The 100% CHANGE Man

*HOT------Alternate Christianities, Don't Miss This Debate With An Atheist-------HOT*

One of the most controversial and divisive subjects among ministers, especially in the African-American community, is the election of the next president of the United States and more specifically the endorsement or non-endorsement of self proclaimed "progressive" Senator Barack Obama.

Pastors such as Clenard H. Childress Jr. of Black Genocide.Org have made their dissent known in light of the facts regarding Senator Obama's stances on abortion and homosexual rights.

Other Pastors and ministers such as Kirbyjohn Caldwell on his site

James Dobson Doesn't Speak For Me

has declared the following,

"There was recently a Time Magazine article that implies this website was part of a premeditated plan to attack Dr. James Dobson. Unfortunately, I was never contacted or given an opportunity to comment on the article. Nothing could be further from the truth. This website was created to directly respond to comments made by Dr. Dobson in his June 24 broadcast and to set the record straight about Senator Obama and his deep Christian faith. It was created to respond to Dr. Dobson in a spirit of love and lift up a candidate we think is the best choice for our country. The reason over 10,000 individuals have signed up is because they believe in a positive, affirming vision of the United States, not because they believe in attacking Dr. Dobson. Sincerely, - Kirbyjon Caldwell"

Christian conservatives and fundamentalists such as James Dobson of Focus On The Family, have said, “I think [Obama is] deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own world view, his own confused theology” (Focus on the Family Broadcast). Regarding Senator Obama's political strategies, Dr. Dobson also stated, “And if I [Referring to Senator Obama] can’t get everyone to agree with me, it is undemocratic to try to pass legislation that I find offensive to the Scripture. That is a fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution” (Focus on the Family Broadcast).

Then both Bishop T.D. Jakes and Pastor Rick Warren have been Driven to Purposefully Reposition Themselves and endorse Obama hands down. (Or should I say "Hands Up")

So as we can see there is a firestorm of controversy. On one side, we know we all need CHANGE. Gas prices at all time highs, a war with seemingly no end in sight, a deflating dollar and families under financial siege. Then we also suspect that a terrorist attack is responsible for bacteria infested tomatoes which are suddenly NOT the source of the bacterial infestation at least according to the FDA.

Then there are a host of moral and ethical issues. California and Massachusetts who have ordained homosexual unions and marriages, right in Canada's back yard. Just in case you didn't know, Canadian authorities now consider preaching against homosexuality a crime. Yes, we need CHANGE.

But as I said in my prior prior post, Baracking The Gay Agenda, Can we really say yes to this change? At what price must we have CHANGE? Now don't think for a minute that I am providing any sort of endorsement for John McCain. (or any candidate for that matter)

I have many of the same or similar sentiments as the late Former Presiding Bishop Of The Church Of God In Christ, Bishop Dr. G.E. Patterson who said,

"The Republican, religious right is for every human right except when it comes to the rights of leveling the the playing field of racial equality and seriously addressing the issues of the minority community."

All of this is especially interesting because of what is taking place in the background. On a recent radio show of Janet Parshall's America Mrs. Parshall exposed the current plans of Planned Parenthood to endorse a worthy candidate with over $10 Million Dollars of support.

Now this is the same Planned Parenthood that receives most of it's funding through tax dollars, who gives Senator Barack Obama a 100% Presidential candidate rating (endorsement), has through it's first President, Margaret Sanger, likened children in the African-American community to "human weeds" (This was during their Negro Project in 1939, a statement which by the way, which has never been retracted) and continues to contribute to the decline and population control of Black America. I've stated these facts before, but for those new to this site or just passing by, this is worth restating:

• Under Planned Parenthood 500,000 African-American babies are killed EVERY YEAR in the United States.
• Under Planned Parenthood 1,452 black baby deaths EVERY DAY in the United States.
• Since 1973 Planned Parenthood has been responsible for the DEATH of almost 13 MILLION BLACK BABIES in the United States under the guise of the "legal right"of abortion.

These are additional facts:

• Since 1973 in the African-American community 203,695 people have died of AIDS
• Since 1973 in the African-American community 1,638,350 people have died of CANCER
• Since 1973 in the African-American community 2,266,789 people have died of HEART DISEASE
• Since 1973 in the African-American community 13,000,000 (13 MILLION) people or (BABIES) HAVE BEEN KILLED under the guise of abortion aka a woman's right to choose.

Additional Planned Parenthood figures can be found at One News Now

Because of the rampant social problems including separation of the family by incarceration, and substandard public education, and the inefficacy of the church, the Black community has been devastated. Current statistics confirm that the African-American community is not replenishing it's population as quickly as is necessary to maintain its status as the largest minority group within America. According to census projections and statistical data, the African-American population will continue to decrease for quite some time. In other words, the Black community's annual death rate now meets or exceeds it's annual birth rate. Premature deliveries and miscarriages have increased among African-American women, because abortion has been used as a method of birth control so regularly that the bodies can't handle wanted or desired pregnancies. Abstinence education even within many conservative churches has taken a back seat to condom distribution, holy-hip hop gatherings and other youth activities that insight the flesh. Additionally, based on the various reports that I have read, by 2010, African-Americans are expected to officially be the SECOND largest minority group in the USA.

