vote.

Americans for Tax Reform asked all Members of the U.S. House of Representatives who voted in favor of the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009” and U.S. Senators planning to support the package to commit to their constituents in writing that they will not accept political contributions from any recipient of “stimulus” funds, nor will seek or accept employment with any recipient.
All Members who voted for the package refused to make this commitment. http://atr.server278.com/atr-challenge-pelosi-obama-reid-spending-a2858

5.) In signing the bill, President Obama also breaks his promise to enact net spending cuts.

During a discussion about government spending in the second presidential debate on October 7, 2008, Obama said “So we’re going to have to make some investments but we’ve also got to make spending cuts, and what I’ve proposed -- you’ll hear Senator McCain say ‘he’s proposing a whole bunch of new spending’ --but, actually, I’m cutting more than I’m spending. So that it will be a net spending cut.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eM0Eri8VWiw

6.) The “Stimulus” package will undo much of the progress of the 1996 welfare reform.

The package contains language that would essentially abolish the accomplishments of the 1996 welfare reform which drastically reduced welfare rolls and child poverty. Further, it would add large amounts in new welfare spending over the next decade. http://tinyurl.com/dax6xf

ATR president Grover Norquist said: “President Obama hasn’t even been in office for a full month yet – but, aided by the Democratic majority in Congress, he has already managed to break a series of promises in an effort to burden taxpayers with a massive spending package that will do nothing to promote economic growth, but will permanently grow the size of government undo much of the progress made in the mid-1990s in the area of welfare reform. If this first month is a sign of what’s to come, then taxpayers will be in for a rough ride.”

Conveniently, that pledge was later massaged to only extend to “non-emergency” bills, however even by that standard, the President has already twice violated that commitment with the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the S-CHIP reauthorization bill that contained a tax increase (and broke another one of his campaign promises not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000).


The picture was taken from fiscalaccountability.org and the article was taken from ATR.org.

Read full post >>

According to RBC Ministries the answer is no. In case you are unaware, RBC Ministries puts out "Our Daily Bread." Below is their answer to the question.

Why shouldn’t evangelicals offer unconditional political support to either Israel or the Palestinians?

As we view Israel/Palestine today, we must be as concerned for the physical and spiritual well-being of her ethnic Jewish people as for the well-being of her ethnic Arabs (both Muslim and Christian). We must do all we can to awaken both Jewish and Arab people to the reality of the Messiah who gave His life for them.

But before we can effectively present the gospel to Israelis or Palestinians, we must cultivate their respect. All ethnic/religious/cultural groups have “skeletons in their closets.” We Western Christians are no exception. Jews have cultural memories of persecution by nominally Christian peoples in Europe. Muslims, on the other hand, have similar memories of wrongs committed by Christian armies crusading in the name of God, and of Western “Christian” colonial powers exploiting Muslim division and weakness. If we hope to be heard clearly, we must not be perceived as biased or unjust. Unfortunately, far from being unbiased and just, many Christian evangelicals today demonize Palestinian and Israeli Arabs while ignoring or rationalizing Jewish injustice and violence. There are numerous reasons that Evangelicals tend to be heavily biased in favor of Jewish Israelis rather than Arab Israelis and Palestinians. But rather than getting into the reasons for this bias, let’s go to Scripture to see why it is wrong.

At the very beginning of His ministry, just after His baptism by John, “Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil” (Matthew 4:1 NIV). This time of testing wasn’t incidental. The temptations Satan set before Jesus were specifically designed to exploit any vulnerability in His human nature. Satan appealed to the selfishness, distrust, and personal pride that are at the root of all human sin, forcing Jesus to make deep and radical decisions regarding His calling. What kind of Messiah would He be?

* Would He exploit supernatural power to change stones to bread, as a first act in avoiding the path of suffering that had been set before Him? Would He then feed the poor with the same satanic motivation, seeking their support for His personal agenda?

* Would He coerce his Father’s endorsement (force His hand) by casting Himself from the pinnacle of the temple?
* Would He cultivate earthly political power to overthrow Rome and establish an earthly kingdom in Jerusalem under His personal control by alliance with the principalities and powers of this world?

