The Democracy Dilemma (Part 2)

In my last post, I considered the following scenario – if two candidates were running for President of the United States, and both of them supported abortion, what would you do?

The dilemma here is that we can: 1) vote for the least offensive candidate (assuming he/she has a more “agreeable” stance on the topic, like only supporting instances where the life of the mother is threatened) and still be a party to the murder of innocent children, or 2) don’t vote for either candidate, and leave the election to others. My point in the previous post is that there is no call in the Bible for Christians to be politically active in all instances – Jesus seems to be rather ambivalent about politics altogether (Matthew 22:15-22). The failure to cast a vote for either candidate still leaves the issue in the capable hands of God alone. Do we trust that He has a bigger plan?

This very scenario confronts us in our gubernatorial race in Colorado this November. Democrat John Hickenlooper will face the Republican candidate, Dan Maes, in the election. I’ve seen Dan Maes speak at the Christian Family Conference in Denver this summer – he seemed like a standup guy, supportive of so many of the sides of issues that I favor, like homeschooling and smaller government.

Most importantly, Dan Maes is pro-life. While politics covers many issues, I am most insistent on two topics alone – 1) a firm stand against all forms of abortion and a commitment to overturn Roe v. Wade, and 2) a clear statement that the candidate will not support any legislation that legitimizes homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle. Any candidate who doesn’t support these two points should not bother to seek my vote. They will never get my support, under any circumstances.

But the state gubernatorial race, like the Presidential race, does not contain just one name in each spot on the ballot – there are two. One is for governor and one is for lieutenant governor. And Dan Maes has chosen his lieutenant governor to be Tambor Williams – a clear, pro-choice candidate. Williams does not support the Colorado Personhood Amendment, she has urged former state governors to send funds to Planned Parenthood, and she has voted to oppose a ban on partial-birth abortions (for more on Williams, visit this Colorado Right-to-Life page).

Is Dan Maes committed to a pro-life stance? Consider his words, spoken recently to a pro-abortion outlet:

“People are overestimating the personhood amendment. It simply defines life as beginning at conception. That’s it. Who knows what the intent of it is? They are simply making a statement. That is all I see it as. Do they have another agenda? I don’t know... Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, and people tend to forget that. I would not try to undo that.”

And then, shortly after making this statement, he claimed that he misspoke and “took it back”. I have to ask – how can you misspeak by so great a margin? Could it be that Dan Maes, like so many other politicians, is simply saying whatever he must in order to get elected? In a recent newspaper article, other “conservatives” make it clear that the end justifies the means, when they say that Republicans may have to make compromises if they want to win back the governor’s office.

As a Christian, I am not in a position to make compromises where God’s Word is concerned. And God’s word is clear on the topic of the sanctity of life – “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb…your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.” (Psalm 139:13,16). If Dan Maes does not have the moral character, nor the tenacity to name a pro-life running mate, then he does not get my vote. It appears that Colorado Right-to-Life is withdrawing their earlier support of Maes. In their words, “the only justifiable abortion policy is zero tolerance for child killing.” I agree.

And this brings me back to my earlier point – I believe there are times when we are called upon to vote, and there are times when we are not. Choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil. In November, when I reach the gubernatorial part of the ballot, I will leave it blank – and I will, instead, take a moment to pray – and trust that God is bigger than anything I can do with my elective right. Does God need my vote to make things happen? No. Prayer, and God's leading, will trump mere politics. Isn’t that the very definition of faith?

A time of prayer, instead of political involvement? Think about it – what would Jesus have done?

No News Here – Presidential Candidates Lie To Get Elected

You have probably heard the latest flap over the healthcare debate. The media has been pressing President Obama (through his press secretary Robert Gibbs) to keep his campaign promise and allow the Congressional healthcare debate to be televised on C-SPAN. Obama promised this eight times during his campaign to become President (see all eight on video here). He could not have been clearer about avoiding closed-door sessions where “deals” could be made that were not in the interest of the American people.

And yet, once elected, he has absolutely no intention of keeping his promise.

Like the promise that middle-class taxes will not be raised or the one about posting all legislation publicly on the Internet for 48 hours before voting on it, it was a pledge clearly made with only one real objective – to get Obama elected. I actually think Obama is not much worse than any politician who would run for President. In my experience, they all lie to gain their objective – power and self-glory. Lest you think I’m simply an Obama-basher, I’m relatively certain that we would have seen similar actions from McCain. I’ve already gone on record as being frustrated with George W. Bush, who did little to turn our nation from the curse of abortion, even though he had a high popularity rating AND control of both Houses for a time. Rare indeed is the honest politician who would run for this office…and stick to his or her promises once elected.

