Barack Obama, Pay Grades, and the Right to Life of the Unborn

Tim

He knows our views, but has rejected them. The only thing I believe can help is Divine intervention and our vocal support of the unborn. We must pray and speak for those who can’t speak for themselves.

Your prayers that President-Elect Obama comes to Christ have already been answered:

“I am a Christian, and I am a devout Christian. I believe in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I believe that that faith gives me a path to be cleansed of sin and have eternal life. But most importantly, I believe in the example that Jesus set by feeding the hungry and healing the sick and always prioritizing the least of these over the powerful. I didn’t ‘fall out in church’ as they say, but there was a very strong awakening in me of the importance of these issues in my life. I didn’t want to walk alone on this journey. Accepting Jesus Christ in my life has been a powerful guide for my conduct and my values and my ideals.”

-Barack Obama in “Christianity Today”

Jack(?),

I think we should heed the words of the Roman historian Pliny:

“The common people find all religions to be true. The philosopher finds all religions to be false. The politicians find all religions useful.”

I fear that may be the case not only with the President-Elect, but many, many other politicians of the past and in the present.

Also, it would seem to me that if one seriously considers the mandates plainly presented in biblical Christianity one would have to lean heavily toward what Malcolm Yarnell has stated above.

That being said; Let us present another scenario. Let us say the President-Elect is, in fact, a born again Christian.

If that is the case there is definitely something lacking in his walk with the Lord according to his own testimony. He stated July 17, 2007 at a Planned Parenthood meeting that the “first thing” he would do if elected president would be to “sign the Freedom of Choice Act.”

Jack, the Freedom of Choice Act, if signed into law will, according to many, cost an additional 125,000 American children their lives in 2009 alone.

Jack, would you not agree that if a man is a born-again believer in Christ that he is in immediate and diametric opposition to his Lord and his God if he supports the Freedom of Choice Act, and would he not be much more in opposition to biblical Christianity if he was actually the Christian who signed FOCA into law?

Therefore, Jack, I say to you if the President-Elect is a Christian he has promised to do what even pagans have refused to do. Did not Paul admonish the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 5 that a man was doing what “is not so much as named among the Gentiles that one should……”

Jack, if the President-Elect is a Christian then one can only say:

It is reported commonly that there is “signing” among you, and such “signing” as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should sign the Freedom of Choice Act.

And ye are puffed up, and have not rather morned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you……

Jack, if the President-Elect is a Christian then those of us who are of the same persuasion must hold him accountable and prayerfully seek the movement of God in his life that he not sign FOCA into law.

Otherwise, we fail our Lord as did our brothers in the past in Corinth.

Let us not fail in our accountability to Christ. Let us all, who claim the name of Christ, rise up and let the President-Elect know that the blood of the innocent is not a commodity to be traded in for the sake of winning an election.

Let us tell him it is sin and he must repent before Holy God or he is going to lead this nation to absolute destruction.

Jack, would you agree that abortion is murder and enough blood has been spilled on the altars of lust and greed and it needs to end and not be increased as will FOCA if the President-Elect signs it into law?

cb

Tim,

It is in the works even this moment.

cb

Brother CB wrote:

“Let us not fail in our accountability to Christ. Let us all, who claim the name of Christ, rise up and let the President-Elect know that…”

Let us also learn from the earliest Christian churches as described in the Book of Acts.

In the midst of all of the excesses of the Roman Empire they did they “rise up” to campaign against the social issues of their day such as inhumane gladiatorial contests, infanticide and abortion?

Or were they urgently focused on fulfilling The Great Commission and The Great Commandment?

“As for me and my house, we will serve The Lord.”

In His Service,

-jack-

Malcolm,

In Psalm 51 David is speaking of his utter sinfulness before God. He is saying in strong terms he was always sinful, not making a case for when the spirit enters the womb.

Jeremiah 1:5 doesn’t say “when” in the womb the prophet was known by God.

I didn’t know that our modern society killed mentally unstable people.

Human science is something God created man with the capacity to develop and (by man being created in God’s image) is most certainly the rational way in which God understands the universe he created.

C.B.

Should couples between the ages of 45 and 55 stop having sex? For you see at that time the woman still has her “cycle” but the womb is no longer “warm” enough for the zygote to implant. Are such couples “murderers?” Where does the Bible speak out against this? It doesn’t. So how can it be wrong? My original post is simply the logical implications of this.

Also, I replied too quickly to Dr. Yarnell’s post. I agree with the quote of Muggeridge. But I don’t see how it applies to my original post.

R. Grannemann,

1. By “couples” I am certainly sure you mean “married couples” no doubt.

2. There have been many married women over 45-55 who have borne babies.

3. Frankly, it does not matter what married couples do or do not do at any age relating to the question you ask.

The issue is that we as a nation stand before Holy God with bloody hands because America has raised up unholy altars to the hedonistic gods of lust and greed.

The blood of 50,000,000 children flows from those altars of greed and lust where Americans have sacrificed their children, their honor, their character, their virtue and their faith.

4,500 children a day are sacrificed on those altars while politicians sanction it and Christians stand in silence and watch it or play silly word games to justify it.

Whatever the case, the fact remains we are a bloody nation.

cb

Alex,

I do not have to convince you of anything. I simply am accountable to state truth. You have every right to believe as you wish. The problem is that what you think is right is very bloody indeed.

As far as “spectacularly missing the point” is concerned, it was me that made the point in the first place. You are simply in opposition to it and nothing more.

Back in 1971 the SBC had the same opposition to the point as do you now.

Thank God we have repented. The problem is that there will always be those who oppose truth as do you now.

Therefore, those of us who actually believe Scripture and see reality must continue to cry: Abortion is wrong.

Alex, I will give you this. The loudness of the cry is not really the issue. Truth is the issue. I know I am telling the truth. You may believe what you please. For after all you do have that right, no matter the cost to those who can not yet speak for themselves and possibly never will.

That, Alex is the sadness of the issue and that is the point.

cb

I believe abortion is wrong. All the games we play with semantics don’t mean a thing. If we know a woman is with child, and we take measures to deliberately snuff that life out, we are committing murder, and murdering the innocent will not go ignored by the One who created it.

CB is right when he calls this a process of greed. The reason this issue has become so passionate is because abortion is a multi-billion dollar a year industry. Those profiting from it have turned it into a privacy issue, but the reality is that it is all about the money.

Several years ago a man put it like this:

“I find it hard to just ignore, the murdered unborn children,
Yes times have changed, but still God warns, you shall not take a life.
I want to save a life today, I want to keep one alive for my Father, Who will avenge the blood
Of weak and helpless ones someday – whose lives are spilled out like water, Lambs in the slaughter, and each one is handmade by Jesus.”