Rather than acting in selfish ambition, Jesus chose submission, servitude, and suffering. The miracles He performed were just as spectacular as those Satan proposed, but they were done through the power of the Holy Spirit in obedience to His Father.

Jesus refused to feed Himself miraculously, but guided by the Holy Spirit He miraculously fed thousands, changed water to wine, and filled the nets of faithful fishermen with fish. He refused to draw attention to Himself or give miraculous signs to those who demanded it, but walked on water, calmed the sea, healed the sick, and raised the dead to glorify His Father. Although He could have requested supernatural deliverance from the agony of humiliation, scourging, alienation, and death (Matthew 26:53), He submitted to them meekly, like a perfect sacrificial lamb.1

Perhaps He faced these tests early on because of the tremendous pressure that would soon come to bear on Him to conform to the false expectations of His countrymen regarding what He (as Messiah) should do on behalf of national Israel. The expectation that Messiah would militarily deliver the Jews from pagan (Roman) rule and establish Jewish rule over the whole world was at fever pitch in the first century. Even Jesus’ disciples reflected this expectation (Matthew 16:20-22; 20:20-23; Luke 19:11).

Over the course of the first century, enthusiasm for a delivering Messiah resulted in numerous false messiahs, the horrific war of AD 70, and apocalyptic writings that continued to predict a delivering messiah even after the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple by Titus (4 Ezra; 2 Baruch). Eventually, the endorsement of the false messiah, Bar Kochba, by the most venerated rabbi of the post-70 period (Akiba) led to the final catastrophe of AD 135 under Hadrian.

The remarkable Jewish historian of that period, Josephus, described the foundation of Jewish messianic fervor and militant nationalism among his contemporaries:

But what more than all else incited them to the war was an ambiguous oracle, likewise found in their sacred scriptures, to the effect that at that time one from their country would become ruler of the world. This they understood to mean someone of their own race, and many of their wise men went astray in their interpretation of it . . . For all that, it is impossible for men to escape their fate, even though they foresee it. Some of these portents, then, the Jews interpreted to please themselves, others they treated with contempt, until the ruin of their country and their own destruction convicted them of their folly. (Josephus, War, 6.312-315)

N. T. Wright builds a strong case that the “ambiguous oracle” referred to by Josephus is the book of Daniel—specifically the second, seventh, and ninth chapters. (See Wright’s The New Testament and the People of God, pp. 312­-320.) The book of Daniel was one of the most popular works in circulation among the Jews during the first century,2 and it is likely that Jewish “wise men went astray in their interpretation of it,” apparently forecasting dates, “times,” and “seasons” for the coming of the expected Messiah into His kingdom in a manner that nurtured popular support for a military confrontation with Rome. (See Matthew 24:36; Acts 1:6-7; 1 Thessalonians 5:1-2.)

Israel had already given in to temptations Jesus resisted.3 Jesus knew that national Israel had formed an alliance with Satan and was hell-bent to carry out Satan’s agenda. Out of love for Israel and her true calling, He confronted her with the fact that she had turned nationalism into an abominable parody of the covenant relationship God intended.4 Like the prophets who preceded them (Matthew 11:20-24; 12:38-42; Luke 13:1-5), John the Baptist and Jesus declared that unrepentant Israel was outside the covenant relationship, and needed to return like a humble proselyte to be considered a son of Abraham (Matthew 3:9; Luke 3:8; 15:11-32). In the past, Israel had been delivered from the judgment that fell upon the pagan kingdoms that oppressed her and held her captive (Egypt, Babylon). But now, Jerusalem herself was persecuting true Israel. The true Israel, that Israel that was holding firm (Mark 13:13), was a small remnant—Jesus’ disciples. Jerusalem had taken on the role of Egypt and Babylon, aligned with Satan and facing judgment.