Commitments and integrity don’t matter. Personal legacy and victory trump everything.

There have been two White House press briefings on this subject this week. Warning – these will probably make you mad. Maybe we need more anger toward our politicians to make a real difference. Here is the transcript from the Tuesday briefing:

QUESTION: C-SPAN television is requesting leaders in Congress to open up the debate to their cameras, and I know this is something that the President talked about on the campaign trail. Is this something that he supports, will be pushing for?

GIBBS: I have not seen that letter. I know the President is going to begin some discussions later today on health care in order to try to iron out the differences that remain between the House and the Senate bill and try to get something hopefully to his desk quite quickly….

Later in that same briefing, a reporter raised the C-Span issue again:

QUESTION: Okay, just lastly, why can't you answer the C-SPAN question --

GIBBS: I did.

QUESTION: You didn't, because you said --

GIBBS: I said I hadn't seen the letter, which I haven't --

QUESTION: do you need to see a letter? I mean, this is something the President said during the campaign and he talked about he wants everything open on C-SPAN --

GIBBS: Dan asked me about the letter and I haven't read the letter.

QUESTION: Well, I'll just ask you about having it on C-SPAN --

GIBBS: I answered Dan's question and I answered this before we left for the break, Keith. The President's number-one priority is getting the differences worked out, getting a bill to the House and the Senate…

QUESTION: There are a lot of reasons not to do it on C-SPAN -- people could showboat. Does he regret making that statement during the campaign?

GIBBS: No.

Now to Wednesday's briefing – with another question from a different reporter:

QUESTION: During the campaign the President on numerous occasions said words to the effect of -- quoting one -- "all of this will be done on C-SPAN in front of the public." Do you agree that the President is breaking an explicit campaign promise?

GIBBS: Chip, we covered this yesterday and I would refer you to yesterday's transcript.

QUESTION: But today is today and --

GIBBS: And the answer that I would give today is similar to the one --

QUESTION: But there was an intervening meeting in which it's been reported that the President pressed the leaders in Congress to take the fast-track approach, to skip the conference committee. Did he do that?

GIBBS: The President wants to get a bill to his desk as quickly as possible.

QUESTION: In spite of the fact that he promised to do this on C-SPAN?

GIBBS: I would refer you to what we talked about in this room yesterday.

QUESTION: But the President in this meeting yesterday --

GIBBS: And I addressed that --

QUESTION: -- pressed for something that's in direct violation of a promise he made during the campaign.

GIBBS: And I addressed that yesterday.

Another reporter took up the questioning:

QUESTION: Well, does the President think it would be more helpful if this process were more transparent, that the American people could see --

GIBBS: Mike, how many stories do you think NBC has done on this?

QUESTION: Speaking for myself --

GIBBS: Just a guess.

QUESTION: That's not the issue. The issue is whether he broke an explicit campaign promise.

GIBBS: So the answer is --

QUESTION: I deal with the information that --

GIBBS: So the answer is hundreds, is that correct?

QUESTION: Right, but that's got nothing to do with it. I deal with the information, however much or little of it, there is. I'm saying would people benefit by having more information?

GIBBS: Have you lacked information in those hundred stories? Do you think you've reported stuff that was inaccurate based on the lack of information?

QUESTION: Democrats ran against the very sort of process that is being employed in this health care --

GIBBS: We had this discussion yesterday. I answered this yesterday. Is there anything --

QUESTION: But the President met with members of Congress in the meantime --

GIBBS: And he'll do so today.

QUESTION: -- and pressed them to --

GIBBS: Do you have another question?

Which, I guess, is a fancy (and lengthy) way to say, “Get lost. We do what we want.” By the way, all three of my children are taking Logic this year in their homeschool studies, and would recognize Gibbs' avoidance technique as the Red Herring fallacy - where a person introduces something irrelevant into an argument and tries to focus only on that.

Here’s the video of this exchange. Gibbs looks very uncomfortable. I hope this story doesn’t die.

Should We Demand Truth From Politicians?

If anyone still thinks that the media has no bias (and these people have to be a vanishing breed), there can be little doubt after watching what happened this week. More accurately, it’s about watching what didn’t happen this week that points to the bias.

During the presidential campaign of 1988, George H. W. Bush made a pledge during his nomination acceptance speech – “Read my lips. No new taxes.” He gave it a valiant try, but eventually caved to his Democratically-controlled Congress and broke his pledge. The reaction was swift and intense. He was measured against his commitment by the press and the people who voted for him, and his inability to follow through may have cost him the Presidency the second time around.