The only thing I might question in the original post is the following statement:

“On inaugural day, executive orders that helped protect unborn children around the world will be reversed by our newly elected president. Federal money will be allowed to flow to abortion mills around the world.”

Unless you count military bases, I don’t think that President Obama will have the power to affect abortion laws around the world, just in the United States. At least not yet, anyway.

Vol,

You are so right. You have a great way of stating the obvious. “It ain’t rocket science.”

JasonK,

Well said. I had not mentioned the specifics of the financial gain. Abortion is big business and the blood of the innocents has made many people rich.

Robin’s point is true about tax dollars going out of the country to fund abortions in other places. Planned Parenthood has been and will be again a great promoter of this funding if FOCA is signed into law.

cb

Dr. Yarnell,

(1) You referenced a “true church” twice in your statement (#5) responding to the “Christianity Today” article with Obama’s testimony concerning his Christian faith. Would you please define for me (us) what do you mean by the term “true church”?

(2) If Obama’s confession, or his testimony of salvation or commitment to Christ included a clear statement regarding his confession of Jesus as Lord, would that settle the question or nail down “The key to understanding whether the President-Elect is truly a Christian”?

(3) Is the trinity Church in Chicago a “true church” from your vantage point or based on your definition? Would you name examples of 2 or 3 true churches in order to help my understanding?

(4) If a person “confesses with their mouth the Lord Jesus, and believes in their heart that God has raised Jesus from the dead” and are genuinely born again by the Spirit of God, but is not a member of a “true church” by your definition, is that person truly a Christian?

(5) If a person is genuinely biblically saved, but believes that there should be no governmental laws or policies that outlaw abortions, does that make their genuine, biblical salvation suspect from your perspective?

By the way, I was glad to see you in Atlanta, and I greatly admire and appreciate you passion for Christ, and your service to the SBC and all of her entities.

Because of Sarah Palin’s commitment to Constitutional Amendments against gay marriage and abortion and her successful experience as an executive and fiscal conservative, I voted for Palin and McCain. Yet, unless you give me some clear biblical reason, as to why not, I see no reason to question the legitimacy of Obama’s salvation.
I await your response.

William,

For one thing, the Church that Obama comes out of believes in Liberation theology…which is a works based theology. Secondly, Obama is pro gay, pro abortion, and I believe that he made some “many ways to God” type comments on Oprah…did he not? I’m having a hard time remembering, but it seems to stick out in my mind. Anyway, I have a hard time believing that anyone is a true Believer in Christ who is pro gay and pro abortion. I would seriously doubt that Obama really knows the Lord. I’m not saying that he definitely does not know the Lord. Only he and God know that for sure. But, I’d say that his views dont sound much like a true Believer.

David

Dr. Yarnell,

You are correct, President elect Obama’s claims regarding abortion are a direct contradiction to the inerrant word of God.
However, would you please answer the question, is it theoretically possible to hold an incorrect theological view regarding abortion, while yet confessing Jesus as Lord according to the full meaning of “Lord”? Would you please in bullet form, describe the church that would meet your approval for President Obama? Is church membership and attendance absolutely necessary for salvation? What kind of church is “worthy of association” from your perspective?

I await your response.

1 John seems to have laid out the terms for giving a positive response to your primary question regarding Mr. Obama’s salvation. Unfortunately, the terms as I understand them have led to a negative response. I can do no other and no better than refer back to Scripture.

Brother CB asks:

“Jack(?), Do you actually think our Lord Jesus would not speak our against abortion today? Do you actually think Peter, James, John and Paul would not speak out against abortion today?”

-Based on the Biblical accounts of Jesus, Peter, James, John and Paul… NO.

Which was entirely the point of my original post when I asked “In the midst of all of the excesses of the Roman Empire they did they “rise up” to campaign against the social and political issues of their day such as inhumane gladiatorial contests, infanticide and abortion? Or were they urgently focused on fulfilling The Great Commission and The Great Commandment?”

To be clear, I believe the SBC Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission diverted money and resources from what should be our primary focus (The Great Commission) when it took a “pro-choice” position — just as I feel the money and energy currently devoted tothe “pro-life” movement diverts us from our mission to fulfill The Great Commission today.

And — while it is good to see in the new topic above this one that the Southern Baptists of Texas have passed a resolution endorsing a “Great Commission Resurgence”– that it is even necessary for a group who call themselves “Baptists” speaks volumes about where we are today.

Jesus Christ focused on the salvation of men’s souls until he spoke his last words on the cross.

-We cannot – and should not – do anything less.

-jack-

Dwight,

There should be a “D” before that “wight”

Sorry:-) I sound like Elmer Fudd

cb

Jack(?)

If President-Elect Obama does, in fact, sign the Freedom of Choice Act as his first action when he becomes President Barack Obama that one action will do the following:

1. Eliminate state laws that limit abortion.
2. Allow abortion-on-demand for all nine months of pregnancy.
3. It will invalidate pro-life laws passed since the 1973 passing of Roe v. Wade.
4. It will invalidate the ban on partial-birth abortions.
5. It will invalidate the ban on the federal funding of abortions.
6. It will invalidate the ban of abortions in government operated hospitals.
7. It will invalidate parental notification laws.
8. It will invalidate laws on waiting periods before a person has an abortion.
9. It will invalidate conscience laws.

There is much more this terrible action will do but surely the above should be enough to make one see the “clear and present danger” in the Freedom of Choice Act if it is signed into law. Many say that an additional 125,000 American children will die in 2009 added to the 1,300,000 who are already going to die as a result of Roe V. Wade being the law of the land.

How can any man of God not be against the Freedom of Choice Act?

cb

Bro. Dwight

It was good to speak with you earlier. I appreciate your kind words.

I cannot answer for Dr. Yarnell, but I will try to answer some of your questions.

First, I believe Thomas White has written an excellent paper on what defines a true church (“What Makes Baptism Valid” at Baptisttheology.org). In it he states that three ingredients are necessary for a New Testament church. (1) The gospel must be preached (2) The ordinances must be administered (3) Believers intentionally gather. I believe this is biblically sound.

Second, anyone’s confession must be the result of a changed life produced by the Holy Spirit. That does not mean they are perfect, but according to Christ the changed life is not one that practices “lawlessness.” (Matt. 7:21-23) That is a present participial verb which would indicate a non-repented continuous rebellion towards the commands of Christ. Would you not agree that a president who promotes and provides means to murder babies is one who practices lawlessness? Would you not break fellowship with this person and not want him to be an active member in your church?

Third, I cannot say whether TUCC is a true church since I am unable to be there weekly to see if the three areas of criteria previously mentioned are actually happening.

Fourth, if someone is genuinely born again I don’t believe there will be an issue with them being a member of a church. Under normal circumstances, a purposely isolated Christian from the local body is a New Testament oxymoron. Whether Obama is seeking a church in DC remains to be seen.