The old covenant had come to an end, replaced by a new covenant, “his blood” (Matthew 26:28 NKJV; 1 Corinthians 11:25; Hebrews 9:15). Israel’s old covenant story of exile and deliverance (Egypt, Assyria, and Babylon) was over. No longer in exile, Israel had been permanently restored in the person of Jesus Christ.5

* The family of God would no longer be defined by ethnic and national Jewish categories, but would be made up of all of those willing to trust in Jesus and follow Him (Matthew 7:21; 12:50; Luke 11:27-28; John 6:29,40; Acts 3:22-23).
* The Torah, which constituted a central symbol of identity for those under the old covenant, would be replaced under the new covenant by the Sermon on the Mount. The new covenant would be characterized by mercy, forgiveness, inclusiveness, and love rather than a quest for legal and ritual purity.
* The Jerusalem temple and the system of worship based around it was obsolete and the destruction of the temple immanent, to be replaced by the resurrected Christ (Mark 14:58/Matthew 26:61; Mark 15:29-30/Matthew 27:39-40; John 2:19; Acts 6:14).6 When Jesus was crucified, the veil of the temple was torn and its holiest chamber exposed. The epistle to the Hebrews—written to a culturally Jewish Christian audience—declares:

“He entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption” (9:12).

“By one sacrifice [Jesus] has made perfect forever those who are being made holy” (10:14).

“The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says: ‘This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds.’ Then he adds: ‘Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more.’ And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin” (10:15-18).

Because of the horrific consequences of date-setting and speculative interpretation of prophecy, the rabbis surviving the second war with Rome committed themselves to the principle that Torah-observing Jews should never again seek a return to the land until the appearance of Messiah himself. Orthodox Jews remained committed to this principle for nearly 2000 years, but secular Zionists began a movement to return to a national homeland in the late 19th century. Approximately at the same time, some evangelical Christian leaders began to speculate that the Zionist-initiated return to the land was the beginning of the national return prophesied in Scripture.

For evangelical Christians to use prophetic speculation as a basis for providing unbelieving Israel with political and military support is to repeat the very same error that Israel committed when it sought to use military and political means to bring in the messianic kingdom. It is to join unbelieving Israel in its surrender to the same temptations Satan offered Jesus in the desert.

* It is an attempt to exploit supernatural power.
* It is an attempt to force God’s hand.

* It is an attempt to carry out God’s plan through alliance with the (satanic) principalities and powers of this world.

To think that nurturing national Israel’s political and military power will expedite God’s program of redemption makes no more sense today than in the first century. Jesus said:

“Look, your house is left to you desolate. I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, ‘Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord’ ” (Luke 13:35).

Some evangelicals genuinely hope to befriend Jewish or Palestinian people and win them to faith in Jesus Christ. While this aspect of their motivation may be legitimate, any unconditional support of either side of an ethnic and religious conflict decides against a group of people for whom Christ died. Followers of Christ cannot afford to win converts by supporting violence and aggression.

Although major actors on the political stage, many evangelicals view themselves as detached observers with a biblical key to understanding unfolding world events. They think they are assisting the fulfillment of prophecy, the soon return of the Lord, the culmination of the church age, the great tribulation, and the millennial reign. Like the zealous nationalist Jews of the first century and today’s religious Zionist Jews (Gush Emunim and others), they think they can give the Lord a helping hand in bringing about His Day. In actuality, evangelicals who unconditionally support the establishment and defense of a Jewish ­state founded upon the rejection of Jesus Christ are nurturing the rise of anti-Christian power throughout the world.

Just as it was folly for Jewish leaders of the first and second century to believe they could have certainty regarding unfolding future events, it is folly for modern evangelicals to think they can predict how current events will fit in with the events of the endtime. (See the ATQ, How often in the history of the church have people mistakenly believed they were acting in fulfillment, or observing the fulfillment, of prophecy?) Jesus himself declared the folly of such speculation (Matthew 24:44; 25:13; Mark 13:35; Revelation 3:3).