During the presidential campaign of 2008, Barack Obama made it clear that he would not raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year. This point was driven home time and time again, with the number moving around a bit. But on Monday of this week, when asked specifically if this pledge was still valid, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs basically said “No”. Here is the video of that moment:



I note with some dismay that the press corps seem to be laughing along with his answer. At least they asked the question in a straightforward manner, and some of them even expressed some surprise that the promise is apparently no longer valid. But I have searched the papers and the online news today, and I can’t find these words mentioned anywhere. It’s as if they didn’t happen. Or that people aren’t really interested in holding politicians to promises.

The fault is threefold. The press has a responsibility to publish what happens in politics, and should be doing it in an unbiased manner. I count 191 days since the inauguration of President Obama, just over an eighth of the way through his term, and the fact that his press representative came out and broke his number-one campaign pledge should get some airtime. But I can’t find it in the media (except Instapundit.com, where I first saw this story).

The second fault is in the politicians themselves. They had to know that they were likely to break such a promise when they made it, given all the grandiose government programs that they clearly want to foist upon us. Nationalized health care? Has it really worked anywhere else? Don’t we already have the finest health care in the world – and now we want to go break that? Won’t that cost a lot of money, and where will that money come from? These guys aren’t stupid, and they don’t have stupid advisors. They knew that they would need to raise taxes to pay for their programs. They simply will say anything to get elected, because they lack integrity.

Finally, the fault lies with us if we don’t hold our politicians accountable. The integrity that they require should also be present in us. We should be demanding truth and uprightness from them – not just rolling our eyes and expecting them to lie and cheat. There are certainly times when I feel like giving over to the idea that they are all swindlers and “that is just the way it is”. But this country is worth saving, and it’s our responsibility as citizens to demand the very best from our government. Integrity should be expected, demanded, and rewarded.

I intend to use this as a teaching moment with my kids. “Here is where he made a pledge (the past); here is where is broke that pledge (present); and here is where he paid the penalty (presumably sometime in the future).” We’ll have to stay tuned as to the future and whether or not this story gets told. I don’t want my children to grow up to be politicians, but if they do become leaders of some sort, I want them to be honest ones.

Politicians need to keep their word, and we need to hold them to it. I’m predicting that this event will get more press exposure as time goes on. At every event the President attends, someone should be asking him if he intends to keep his “no new taxes” pledge, or if he is breaking it. Eventually, he is going to answer the question, and seeing him say the words, rather than speaking through a press secretary, will certainly have a greater effect.

Religious Persecution – It’s Not Just For Third-World Countries Anymore

In San Diego county this week, there is news of a pastor and his wife being threatened by county authorities for holding a 15-member Bible study at their home each week. It appears that the authorities got wind of the Bible study and approached the pastor’s wife with some specific questions.

"The county asked, 'Do you have a regular meeting in your home?' She said, 'Yes.' 'Do you say amen?' 'Yes.' 'Do you pray?' ' Yes.' 'Do you say praise the Lord?' ' Yes.'"

As a result, the couple was told that they were in violation of land-use regulations, and that they should "stop religious assembly or apply for a major use permit". I am not making this up – click the link above to see the San Diego news article.

Now, it’s my prediction that this event will go away quietly. There is certainly a lot of blog traffic on this article, and some higher-up at City Hall will see that the best thing for everyone is to write a note of apology to the couple and move on. They certainly will not pursue this any further, for fear of the firestorm that it would bring down.

But here’s what bothers me. It’s the first step toward a future where this kind of religious persecution could happen in our country. The fact that this event got as far as it did is just one more hammer blow for state-mandated control of individual rights. This incident may go away for a year or two, but then another will occur. And then another. And each one may go a little further down the path, until one day, it will be illegal to hold a Bible study in your own home. You think it can’t happen in this country? That may be what the Russian people thought at the beginning of the twentieth century – when they were a Christian nation. But look what happened when the likes of Lenin, Stalin, and Khrushchev came to power. People began dying for their faith, and the Russian nation became known as a godless people.

What should we do? Well, it might be nice to say we should put more Christian leaders into politics and combat the anti-Christian culture. And that may be what God has in mind for some people. But I’m coming to see that God can use evil events for His good purposes. I have no doubt that my own faith would become much stronger if I were told to cease preaching Christ. Indeed, that may be the very thing required to break the mold of mediocrity that I glimpse in our nation. God has used religious persecution to do great things for His kingdom in the past.