Fifth, and again, if someone has been “genuinely biblically saved” I would not deny their salvation, but I believe the church is mandated to break fellowship with them if they continually participate in the murder of the unborn.

I don’t know if this fully supplies answers to your questions. I hope our discussion on the phone will fill in some of the blanks. Dwight, again thank you and you are always welcomed here.

Well, Jack(?),

As far as I know there is no legislation or action before our nation to lift any restrictions to, at will, “abort” the planet.

Therefore, in my opinion, I think the Freedom of Choice Act, which will lift any and all restrictions on the abortion of unborn Americans should be the primary focus of called men of God other than, of course, the living out, preaching, teaching and sharing the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. (Who, by the way hates abortion)

cb

Brother Jack,

Have been following this from afar. I cannot help but comment on your path that you seem to want to travel.

You say;
To my left are brethren focused on “Environmental Justice” and whose rallying cry is “Save The Planet!”

I am trying to walk the middle path, focusing solely on his charge to “Save The People!”

Would you not agree that “Save the Unborn” and “Save the People” is the same rallying cry? While “Save the Planet”, is coming more from a group that learned basic values from a purple dinosaur named Barney.

Blessings,
Tim

Bro. Robin,

Thanks for responding clearly and specifically to my questions.

First if what Dr, Yarnell meant by the term “true church” (comment #5) is what you report, I have no problem with Dr. Yarnell’s use of the term “true church.” From what I’ve been told and just no longer than yesterday from a professor at Moody Bible Institute in Chicago, the Trinity Church in Chicago does preach the orthodox, historic, biblical gospel and actually gives evangelistic and evangelical altar calls, of which Barack Obama responded one Sunday over twenty years ago. They also administer the ordinances and intentionally gather. Therefore, according to your reporting of Thomas White’s paper and Dr. Yarnell’s reference to a “true church” the Trinity Church in Chicago would meet that qualification. I nor David Worley is an expert on Black liberation Theology, but his assertion that Liberation Theology is a works based theology” is a gross misrepresentation of what Black Liberation Theology truly is. Black Liberation Theology is similar to the mission emphasis taking place in Dr. Johnny Hunt’s church in Woodstock, Ga., “ Love Out Loud” where you combine meeting practical needs, sharing the gospel and in the case of Black Liberation Theology addressing social justice issues. Every Black Church in America that I’m aware of addresses social injustice issues, they seldom refer to this as liberation theology, but it is commonly addressed and it does not contradict the biblical gospel, but rather it is viewed as a part of it that is often neglected by the Anglo church in America ( Amos 5:12,Luke 4:16-18).

Second, Robin, great questions: “ Would you not agree that a president who promotes and provides means to murder babies is one who practices lawlessness? Would you not break fellowship with this person and not want him to be an active member in your church?” If we are calling into question Barack Obama’s salvation because he practices “lawlessness” based on his support for the Freedom of Choice Act ( which I find reprehensible) and partial birth abortions etc., would we not also have to call into question the salvation of the SBC constituents who voted in favor of the pro-choice position in 1974, Al Gore and Bill Clinton who supported partial birth abortion laws, the Southern Baptist Convention who supported slavery, segregation, Jim Crow Laws and the SBC churches who would not allow Blacks to become members including FBC Dallas? Would not these persons and institutions be guilty of “Lawlessness” and we call their salvation in question as well?

Third, I’ve already addressed the view of a Moody Professor regarding Trinity being a “true church” who has been there. As you know Moody is a “true evangelical Anglo institution.”

Fourth, I agree, in the book of Acts all that were saved were added to the church. But because we believe that “we are saved by grace through faith, it is a gift of God not of works”( Eph.2”8,9), I still would like an answer to the question if a person is genuinely born again but chooses not to go to church for whatever reasons, is this a theoretical possibility? Can a person be genuinely born again and not attend Church? I’m curious as to your opinion.

Fifth, Bro. Robin, I appreciate your perspective. But I find it interesting that the SBC nor their local SBC churches never broke fellowship with Bill Clinton or Al Gore and they “ continually participated in the murder of the unborn” why are you holding Obama’s “Church” to a standard that the SBC nor Immanuel Church in Little Rock or Al Gore’s SBC church was not held to? Robin, I’m concerned that if SBC leaders hold Obama to a different standard as it relates to questioning his salvation, or his church, than they held Bill Clinton and Al Gore to, it could set race relations back many years and that would be tragic. The Immanuel Church in Little Rock never disciplined Bill Clinton and Clinton credited the “conservative” pastor of Immanuel DR.W.O. Vaught for shaping his views regarding abortion.
Thanks again for responding to my questions and for the length of my response.
Dwight

Dwight,

I have been away today.

I thank you for the answers you gave. I also must admit I pretty well knew how you stood on this issue. You have a high view of Scripture and people with a high view of Scripture and who desire to fulfill the Great Commission in its entirety are against abortion and know its dangers.

The actual year you speak of was 1971 in St Louis.

As for the sovereignty of God; I not only believe that it was within God’s sovereignty that Barack Obama won the election, but it was within God’s sovereignty that Jimmy Carter won also.

That is not the issue for me. The issue is I must stand for the unborn no matter who is president. The fact that President-Elect Obama has promised to sign FOCA means I, and all other true men of God must become even more vocal in our opposition to abortion and infanticide.

Dwight, I have been reading a lady for the last few months who has a far greater audience that I ever will and she expresses my sentiments very well.

Read the following and tell me what you think. I think she is Ten Ring at a thousand yards.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr’s Niece: Abortion Means Obama Doesn’t Fulfill Dream

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
November 11, 2008

Washington, DC

“The niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. says Barack Obama doesn’t fulfill her uncle’s dream despite his election last week as president. Dr. Alveda King says Obama’s pro-abortion position makes it so the civil rights struggle is not complete because unborn children are killed in abortion.

Alveda King told LifeNews.com on Tuesday that the civil rights struggle for unborn children continues and noted that abortion adversely affects the black community.

“The election of an African American president sends a powerful and historic message that what was previously unthinkable can become reality,” King said.

“The battle for equal rights has reached a major milestone, but Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s dream of full equality remains just a dream as long as unborn children continue to be treated no better than property,” she added.

While Obama has talked about reducing abortions and entering into common ground discussions about abortions involving both sides of the debate, King says his rhetoric and record don’t match and that Obama will increase abortions as president.

“President-elect Obama has promised actions that will only increase the number of abortions,” she said and added that pro-life advocates “must promise to redouble our efforts to resist anti-life proposals, speak up for the babies, and, above all, pray.”

“We must pray with persistence and love that, in God’s time, what is now deemed unthinkable will become reality – that all our brothers in sisters, from conception to natural death, will be protected in law and welcomed in society,” King concluded.

“The elections are over. The pro-life battle begins anew.”