Many Christians in the past have mistakenly supported violence on the basis of a conviction that they were participating in endtime events. Granted that our pretribulation view of the rapture is true, do we have any more real certainty about when the rapture and the tribulation will occur than first-century Jews had regarding the manner and time of Messiah’s coming? If we are heavily complicit in the violence of our age, isn’t it more likely we will reap the whirlwind (Hosea 7:7) we have sown?

The day of the Lord is not a time when the devil has his way with an ethnic Israel he hates. Rather, it is a time of God’s judgment on wickedness, both in Israel and the world:

“Woe to you who long for the day of the Lord! Why do you long for the day of the Lord? That day will be darkness, not light” (Amos 5:18).

“‘See, I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me. Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come,’ says the Lord Almighty. But who can endure the day of his coming? Who can stand when he appears? For he will be like a refiner’s fire or a launderer’s soap” (Malachi 3:1-2).

“Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, and sound an alarm in my holy mountain: let all the inhabitants of the land tremble: for the day of the Lord cometh, for it is nigh at hand; A day of darkness and of gloominess, a day of clouds and of thick darkness, as the morning spread upon the mountains: a great people and a strong; there hath not been ever the like, neither shall be any more after it, even to the years of many generations” (Joel 2:1-2 KJV)

“The earth shall quake before them; the heavens shall tremble: the sun and the moon shall be dark, and the stars shall withdraw their shining” (Joel 2:10).

“The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the Lord come” (Joel 2:31).

“The great day of the Lord is near—near and coming quickly. Listen! The cry on the day of the Lord will be bitter, the shouting of the warrior there. That day will be a day of wrath, a day of distress and anguish, a day of trouble and ruin, a day of darkness and gloom, a day of clouds and blackness” (Zephaniah 1:14-15 NIV).

“‘Surely the day is coming; it will burn like a furnace. All the arrogant and every evildoer will be stubble, and that day that is coming will set them on fire,’ says the Lord Almighty. ‘Not a root or a branch will be left to them’ ” (Malachi 4:1).

If evangelicals think God will permit them to continue to throw fuel on the fire of violence and hatred and suddenly snatch them out of the conflagration just before it engulfs the world, it is only because they are under the spell of satanic illusion.

The New Testament makes it clear that the kingdom of God is based on justice and love, not violence, ethnic privilege, and possession of “holy land.” The kingdom of God is based on the Sermon on the Mount, not on speculation about unfolding events. The actions of the church must be consistent with purposes of the kingdom of God, or the church may share national Israel’s judgment in the day of the Lord.

LINK

Read full post >>

President Obama said he is worried that detainees freed from the military prison at Guantanamo Bay might resume attacks on this country - but argued that its closure had to be done in order to "uphold" what he called "our values."

"Can we guarantee that they're not going to try to participate in another attack? No," Obama said in an NBC interview that aired today.

"But what I can guarantee is that if we don't uphold our Constitution and our values, that over time that will make us less safe. And that will be a recruitment tool for organizations like al-Qaeda."

In one of the first acts of his new administration, Obama signed an executive order directing that Guantanamo be closed within a year.

Some 250 terrorists are being held there - many of them detained following the Sept. 11 attacks without charge and some subjected to interrogation that human rights groups say amounted to torture.

But critics fear some of the detainees may again plot to attack the US once they are released.

"Is it going to be easy?" Obama said in the interview. "No, because we've got a couple hundred of hard-core militants that, unfortunately, because of ... problems that we had previously in gathering evidence, we may not be able to try in ordinary courts but we don't want to release."

Obama also expressed confidence that his administration would ultimately find a solution balancing security and US legal values.

"I have to make the very best judgments I can make in terms of what's going to keep the American people safe and ... what's going to uphold our Constitution and our traditions of due process," he said. "And what I'm convinced of is [that] we can balance those interests in a way that makes all of us proud, but also assures that we're not attacked."

February 2, 2009
NY Post Article

Read full post >>

I found this LA Times piece and could not believe that even one liberal was willing to admit this. Here is some of the article:

I don't love America. That's what conservatives are always telling liberals like me. Their love, they insist, is truer, deeper and more complete.