Now, as of Tuesday July 1st, Senator Obama has committed to expanding President Bush's "Faith Based Initiatives" and asking the community church to focus on the poor and needy in a greater way. He promises to do this if elected with certain unnamed "restrictions" on hiring policies etc.

What is the PRICE for that CHANGE?

I'm sure those "restrictions" will take form in a requirement that institutions of "faith" expand homosexual rights and employment practices without a doubt. Why should we expect differently? Senator Obama has consistently suggested that the church is out of tune with regard to it's message against homosexuality. This is a statement from one of his appearances within the last 12 months,

"I am not willing to have the state deny American citizens a civil union that confers equivalent rights on such basic matters as hospital visitation or health insurance coverage simply because the people they love are of the same sex – nor am I willing to accept a reading of the Bible that considers an obscure line in Romans to be more defining of Christianity than the sermon on the mount." ~ Sen. Barack H. Obama

For those confused about the subject please go to our study on Homosexuality & The New Testament for a biblical review of what Senator Obama says is "obscure line" in the bible regarding this. Either way, to assume that an agenda has not already been set may be fatal for America and further devastating to the the African-American community in particular.

Can we expect to CHANGE the CHANGER?

Many of the ministers I've spoken to assume that we can "make Obama do what we want him to once he's elected". Is that right? Can we expect to CHANGE such a strong willed person, who overcame the obstacle of an atheist father, spiritually lethargic parents, a part racist grandmother, and a church that taught black nationalism "without his knowledge" for over 20 years.

In Obama's 2006 speech, A Call To Renewal delivered in Washington, DC. the Senator addressed many issues and laid out his thoughts as to the roll of religion in both politics and public life. Although I don't intend to impugn him with any of his comments, (no more than he has already impugned himself) there were more than a few things worth noting.

As he discussed Dr. Alan Keys assertions in 2004 that he (Obama) wasn't representing his "Christian values" in his politics, Senator Obama responded as follows:

"But what they didn't understand, however, was that I had to take Mr. Keyes seriously, for he claimed to speak for my religion, and my God. He claimed knowledge of certain truths. [Referring To Keys] Mr. Obama says he's a Christian, he was saying, and yet he supports a lifestyle that the Bible calls an abomination. Mr. Obama says he's a Christian, but supports the destruction of innocent and sacred life. And so what would my supporters have me say? How should I respond? Should I say that a literalist reading of the Bible was folly? Should I say that Mr. Keyes, who is a Roman Catholic, should ignore the teachings of the Pope?"

Now we are at least aware that Senator Obama does not take the bible literally. Then how is his understanding determined? Based on his subjective methodological interpretations or some other standard? These questions are at least worth finding out. So far as the intent to bring religious issues to the forefront, Senator Obama couldn't be more clear:

"...and I think it's time that we join a serious debate about how to reconcile faith with our modern, pluralistic democracy."

Pluralism? Have we asked the effect of pluralism in religion? That's where it seems to be going. Senator Obama also wants to make sure that alternate voices on religion are given a change to proliferate their message:

"Because when we ignore the debate about what it means to be a good Christian or Muslim or Jew; when we discuss religion only in the negative sense of where or how it should not be practiced, rather than in the positive sense of what it tells us about our obligations towards one another; when we shy away from religious venues and religious broadcasts because we assume that we will be unwelcome - others will fill the vacuum, those with the most insular views of faith, or those who cynically use religion to justify partisan ends. In other words, if we don't reach out to evangelical Christians and other religious Americans and tell them what we stand for, then the Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons and Alan Keyeses will continue to hold sway."

This reminds me of the current skeptical teachings regarding the Council Of Nicea on May 20th 325 AD. It is said that the only reason that Christianity exists today and that Jesus is hailed as Lord is because the Council, through Emperor Constantine, snuffed out all opposing voices and made Christianity the official religion of Rome.(This whole argument and more are refuted HERE.) This is the same strategy that Senator Obama takes, by encouraging opposing voices to engage those who hold traditional Christian values so that their "insular views" won't rule the day.

Maybe this strategy gives insight into why Senator Obama would ask Donnie McClurkin to join his campaign tour, only to disassociate himself from Donnie's message of homosexual freedom and deliverance and upstage him later by allowing a homosexual minister to engage the crowd preaching the message of inclusion.---Next thing you know, Donnie is spread all over the internet rumored as a STILL practicing homosexual. All I want to know is what Donnie's opinion is....But strangely enough as it is...I haven't heard from Donnie yet...Have you? I would like to know.

Then this may be the ultimate conflict:

"I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.
Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what's possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It's the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God's edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one's life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing."

It remains to be seen, but one thing I know, ministers are as divided today as the country was along party lines in the Bush-Gore election. Maybe we should go back to really seeking Jesus instead of seeking the "next great wonder". Maybe we should renew our roots of telling the truth and holiness instead of seeking political association and position. We would be wise to remind ourselves of what scripture teaches about this "pluralism"

James 3:1 ~ "My brethern be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation."

Compromise by any other name smells just as sweet. Disservice to Jesus is disservice to Jesus plain and simple.

Joshua 24:14-15 ~ "Now therefore fear the Lord and serve him in sincerity and in truth: and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt; and serve ye the Lord. And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord."

Blessed!