Dwight, Dr. Alveda King has spoken much in the last several months about this matter. I have tried to keep up with what she has said. I agree with her position.

cb

Dwight

Thanks for the phone call. Concerning my last paragraph, I was focusing on what you said here, “why are you holding Obama’s “Church” to a standard that the SBC nor Immanuel Church in Little Rock or Al Gore’s SBC church was not held to? ” I thought you also meant this in reference to abortion when you said later, “Robin, I’m concerned that if SBC leaders hold Obama to a different standard as it relates to questioning his salvation, or his church, than they held Bill Clinton and Al Gore to, it could set race relations back many years and that would be tragic.” I did not realize you only meant “salvation” since both sentences addressed standards. I melded the two concepts together. My mistake.

Again, thanks for the phone call.

Robin

Dwight,

I can echo what CB said about the SBC and Clinton. The vast majority of the SBC didnt like Clinton due to many things, and one of the biggies was the abortion issue. A lot of SBC people either wanted Clinton and Gore out, or wished that they would claiming to SB’s.

And, I questioned whether Clinton really knew the Lord as well. He was pro gay agenda, pro abortion, and had very liberal views about the Bible…not to mention his lifestyle. I doubt that Mr. Clinton knows the Lord. I dont know for sure, but I doubt it….like I doubt that Mr. Obama knows the Lord. He might. But, I doubt it.

And, Dwight, true liberation theology is a works based theology. It’s all about living for a cause, even dying for a cause. It’s about earning salvation thru liberating the oppressed, whoever that may be. I have heard people who are into this theology say that you have to earn your salvation by living for a cause just like Ghandi and Jesus did…even dying like they did, for the cause. Is that not works?

Now, if I have misunderstood all the talk at the website of the Trinity Church about liberation and redistributing the wealth and their commitment to Africa and such, then I do apologize. It just sounded a lot like the liberation theology that I’ve heard before.

Anyway, Dwight, I rejoice that the racial barrier has been broken concerning the President. I just wish that it would have been a more worthy person that had broken it. I voted for Alan Keyes back when he was running for the Republican ticket back in…when was that?

Also, Dwight, do you think that a man who is for the gay agenda and for abortion is right with God?

David

Dwight,

I made comment #47 simply to show consistency in my position. I really don’t care about the President-Elect’s ethnic background. I consider him dangerous (Most dangerous man in America) due to his worldview and his platform which, for me, is basically his position on abortion. It truly is a barbarian position.

My dream team in 2012 is Condoleezza Rice and Sarah Palin. They can toss a coin as to who is Prez and who is Vice Prez. I do want Condoleezza to change her position on abortion. I think she would if the right people talked to her.

cb

I agree that churches have an extremely important role to play. I also believe that government – through compassionate legislation like Shuler is pushing – has a role to play as well in lowering the abortion rate.

I do not support FOCA.

Nor do I think that Obama should sign FOCA.

I don’t think he will. I believe that it is unfortunate that Planned Parenthood and other pro-choice organizations have as much influence over the Democratic Party as they do. Both Parties have their sleazy interests groups that national candidates feel they must pay lip-service to.

We’ll have to wait and see what happens. I’m not convinced that the Act is even constitutional but that’s a different discussion.

On the subject of Alveda King:

I must say that I’ve been inspired by quite a few pro-life advocates, usually advocates of a consistent ethic of life. I’ve also been inspired by quite a few Black leaders especially the writings of Dr. King and through my time working with John Lewis.

However, I’m not inspired by Alveda King. I’ve heard her speak at least four times in the past 5 years. Alveda King had two abortions and even contemplated having a third abortion. Actually, she did more than contemplate that third abortion. She asked Daddy King Sr. for $$ for the abortion and He said No. Otherwise, she would have had 3 abortions.

I can forgive her. But when she told her life-story, there was no remorse or sadness in her voice. Her story is more likely to leave one disgusted than it is to inspire a person to the pro-life cause. Frankly, I found it quite odd listening to a woman who had 2 abortions lecture folks on the alleged evils of pro-choice politicians. Alveda King is completely deserving of forgiveness. But she is not deserving of the moral authority which others have granted her (see LifeNews)

I just read through the comment stream here and I felt a desire to weigh in.

First of all, Malcolm Yarnell’s comments in #5 and #27 are very troubling. He now seems to be saying that salvation is connected to membership in a “true church.” So, if this is what he is saying, it appears that the baptism argument that we were having a couple of years ago involving the IMB was more than just symbolic. Having read Dr. Yarnell’s words over the years, I know that he feels that a “true church” is one that is baptistic. Are we now to wonder if he is questioning the salvation of those who are not in his version of a “true church?” Would this mean that Methodists and Presbyterians are in mortal danger? Perhaps Dr. Yarnell does not take it that far, but if he does not, then his logic is lost on me. What do you mean, Dr. Yarnell? Please inform us.

As for his interpretation of 1 John, Rev. McKissic sufficiently brought home the application of that. If we are going to say that people might not be Christians if they affirmed abortion, then we also have to say that our Baptist forefathers who affirmed segregation, Jim Crow, slavery, etc. might not be Christians either. 1 John says that if you do not love your brother, then the love of God is not in you. Baptists got away with not loving their brother because many taught that blacks were less than fully human, so they didn’t have to love them. If we are going to hold this position and apply the standard of 1 John to Barack Obama, then we have to do more than just say that our forefathers were wrong, as Robin Foster says. We also cannot just say that that was in the past, as C.B. says. You can’t make the argument about those who claim to be Christian supporting abortion now without also making the argument about those who claimed to be Christians supporting slavery, Jim Crow, and racism then. It just doesn’t wash.

C.B.’s quote of Dietrich Bonhoeffer was excellent. But, apply that statement to SBC churches in the 1950’s and 1960’s and you can make the same argument. They were silent and history (and God, I believe) has judged them. It displays our ignorance when we repeatedly say that we wish we could go back to the 1950’s. Do we really want that?

Who here is willing to say that the vast majority of Southern Baptist churches were founded by sinners and reprobates who knew not Christ nor His salvation? Who here is willing to say that the SBC itself was founded by lost people and was led by non-Christians up until recent days? Unless you are willing to say that, you better think twice about applying that standard to those who are pro-choice and claim to be Christians, lest you add works to grace and fall guilty of what Dr. Yarnell claims for Trinity Church. He has a point if he is talking about Obama’s confession, but to bring in his stance on abortion and question his salvation is treading on dangerous ground.

As for me, I do not doubt the salvation of our Baptist forefathers over the race issue. Like Robin, I believe that they were terribly wrong and I praise God that we have begun to rectify our faulty positions. But, that means that I cannot use the abortion issue today to delineate the salvation line, lest I add works to faith. I can believe that those who claim to be Christians, yet are pro-choice, are in grave error and are disobeying God, but I dare not question their salvation on those grounds, lest I also question the salvation of the entire SBC on the grounds of racism. We must be consistent.