But I've come to believe conservatives are right. They do love America more. Sure, we liberals claim that our love is deeper because we seek to improve the United States by pointing out its flaws.

Fox News' Sean Hannity loves this country so much, he did an entire episode of "Hannity's America" titled "The Greatest Nation on Earth." In that one hour he said, several times, "the U.S. is the greatest, best country God has ever given man on the face of the Earth." One of the surest signs of love is it makes you talk stupid.

Conservatives feel personally blessed to have been born in the only country worth living in. I, on the other hand, just feel lucky to have grown up in a wealthy democracy.

When a Democrat loses the presidential race, real lefties talk a lot about moving to Canada. When Republicans lose, they don't do that.

This doesn't mean I'm not fascinated by American history, impressed by our Constitution or don't appreciate our optimism and entrepreneurial spirit. In fact, I love everything Hannity listed on his TV special other than Madonna. But there are plenty of things I don't like about America: our foreign policy, our religious fundamentalism, our provincialism, our intellectual laziness, our acceptance of sweat suits in public.

I still think conservatives love America for the same tribalistic reasons people love whatever groups they belong to. These are the people who are sure Christianity is the only right religion, that America is the best country, that the Republicans have the only good candidates, that gays have cooties.

I'll never experience the joy of Hannity-level patriotism. I'm the type who always wonders if some other idea or place or system is better and I'm missing out. And, as I figured out shortly after meeting my wife, that is no way to love.

FULL ARTICLE

Read full post >>

A Kentucky law from 2006 says the state Office of Homeland Security lists its initial duty as "stressing the dependence on Almighty God as being vital to the security of the Commonwealth." It details that Homeland Security is ordered to publicize God's protection in reports and post a plaque outside the entrance to the state Emergency Operations Center. The plaque must be an 88-word statement that begins, "The safety and security of the Commonwealth cannot be achieved apart from reliance upon Almighty God."

This was accomplished by a State Representative who is also a Baptist minister. He added this to a floor amendment which was approved overwhelmingly. He said "The time and energy spent crediting God are appropriate."

He also adds "This is recognition that government alone cannot guarantee the perfect safety of the people of Kentucky... Government itself, apart from God, cannot close the security gap. The job is too big for government."

Of course there is opposition. A State Senator says that Homeland Security should worry about public safety threats instead of preaching religious homilies. She also says "It's very sad to me that we do this sort of thing...It takes away from the seriousness of the public discussion over security, and it clearly hurts the credibility of this office if it's supposed to be depending on God, first and foremost."

FULL ARTICLE

Read full post >>

The online matchmaker website has surrendered against a nearly four year lawsuit and is launching a gay website. eHarmony was founded by a evangelical psychologist and initially targeted Christians. It still remains a popular site for Christian singles.

eHarmony announced it reached a settlement with the attorney general of New Jersey, who began looking into the company when a homosexual man filed a complaint in 2005 stating that eHarmony only matched people with the opposite sex.

"According to the settlement, eHarmony will launch a new website, CompatiblePartners.net, aimed solely at the homosexual community. As part of the settlement, eHarmony, Inc. will advertise the website in homosexual media outlets, will allow the first 10,000 users to register free and will pay $50,000 to the attorney general's office and $5,000 to the man who filed the initial complaint. It also will post a statement on the new website saying its matchmaking strategy is based on research involving heterosexual couples and not homosexual couples."

The new site will be separate from the original to prevent any heterosexual person being matched up with someone from the same gender. eHarmony does not feel they broke any discrimination law, but felt the need to settle the case.

Questions:
- Do you think eHarmony made the right decision?
- How does this effect the homosexual agenda in particular gay marriage?

ARTICLE

Read full post >>

Stating that the Republican party needs to be rebuilt is an understatement. However, one of the first moves may be selecting a new RNC Chairman. So far two people have formally announced their candidacy. Former Lt. Governor of Maryland, Former candidate for Senator in Maryland and frequenter of Fox News Channel Michael Steele has announced. The second candidate is the State Chair Saul Anuzis of my home state Michigan. Other people rumored, but are not official are Newt Gingrich and Fred Thompson.

