Wednesday, July 2, 2008

The 100% CHANGE Man


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
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!

9 comments:

  1. Good article. Outstanding information.

    I especially liked the paragraph that said:

    Then both Bishop T.D. Jakes and Pastor Rick Warren have been Driven to Purposefully Reposition Themselves and endorse Obama hands down.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks Mr. Jones...if that is Melvin Jones of PP I thought you might like that little twist...anyway, how you been?

    God bless.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I just read your blogg regarding Senator Obama. I just can't believe that you have taken his stance totally out of context. It is obvious that you would want somw one in office that does not even want you as an AfricanAmerican. That has voted against everything that would make our schools better, out communities better. that voted against the Dr. King Holiday and is now for doing away with affirmative action in his state. A man that has 8 houses and calls Obaba "elitist." What in the world would one do with 8 houses. A wife that is over the largest beer distributing company in the United States. So you want him in. Interesting

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous~"I just read your blogg regarding Senator Obama. I just can't believe that you have taken his stance totally out of context."

    Exactly what has been taken out of context? Obama's very own words or his actions or both? Please spell it out for me.

    So far as McCain is concerned, I believe that you missed the part where I said that disagreement with Obama does not constitute a vote for MCCain. MCain has many issues as you rightly point out however that does not make Obama any more applealing.

    He uses "straw-man" arguments to argue for inclusion and to argue in support of his agendas and against the bible at every turn. Once such argument is as follows:

    "Moreover, given the increasing diversity of America's population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.
    And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson's, or Al Sharpton's? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount - a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let's read our bibles. Folks haven't been reading their bibles." Senator Barack H. Obama "A Call To Renewal" Washington, DC.

    Who wants to rid the country of non-Christians? I know of NO religious leader within Christianity who says this, yet Obama makes it a talking point as if Christianity has some diversive scheme to overthrow all religious dissenters from Christianity. The truth is that Christianity is heavily legislated against in this country and Christians must stand against bad, unfounded and in many cases immoral laws and legislation.

    Further in the same section of his speech he balances his political and moral arguments seeking to justify his positions:

    "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." Senator Barack H. Obama "A Call To Renewal" Washington, DC

    So his stance is to take NO STANCE until there is a populace that is appeased and religion can't be a consideration. That's stupid!

    Additionally according to him, it's a "dangerous thing" to be committed to the bible and the biblical message???? WHAT?

    He views politics as insular, while at the same time calling strong Christians believers as holding "insular views"...That's garbage.

    His agenda is inclusive and the bible is expendible because he DOES NOT believe in the inerrency of scripture. So what's taken out of context? Absolutely nothing.

    So before blasting the blog or me for being unfair at least lay out a half supportable argument.

    Thanks for visiting, please do come again.

    ReplyDelete
  5. How about this one regarding abortion and asking when a child has human rights?

    "Well, you know, I think that whether you're looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade."~ Senator Barack H. Obama 8/17/2008 Saddleback Church with Pastor Rick Warren

    A potential President is posed with a question concerning over 40 Million American babies and an additional 1500 Black women and babies PER DAY, and he say's the question is ABOVE HIS PAY GRADE?

    What is taken out of context here?

    PLEASE tell me. If nothing else EVERY Pastor that he approaches should make the point clear that he has to do much better than that.

    Blessed.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The sad thing is that as long as a woman wants an abortion, there is no force on earth that will prevent her from having one.

    I have never understood why the so-called Pro-Life Movement cannot accept this fundimental truth and stop using this as some sort of standard by which will we should elect our leaders.

    The issue of abortion is not important. Women's health, protecting our nation from the Republican Agenda, and re-establishing America's good standing in the world is more important than trying to tell women who are making the hardest decision in their lives that they are murderers has nothing to do with that.

    We as Americans need to fight the good fight, by freeing our nation from the long nightmare of greed, destruction, and intolerance.

    Support Senator Obama for his politics. The man already said that he personally believe that abortion is wrong, but that he respects that in the end, it is woman's right to decide what she is going to do.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonoymous~ I don't know if you're the same as the 1st anonoymous but I just wanna ask...are you on drugs or just drunk? Maybe a combination of both?

    You said, "The issue of abortion is not important."

    [What world are you in? How could the Murder of 50 Million PEOPLE be unimportant?]

    Then you say,"We as Americans need to fight the good fight, by freeing our nation from the long nightmare of greed, destruction, and intolerance.

    [Do you mean the same greed, destruction and intolerance that say's that 50Million murdered infants are unimportant? All I see is double standard and incoherent thought.]

    Then you conclude, " The man already said that he personally believe that abortion is wrong, but that he respects that in the end, it is woman's right to decide what she is going to do."

    [OK, then let's respect the right of the murder to commit murder or pedephile the same way. After all there are movements that advocate for both. So let all the TRASH and GARBAGE ethics share in a unified and unfettered platform...ARE YOU SERIOUS?

    That equivocation is almost as great as Obama's...You must be one of his campaign coordinators. Please stay around I would like to hear more. This is interesting.]

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thanks fore all of the info.

    One thing people haven't thought about is the fact that some of those black pastors and bishops might agree with Planned Parenthood President Margaret Sanger. THEY MIGHT WANT TO REDUCE THE BLACK POPULATION IN AMERICA. It might make it easier for them to control their people.

    Forget about actually LEARNING how to lead.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous~ "THEY MIGHT WANT TO REDUCE THE BLACK POPULATION IN AMERICA. It might make it easier for them to control their people."

    [That is yet another perspective that is undiscovered because nobody seems to be asking the right questions or looking at it critically, and the ones that are, are being criticized. Either way it's a mess.]

    ReplyDelete

Please send me an email if you try to post a comment and cannot do so. Dunamis1@netzero.com. Thanks.