By the way, not that I care about justifying myself before anyone here, but more because I don’t want to muddy the waters of this debate, I believe that abortion is a heinous crime and that it is the murder of a baby. I believe that life begins at conception and that abortion is our great national sin. Like Big Daddy, I am furious with Republicans for not doing more to stop it and feel that they used the issue to gain and maintain power. They have answered for their negligence.

Also,

Who said anything about going back to the 1950s?

cb

The issue is FOCA being signed into law, Alan.

I have tried to stick to that here as much as possible.

If you want to help come to the convention tomorrow at FBC Montgomery and support my resolution.

Then write your governmenrt reps. as have I.

cb

Tim,

I asked Dr. Yarnell questions about his statements. Based on what he has said in the past about Baptist churches and now what he is saying about the “true church,” I have questions about his intent. I didn’t have those questions before I read his statements. Any thoughts that I have on the matter are only from reading what he has written.

Do I think that Dr. Yarnell believes that only Baptists go to heaven. No. I do not. But, his statements on “true churches” and his apparent linkage of a “true church” to the salvation of Barack Obama brings in a great deal of confusion on the matter, at least for me. I’d rather ask some questions and have something like that cleared up than I would to go on and assume something one way or the other.

When we are talking about people’s salvation, it is a big deal. There are definitely ways that we can tell if a person is saved, with their confession being one of them. I have some problems with Obama’s confession. If someone was joining my church with that confession, I would explain the gospel to them more clearly. But, the “true church” thing is what tripped me up.

If I am misreading something, perhaps you can explain it to me?

CB,

I did not read your original posts on FOCA. It was late and I just read this one. As for FOCA, I agree with you completely and believe that Obama needs to be opposed on that issue. Murdering babies is an abomination and it should cause all of us to be horrified. The fact that it does not is to our shame.

Bart Barber, Jack, and Dr. Yarnell brought in the issue of Obama’s salvation in comments #3, 4, and 5. Dwight McKissic dealt with the same line of thinking repeatedly. I took up their discussion and moved on from yours. Sorry for contributing to the hijacking of the post.

Big Daddy,

BTW, about George Bush, I’d agree that he could’ve and should’ve done more to stop abortion. But, when facing a congress controlled by Democrats, it’s makes it just a little bit hard to do what you want to do.

Here’s an article from the International Herald Tribune that might shed light on how things go….

“A last-minute Bush administration plan to grant sweeping new protections to health care providers who oppose abortion and other procedures on religious or moral grounds has provoked a torrent of objections, including a strenuous protest from the government agency that enforces job-discrimination laws.

The proposed rule would prohibit recipients of federal money from discriminating against doctors, nurses and other health care workers who refuse to perform or to assist in the performance of abortions or sterilization procedures because of their “religious beliefs or moral convictions.”

It would also prevent hospitals, clinics, doctors’ offices and drugstores from requiring employees with religious or moral objections to “assist in the performance of any part of a health service program or research activity” financed by the Department of Health and Human Services.”

Big Daddy, you do you reckon will oppose that move by Bush? And, does he have enough power in congress to pass things like this thru?

Also, a lot of us voted for Bush because we didnt like the alternative…not because we were so crazy over Bush, and not because we believed him to be a Believer. In fact, I really have my doubts about Bush being a true Believer due to theologically Church he belongs to, and due to the vulgar language he uses from time to time, and largely due to his view that all religions are trying to get to the same God! I heard him say that one with my own ears. So, I seriously doubt that Mr. Bush truly knows the Lord….do you?

Big Daddy, thus, my objection to Mr. Obama being President has nothing to do with his skin color. It has everything to do with his world view and values and beliefs. Give me a good, conservative, God fearing, black man to vote for President, and I’d vote for him….without hesitation…just as I did for Alan Keyes back in the day. But, if you think that I should be happy about Obama being President just because a black man has finally been elected President…well, I’m glad that the racial barrier has been broken….but, I cant be happy about a liberal, socialistic, pro gay, pro abortion man being President.

In fact, it makes me ask the Lord to be patient with us.

David

David: Yet President Bush was the speaker at the Convention twice.

I too got the same thing from Dr. Yarnell’s statement that Alan Cross did. It is a statement he has made in his speeches and his papers. I would like to hear from Dr. Yarnell what he meant.

Debbie,

I didnt invite him, nor would I have invited him. Although, it is nice to hear the leader of the free world take the time to speak to a bunch of SB’s. And, he always spoke so positively to us.

David

Thank you for your response, Malcolm. Ron did help me understand better what you were getting at. I do not think that you are a Landmarkist, which is why I said above that I do not think that you think that only Baptists are going to heaven. It also comforts me to know that you are not trying to look into people’s hearts. We are warned against trying to separate the wheat from the tares.

Your comments caused some questions to arise in my mind and I am grateful that you took the time to answer them. Thank you.

All,

I really think comments # 64 and 65 are extremely valid arguments from a well-rounded New Testament Christianity in its relation to a strong and accurate and biblical ecclesiology.

There is just too much church-lite, watered down, my-mystical-private-interpretation, up in the twilight, authority-absent, accountability-obscure , confessional-less ecclesiology floating around inside of a newly designed SBC “tent” that is stretched so thin the smoke from hell passes right through it trapsyin’ around that says: “Y’all come on in cause it don’t matter what you believe as long as you can say “I love Jesus” with a half-way straight face.” And it is very sad. And I mean sad, indeed.

cb

CB,

No one is saying that our ecclesiology need not be strong. But, a strong ecclesiology traditionally does not mean that we are deciding who is actually a Christan and who is not based on their behavior regarding abortion or other social issues. We can have a really strong, tight, Baptist church and exercise church discipline while also recognizing that there are those who are possibly truly saved but are not walking with the Lord or are in rebellion. We would discipline those people, not declare that they are not Christians. There was a time in my own life when I was out of church and any outside observer would not have considered me a Christian. But, I was. I was running from God and ignoring the great salvation that He had granted me years before. I was miserable and God eventually drew me back to Himself.

I don’t think that a watered-down approach is helpful either. But, it seems that we need to be careful when we are saying who is saved and who is not based on their social and political beliefs.

David Worley asked me earlier about what I thought was wrong with Obama’s confession as listed in comment #4. Maybe nothing depending on what he meant by what he said, but it caused me to ask some questions. If this person would come to my church, I would talk with him further about this statement: “I believe that that faith gives me a path to be cleansed of sin and have eternal life. But most importantly, I believe in the example that Jesus set by feeding the hungry and healing the sick and always prioritizing the least of these over the powerful.”