I think Michael Steele is a favorite in this race because of the exposure he gets on Fox News Channel. The fact that Steele is African American is beneficial to the Republican party since that is a group that the Democrats have. I don't know if Steele would be enough to gather some to the Republican party or not. I like Michael Steele, but he wasn't successful in his Senate race, so I don't know what he would do to help rebuild the party.

On the other hand is Saul Anuzis. I like Saul, he has done a great job with using technology such as blogging. He is also a very nice and easy to talk to. However, there are two issues that concern me. First is the fact the Republicans lost control of the House in 2006 and now the Democrats will have the largest majority in the state's history starting in 2009. We also lost a crucial Supreme Court Justice. The second issue which I think is more important because there were other factors in the losses. That issue is how he could not handle national committeeman Chuck Yob. I expect that at the national level there will be more divisive opinion that the chairman will have to be able to control.

As for the other to rumors, I will evaluate them when/if they announce. As for now I simply take it as the Republican base holding on to historic leaders for hope.

Read full post >>

The Republican and Democrat conventions have been on my mind for awhile. As the cameras panned through the audience I watched people screaming and crying over the candidates. Not to mention each respective party putting spin on each other's plans. Each of the candidate's campaigns and followers portray that the other will ruin the country. These thoughts inspired me to write my previous two posts about government's ineffectiveness. We all hear the promises that usually go unfulfilled.

With all of that said, I ask who can really make a difference? Should we place our hope and trust into a politician or political ideals? Absolutely not. Romans 13 says that God established those who are in authority. I enjoy talking about politics as much as anyone else and I believe Christians have a responsibility to vote according to biblical standards. However, let us not lose focus of God's sovereignty and forget that He is in control.

Romans 15:13
"May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust in him, so that you may overflow with hope by the power of the Holy Spirit."

Read full post >>

According to this article, six states have adopted resolutions expressing an apology for their states historic role in slavery. Everyone (with the exception of white supremacists) would agree that slavery was an atrocity in our nation's history. But honesty, what is an apology coming from people that had nothing to do with it going to do. Furthermore, national black leaders not only applaud the gestures, but want more and when I say more I mean reparations to descendants.

What do you think?
Are these resolutions necessary?
Do you support reparations?

Read full post >>

This is a a good reference if anyone does not know what is going on and a bit comical for those that do.

Read full post >>

Read full post >>

I just watched a screening of the documentary "Indoctrinate U". It is about the liberal bias that takes place in the public universities. I recommend everyone watch it. It made me laugh at the ridiculousness of liberals, frustrated at academia, and frightened at the examples that this stuff is really happening.

Something that really made me weary is the segment of race. After all of the ruckus over Obama's pastor's comments, which I think showed the strong racial tension that still exists. After watching I am now aware that this is happening on college campuses. Universities always talk about diversity and equality. Neither is happening. There have been some extreme allegations against people concerning racism that have been proven to be completely false, but not before universities spent thousands of taxpayer's money.

Another example is that some universities have segregated dorms. Here is an article about it. The same people who promote diversity are also depriving it. In my opinion, the most nonracial atmosphere I have witnessed was during my time in the Navy. We were forced to live together and depend on each other.

I am expecting a serious racial tension soon. I hope it does not happen, but it is so obvious after the statements made by Rev. Wright. Everyone was divided and very sensitive to the issue. Do you agree that racism is a big issue? Do you foresee any problems?

Read full post >>

Read full post >>

Here is a glimpse of what Obama hears at his church.
WARNING: Language

If you don't think this matters and it is only by association. Look at some of these statements made in this article. "I don't think my church is actually particularly controversial."-Sen. Obama. "Rev. Wright married Obama and his wife Michelle, baptized their two daughters and is credited by Obama for the title of his book, "The Audacity of Hope."". He has definitely impacted and influenced Obama's life.


UPDATED VIDEO

Read full post >>