And so I choose not to go into politics – but to pray for God’s will to be done in whatever happens in this country over the next few years. In a brilliant article last November, Cal Thomas wrote about this very thing. He advised, rather than continue to pound our heads against the moral corruption that exists in our political system, that we should try something fresh and transformational. We should emulate Christ and “’love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit those in prison and care for widows and orphans,’ not as ends, as so many liberals do by using government, but as a means of demonstrating God’s love for the whole person in order that people might seek Him.” I encourage you to read the article.

I like that. It is the very thing that Christ did when he was here on earth. He didn’t seek power, or election to public office in order to change the culture. Instead, he went about displaying God’s love and truth amongst the world of everyday people.

Our Next Four Years

Today, our nation did something that was once unthinkable. We elected an avowed socialist to the highest government office in our land, a man who admits that killing babies is acceptable, even those who continue to live and breathe outside the womb. He was elected on a thin platform of extending government control to an ever-widening circle of our lives – health care, career, and education. He will be no friend to those of us who treasure schooling our children in our own home. And, he is clearly committed to no god but the false ones that our world has put forth as a lure for men who seek power. There appears to be no true faith in this man, except a faith in his own power and ability.

It seems incredible to me that the majority of people in our land could cast their precious votes for such an individual. When it was clearly demonstrated that he had no significant record of leadership or executive skills, it was ignored. When it was obvious that his speeches were mere platitudes designed to avoid answering any question with specifics, people looked the other way. He broke a promise to campaign with limited public money, as every other candidate has done since the option was created in the 1960’s, and instead chose the path that would allow him to “buy” the election with nearly unlimited funds. And, I must reiterate, unborn babies will continue to die unabated with him in the Oval Office.

Is this a wake-up call for those of us who treasure the words of our founding fathers? It took four years of a weak, near-socialist Jimmy Carter in the late 1970’s to motivate us toward a fresh start and a return to traditional values with Ronald Reagan. Could we be preparing the way for another?

On a positive note, it is during times of oppression and persecution that Christians rise up and proclaim God’s truths most adamantly. We will surely have many opportunities to do so in the next four years. As our individual rights are modified or even taken away, Christians should prepare for battle. We need to harden our resolve against government tyranny (yes, I said tyranny – look up the definition), and insist on God’s direction to be the impetus for our land’s laws once again. More babies will die because of this election, and we need to be on our knees in prayer for the presumptive mothers who still have the choice to keep their children.

We should teach our children what is wrong with this world and what needs to change to make it right, and thus begin to raise up the next generation of leaders and voters. We need to return to the direction of our founding fathers when they said, “God has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation, to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” (John Jay, first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court)

These next four years should serve to sharpen each and every Christian for the battle that lies ahead. History demonstrates that it is during times of persecution that great movements are defined. This may be why God allows leaders to be elected who seem to possess no godly intent of their own. We are in the middle of battle - not a physical one, but one of spiritual proportions. Our nation has strayed from its godly roots to one of selfish and material worship. We need to change this – both in ourselves and in the next generation. Whenever people talk about their parents or grandparents who survived the Great Depression in the 1930’s, we hear about how those affected remain frugal even to this day – all as a result of the lean times that they endured during that decade. We are now in troubled times from a spiritual point of view. My generation, and the next generation that we are raising, need to remember these coming days. They will define the next moral turn that our nation will make – either to one of more government-led depravity and permissiveness, or to one where we realize our failings and turn back to the God of the universe for our leading. Regardless of who we elected as president today, the Lord God is still our ultimate authority. I will seek to obey Him first, and use His commands as the compass for my every move. In doing this, I hope to influence my family, and my nation to follow His principles.

Our renewed battle starts today.

Dealing With Some Political Injustice

I’ve never been a big bumper sticker promoter. I never wear t-shirts that state a political viewpoint. And I rarely put out political yard signs during election season. It’s not that I don’t care about politics; it’s that I see little need to advertise my beliefs publicly. I doubt many people cast their vote for a candidate because of a sticker that they saw on someone’s car.

But this year, my three children are old enough to appreciate the gravity of the political situation and they have been paying attention to the daily news and polls, and how the candidates may affect their futures. So it was no surprise to me that they spent two hours last Sunday afternoon making their own homemade “McCain-Palin” sign to post in our front yard. I gave them some long garden stakes to which they could attach it, and they proudly set it up in the yard. While they are not old enough to vote, they suddenly felt like part of the political process – something that I encourage. And while it was colorful and bold, it was also clearly the work of elementary children who were proud to display their belief.