Does faith give us a path to be cleansed of sin? Does faith just put us on the path, or are we cleansed when we believe in Jesus? I’m not trying to nitpick, but the differences are enormous.

Also, he sets following Jesus’ example as being more important than believing in Jesus. I think that following Jesus’ example is VERY important. But, you have to get the order right. We believe in Jesus and then He lives His life through us and we follow His example.

I would ask Barack Obama what he meant by these two statements. It seems possible that he could be expressing a works based theology that finds salvation in doing the good works of Jesus. If not, that could be cleared up quickly from some discussion about it.

Alan,

I really have no argument with your comment in #74.

I believe you understand the faith.

I do question those who say we are wrong to question Barack Obama’s faith.

He was most definitely exposed to Liberation Theology for 20(?) years.

Liberation Theology is from hell. James Cone spewed blasphemy on a daily basis. Liberation Theology has cost the lives of a countless number of people and mostly poor and helpless people at that. To say Jeremiah Wright is a preacher of the gospel of Jesus Christ is indicative of one’s being an apostate.

cb

Alan,

That’s a good quote from Obama that really makes him sound like a liberation theology type of fella, which is works salvation. That’s not grace. Thus, again, based on Obama’s words and values and beliefs, I would really have to doubt that the man knows the Lord. I dont know that for sure, but I certainly doubt it.

David

Alan,

Well, this interpretation may seem new, but it is Jesus’ own interpretation, and certainly the Lord’s own interpretation should trump Augustine’s or Calvin’s or anybody else’s interpretation. Let me explain. In Matthew 13:24-30, Jesus gives the parable of the wheat and the tares. In Matthew 13:36-43, Jesus interprets the parable of the wheat and the tares. He sets the context as that of the world: “the field is the world” (verse 38). In other words, Matthew 13 is not to be taken as Jesus commanding against removing from the church, but against removing people from the world. Nor is he commanding us never to exercise judgment about the eternal state of people in the world, even people who claim to be Christians but do not belong to churches, do not confess Christ as the Lord come in the flesh, and/or do not obey the Lord’s commands. Christ’s command in Matthew 13 is that we should never apply judgment so as to remove such false believers from the world.

It may be helpful to remember the strong separation that Scripture maintains between the church and the world. Some have been born again through faith in Christ and thus belong in His church, while others are enslaved to the ruler of this world and thus do not belong in the church. With that in mind, remember that the church is commanded to separate itself from the world (2 Cor 6; 1 Cor 5) and to exercise discipline of its members, symbolically placing false Christians outside the church and back in the world (Matt 18; 1 Cor 5). This is why Baptists believe in regenerate church membership and church discipline, and why we must discriminate between true and false Christians.

We are commanded to let the wheat and tares grow together in the world and let God Himself exercise judgment regarding false believers (Matt 13). The point of Jesus’ parable is that no human being should try to remove the tares from the world. That is the job of the angels at the final judgment. This is part and parcel of the free churches’ belief in the separation of church and state. Matthew 13 does not remove the responsibility of the church to exercise discernment as to who belongs in the church. In other words, to use your analogy, you are correct that we should indeed let people who claim to be Christians but who do not obey Jesus Christ “float around in the world.” After all, they may claim Christ but they act against Christ’s will. Moreover, we should never tell these same people that they are Christians for that would be affirming them in their delusion and lostness, and that would be a sin against the false Christian. We should tell them the truth about Christ and His grace and His law, and then call them to repentance and faith. Leaving them in their sin without a witness is simply not an option for those who have received the Great Commission.

Now, the idea was broached about churches identifying those who call themselves Christians but approve of abortion as in error. Let us be clear that churches most certainly may identify abortion and the approval of abortion as beyond the pale of acceptable Christian behavior. (By the way, abortion is murder of the unborn and not another “social issue” in the same class as welfare or tax deductions). Telling Christians that they may not declare abortion beyond the pale would be akin to instructing the churches that they may not consistently teach the 10 Commandments.

If Mr. Obama claims to be a Christian and belongs to a church, that church should discipline him for his stance on abortion. If the church does not do so, it is disobeying the Lord’s commands to teach its members not to murder. If Mr. Obama does not belong to a church, his claim to be a Christian is not to be believed. We can make this judgment because he obviously does not love the brethren (again, one of the three signs of assurance of salvation established in 1 John). Those who love the brethren will gather together with the brethren, as Christians are commanded to do (Heb. 10:25).

Ultimately, the point comes down to the Lordship of Jesus Christ: those who claim to be Christians should obey Christ. If they do not seek to obey Christ, nor repent when they fail to obey Christ, then they cannot be believed when they claim to be Christians. Otherwise, we declare another one of John’s signs of the assurance of salvation–obeying the Lord–to be nonsense.

This is not a claim for perfection but for seeking to live a life of integrity. This is not a claim that churches are perfect or have perfect knowledge, but that when they do have such knowledge, they are to act on it as best they can. This is not a claim that Baptist churches have never held wrong social theology, for as I wrote in my book, we erred with regard to racism. But one error, an error of which we correctly repented as a convention of churches, does not allow us to excuse other errors when we see them. Jesus commands us, “Be ye perfect, even as your Father in Heaven is perfect” (Matt 5:48). Perfection in Christ is our goal, even if we cannot attain it perfectly in this life. Perfection as our goal does not mean we can move the goalposts when we realize we are not perfect. We must still shoot for the goal.

So, murder is not an option for the Christian, just as lying, stealing, cheating, and coveting are not options for the Christian. Sadly, many Southern Baptists once approved of the stealing of human souls by pretending that African men and women and children could be bought and sold as chattel. We should never have approved of that, and we correctly repented of it. Having learned our lesson there in that horrible episode, let us pull together to affirm that we should never approve of the murder of the unborn. If we do, we will be repeating the social sins of our past and calling down divine judgment upon our heads.

In Christ,
Malcolm

Dr. Yarnell

After a year in the parables, you are spot on in your interpretation of the “wheat and tares.”

Robin

Malcolm,

I do often think what is considered “boldness” in me is actually a lacking of sensiable inhibition which betrays a terrible character flaw. Nonetheless, I do thank you for the compliment.

Malcolm, for the life of me I cannot see how a free America could ever have accepted abortion as a way of life. Even worse was the 1971 abortion resolution passed at the St Louis convention by Southern Baptists.

When I read of the German Christians who opposed the Confessional Christians I can somewhat understand their actions due to the fear in their hearts because of Hitler’s oppression.

In 1971 Baptists were not under any oppression. We were just weak theologically and obviously without biblical understanding. There is no doubt liberalism was rotting our moral soul.

The 1971 SBC was and still should be evidence enough of the need of the Conservative Resurgence.

Yet, even now many who call themselves Baptists are without shame in the support of a man who is, if he keeps his promise, the most radical pro-abortion supporter who will ever, thus far, hold the office of president.

Stay the course, Malcolm. Teach those boys the truth. Arm them with the gospel and an uncompromising theology that their vision shall not be darkened, nor their tongues silenced. For their battle shall be greater than was that of all who have gone before them.

cb

Good points, Dr.Yarnell. One question though: Jesus tells us not to remove the weeds from the world. How would we go about doing that if we ignored his command? The references to the Kingdom are what cause the confusion here.

As for a strong ecclesiology and church discipline, I am right there with you.

Dr. Yarnell,

Thank you for bringing up the need to understand the parables in Matthew. Since Constantine, the need for the world to be incorporated as representatives of the church in part has supported much of the reformers ecclesiastical pursuits.

Augustine was instrumental in teaching many of his listeners an improper view of the church in relationship to the world, when in fact Christ himself has called and separated us from the world in which we live. Christ’s parables should in fact make us more apt to offer the gospel as the only hope for the world. Thanks again for your insight.

Blessings,
Chris

Chris,

I am sure you will agree with me that children should be able to at least be born once conceived unless God, and God alone has planned otherwise, in His eternal purpose, for the child not to experience live birth.

Will you covenant with me and pray that President-Elect will turn from his promise to sign FOCA and the wickedness it represents?

cb

Strider,

The purpose of government is to restrain evil. When it does not restrain evil, in this case the murder of the unborn, it is not functioning as God intended. We must do all we can to call government to exercise its function properly. This is not an attack on Mr. Obama, but a call on him to align himself with God’s will and not with evil. Remaining silent about this issue would be akin to the prophet shutting up the Word of God. Such a prophet awaits only judgment.

In Christ,
Malcolm

Brother CB:

You have written to Brother Strider:

“Strider, You say: “I am weary of attacking President Elect Obama concerning the abortion issue.”

“I am “weary” we continue to pay you with CP dollars. Why don’t you resign and go to work for the CBF or some other nut and flake organization.”

“I have been reading your junk for two years and you just are not one of us. And, I for one would really like to see your tenure end with the SBC.”

—

CB, Jesus tells us “By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another”

We are further commanded to “Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you”

I urge you to reconsider your comments to fellow-believers.

In Christian Love,

-jack-

BTW, Jack(?),

You have yet to answer this question, among others:

“Do you actually think our Lord Jesus would not speak our against abortion today?…Jack is not Jesus God? Is the One God not the Father, Son and Holy Ghost?
Was not the Trinity in perfect harmony and unity when the very Spirit himself moved upon the prophets of old to stand in the presence of Kings and common men alike and speak out against the barbarian act of child sacrifice?”

cb

The same day there came certain of the Pharisees, saying unto him, “Get thee out, and depart hence: for Herod will kill thee.” And he said unto them, “Go ye, and tell that fox, ‘Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.’” Luke 13:31-32

According to this passage, Jesus did not refrain from telling politicians what their spiritual problem was, now, did He? Of course, He had a prophetic ministry, too, didn’t He? He did not mince words and they did not care for him because of it. He called the hypocritical religious leaders such things as “White-washed tombs full of dead men’s bones.”

Yes, we must have love for one another, but love does not mean suppressing the truth or turning a blind eye toward error and sin.

That 61 word commission is quite clear that we must teach all that Christ commanded. If He models a prophetic and confrontational ministry toward sly and manipulative politicians (i.e. “foxes”), then certainly we must do the same.

In Christ,
Malcolm

Well, CB I should have known better than to think I could come by this blog and speak common sense and receive anything like a civil response. But seriously, my ideas are not Southern Baptist? I suggested that we teach our children to value life and not murder their babies. I was not aware that that was a non- SB position.

I am an SB M if you like it or not. I do the job that SB’s have called me to do so I do not feel ashamed to take their money. I preach the Gospel that I learned from faithful SB’s and I do it in places that I can not reveal on the internet in order to protect the work and the nationals I serve with.

Now, here is where we may or may not differ. I agree with Malcolm that we should speak prophetically to the Govt. I am certainly in support of whatever it is you are doing to encourage Pres elect Obama to not sign FOCA. But what I am weary of is the fear and the snipping at politicians to do what we are not willing to do. Weirdo liberals in New York and California are driving the political abortion agenda and that is evil but it is OUR daughters in Texas, Louisiana, Georgia etc who are having abortions. They are killing their children and they go to our churches. We must be about preaching, teaching, and living the Gospel of Jesus Christ much more earnestly than we currently do. Our Churches are grand performances with music and light shows but who is loving their neighbor? Who is sacrificing everything for the Kingdom? Who is loving young men and women enough to make a difference in their lives and to show them that living a life sold out for Jesus is far superior to a life lived in selfish ambition?
That’s all I am saying. If you can’t hear that, then I give up- I will write here no longer because I do not wish to sidetrack anyone from support of the IMB to keep us all focused on the Mission our Master has for us.

Strider,

If FOCA is signed into law many children will die. That is the issue.

What Reagan did or did not do is not the issue here.
Barack Obama has promised to sign FOCA. That one thing is the issue and makes him dangerous.

You come in and make a blanket statement that,

“Our Churches are grand performances with music and light shows but who is loving their neighbor? Who is sacrificing everything for the Kingdom? Who is loving young men and women enough to make a difference in their lives and to show them that living a life sold out for Jesus is far superior to a life lived in selfish ambition?”

Not all of our churches are like that. And many of us are “loving young men and women enough to make a difference.”

What do you think we are doing right now? Are not the unborn “sons and daughters” who need to be loved and protected?

You were wrong about Barack Obama in your 11.3.08 post. You were very wrong to say “For my money whoever wins this election America wins because Bush will no longer be in the White House.” That is very shallow.

Yet, you have the strange idea that you are profound in such statements.

Actually your whole 11.3.08 post betrays the fact that you really know very little about what has happened durning the Bush administration relating to helping the unborn and by what you say here you obviously know little about the Freedom of Choice Act.

Strider, if President-Elect Obama does, in fact, sign the Freedom of Choice Act as his first action when he becomes President Barack Obama that one action will do the following:
1. Eliminate state laws that limit abortion.
2. Allow abortion-on-demand for all nine months of pregnancy.
3. It will invalidate pro-life laws passed since the 1973 passing of Roe v. Wade.
4. It will invalidate the ban on partial-birth abortions.
5. It will invalidate the ban on the federal funding of abortions.
6. It will invalidate the ban of abortions in government operated hospitals.
7. It will invalidate parental notification laws.
8. It will invalidate laws on waiting periods before a person has an abortion.
9. It will invalidate conscience laws.
There is much more this terrible action will do but surely the above should be enough to make one see the carnage to come by way of the Freedom of Choice Act if it is signed into law. Many say that an additional 125,000 American children will die in 2009 added to the 1,300,000 who are already going to die as a result of Roe V. Wade being the law of the land.