So imagine our surprise when we woke up two mornings later to find that someone had spray-painted the word “Obama” over their artwork, ruining the sign. The faces of my kids were so sad when they saw this vandalism. It was the first experience they have ever had of someone directly disrespecting their property. It made me sad to see their loss of innocence over this event.

Our family gathered together to talk specifically about the defacement of their sign, and what we could learn from it. While their first reaction was some anger over the event, they began to ask questions about the sense of this act. Don’t these people see that they are violating our free speech? Don’t they have some remorse over entering our private property and vandalizing our sign? Don’t they realize that writing “Obama” on our homemade sign is more likely to drive people away from supporting him as a candidate? I was most proud when one of my children said that we should pray for the person or people who committed the act, in hopes that they might realize their wrong. We did and we all decided that the right thing to do was to make another sign, and park our anger over the loss of the first. A new homemade sign graced our lawn the next day.

Two days later, the same spray paint showed up on their new sign. By the looks of it, we believe it’s likely the work of other kids or teens in our neighborhood. My children’s first reaction was to start writing the words for their next sign. They won’t be suppressed, and they refuse to be angry about it.

But a part of me burns over the injustice. They destroyed artwork created by my own children. Would we not be upset if someone ripped up a picture painted by a first grader that was hanging on the family refrigerator? Wouldn’t we be angry if a stranger smashed the little pottery planter brought home from school by an eight-year-old? Shouldn’t I be able to reserve some judgment for people who would destroy my children’s art and suppress their free speech?

That was my first reaction. But my children’s own example made me think twice about it, because there is something greater to be thankful for in this true story. The vandals are not my children. My children are the ones who are learning to respect the opinion and property of others, and who will keep their anger in check when they are treated unfairly. Knowing this, my own anger fades away, because I have something far more valuable than that first homemade sign in our yard. I have a father’s pride for obedient and respectful children, who will possibly grow up one day to govern with those same principles.

By the way, here is their next response…

Worldview Class – Part 4 – Mixing Politics With Religion

This is a continuation of highlighted topics discussed in a worldview class I am teaching on Sunday morning. The main text for the study is The Battle for Truth by David Noebel. A good deal of this class is also based on personal research.

In Part 3 of this series, we learned that separating the sacred from the secular is an incorrect approach to weighty topics such as psychology, law, and economics. These topics should be considered entirely sacred, where they touch on ethical issues. But, something has happened to me several times in developing the worldview class for my church – I become hesitant to share a topic because it doesn’t seem “biblical” enough.

In developing some quotes and examples, I find myself second-guessing whether or not I should be presenting these in a church environment. This is especially true in the area of politics, which I often find myself addressing. Something inside me still struggles to mix these two. Could it be that my own worldview has been affected by my upbringing – especially where I’ve been taught (incorrectly) about the concept of separation of church and state? I think this is partly to blame for my hesitance in addressing politics in a church setting. A piece of me still thinks of politics as belonging strictly in the “Secular” box.

The apostle Paul was an excellent example of someone who was not afraid to share the gospel in a place other than a typical “church” setting. His speech in Acts 17:16-31 was given in the Areopagus, a kind of Roman high council venue, and a true political situation. Paul preached Jesus crucified and resurrected in this place, without apology. He was well-spoken and convincing in his argument.

‘While Paul was waiting for them in Athens, he was greatly distressed to see that the city was full of idols. So he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there. A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to dispute with him. Some of them asked, "What is this babbler trying to say?" Others remarked, "He seems to be advocating foreign gods." They said this because Paul was preaching the good news about Jesus and the resurrection. Then they took him and brought him to a meeting of the Areopagus, where they said to him, "May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? You are bringing some strange ideas to our ears, and we want to know what they mean." (All the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there spent their time doing nothing but talking about and listening to the latest ideas.)

Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: "Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you.

"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else. From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us. For in him we live and move and have our being.' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.'

Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by man's design and skill. In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead."’

Paul’s example demonstrates that politics and a religious worldview can be presented in the same context. To some degree, our culture has tried to pry these apart and make the claim that they cannot coexist. But it should be understood that God’s grand design flows down to a great number of subjects – even politics. Our founding fathers knew this, and if you still doubt it, go back and read some of their quotes on the subject (from Part 1).

To Worldview - Part 5 - Secular Humanist Theology

Or go back to the main index for all twelve Parts.

***
If you are interested in portions, or all of this twelve part series taught in an engaging, educational fashion, please contact Alan at Banyan Concepts.
***