How can you say “For my money whoever wins this election America wins because Bush will no longer be in the White House”?

Can you not see how horribly ignorant of the facts you are by saying “America wins” if the man who will be president signs FOCA?

That is the substance of this post and others. There is a storm of evil coming and all you do is smile into the “Pool of Narcissism” enjoying your reflection as you spout shallow, trite and meaningless platitudes for no other reason than to gratify your ego and make believe you are intelligent.

And the sad thing is babies will die as you, in effect, become Nero redivivus playing “America wins ’cause Bush ain’t in the White House no mo’” on your “fiddle” while the children are “burned sacrificially” on the altars of lust and greed.

Strider, your shallow logic is sickening. But worse than that, it is destructive to our “sons and daughters”, both who will kill their babies and those who will be killed.

Strider, you do miss the point. The issue at hand escapes you in your vanity and pseudo-intellectual, self-promotion.

Here is the issue IMB missionary who does “not feel ashamed to take” our money and then speak in such a cheap, arrogant, nonchalant, cavalier manner about the gruesome murder of millions of children:

The issue is that we as a nation stand before Holy God with bloody hands because America has raised up unholy altars to the hedonistic gods of lust and greed.
The blood of 50,000,000 children flows from those altars of greed and lust where Americans have sacrificed their children, their honor, their character, their virtue and their faith.
4,500 children a day are sacrificed on those altars while politicians sanction it and Christians stand in silence and watch it or play silly word games to justify it.

Now, you go on and keep drawing your check from the IMB and “give up” and “write here no longer” because you do “not wish to sidetrack anyone from support of the IMB to keep us all focused on the Mission our Master has for us.”

You just go right on and do that, Strider. But from time-to-time check for the blood on your hands. Because it is there.

Of course, it is just hard for you to see it due to your brilliant reflection as you peer smilingly into Pool of Narcissism.

cb

Brother Strider:

Thank you for your service and for your perspective from the field. Your words have convicted me; may God Bless you and protect you.

Brother CB:

I admire your passion.

I will attempt to answer all of your questions thusly:

Abortion is a sin.

Like all sin it separates us from God.

And like all sin God will forgive us if we admit our lost state and accept Jesus his Son as Christ our Savior.

Brethren Malcolm & CB:

Thank you for pointing out the scriptures you cite in support of your views.

There was certainly no shortage of evil and depravity among the Roman government and society that Christ could have addressed. He did not completely ignore it, but that was not the focus of his ministry. Nor should it be the focus of ours.

God Bless You Both,

-jack-

Yes, sir, you are correct that the focus is on redemption in Jesus’ ministry, and yes, that should be the focus of our ministry. The difficulty is that a person must become aware of their sin before they can understand their need for redemption. The good news of the cross and forgiveness makes sense only in light of the bad news of sin and judgment.

Alan,

When you say things like…”I got what you were saying, Strider, but that fact won’t help you much around here, I’m afraid.:). ”

Are you trying to be insulting to a group of people in here? Are you hinting that a group of people in here just are not able to “get it?” Or, are you saying that the BI crowd is ignorant? Or, what? Please tell us exactly what you meant by that?

David

Volfan/David,

I was saying that the fact that I identified with some of what Strider was saying would not be a help to him in this forum because what I say on things doesn’t carry much weight around here. The BI crowd might think that I oppose them on everything just because I have opposed them on some issues over the past few years. The comment was a remark on my status and weight in the eyes of the regular participants here, so the fact that I understood what Strider was trying to say wouldn’t be of help to him in this forum. No thoughts of the intelligence or lack thereof regarding the BI crowd ever entered my head.

Sensitive, much?

Alan,

I’ve seen your comments on other blogs. Those are what made me think you might have meant this as an insult.

If you truly didnt mean it that way, then I apologize.

David

Thanks, CB. I appreciate that. I’d enjoy some good BBQ right about now. About putting away the groceries, I really need to cut back on that, though.

David, I do honestly want to tell you that there was no ill intent. I am confused though. Are you saying that I insult people on the blogs? Or, that because of positions that I have taken elsewhere, you thought that I was being insulting in this case? I honestly try and make it a practice to not be insulting or to make things personal. I am all for debating issues, but I have no desire to insult people. If that is what you meant, I want to submit to you that I do not mean to be insulting and if I have ever come across that way, I apologize. We can debate things all day long as brothers in Christ without tearing each other down.

Apparently, our new President-Elect does not feel the need to attend church, at least since being elected to “the most powerful office on earth”:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15902.html

Brother Yarnell,

It appears from the Politico article, that the main reason for church attendance during the past few years for Barak was to advance his political campaign or to deliver a political address. Not even his aide seems to agree with the facts when he gave reason for Barak selecting the gym over worship… “Because they have a great deal of respect for places of worship, they do not want to draw unwelcome or inappropriate attention to a church not used to the attention their attendance would draw,” said the aide.”

Evidently the same respect did not matter pre-election.

My hope is that someone is able to share the gospel of God weekly or more often with Barak and that he finds a church body that is not ashamed of the gospel and a congregation that believes that God is no respecter of men. Then maybe his aide’s will not have to come up with excuses that lack consistency.

Blessings,
Chris

Chris, I am so used to lame excuses from politicians that I did not take much note of the excuse offered. Your prayer is mine, too.

Chris Johnson wrote:

“It appears from the Politico article, that the main reason for church attendance during the past few years for Barak was to advance his political campaign or to deliver a political address.”

How exactly did you reach that conclusion? I don’t think we read the same article. It’s not like Obama first started attending church a few years ago…

The President-Elect is in a huge time of transition. He’s said that they will find a church in DC. Cut the guy some slack. Most of us whose income doesn’t depend on us showing up every Sunday AM don’t have a perfect attendance record especially during a time of transition. Maybe we should wait and see if the President-Elect follows through on his stated intention to find a church community to join once in DC. I hope The First Family will take one Sunday to hear the fine gospel preaching of the Rev. Amy Butler at Calvary Baptist Church in DC.

Meanwhile, our current President (whose Ranch is but a 15 minute drive from my house) has never made a habit of attending church over the last 8 years. He don’t do church while in DC. And he doesn’t leave the Ranch when he’s in Crawford.

Oddly, we never hear “conservative evangelicals” call into question Bush’s lack of church attendance. Nor have we heard conservatives loudly question whether the current President is actually a Christian based on his expressed universalist beliefs. We have, however, seen conservative groups like your Southern Baptist Convention invite our irregular church-going, universalist President to speak before the SBC a time or two.

Obama is the Commander-in-Chief not Pastor-in-Chief. That tired old line needs repeating apparently. I would hope that no government official takes into consideration one’s view of Jesus when hiring employees. Our government is not nor was it intended to be a Christian government.

Malcolm Yarnell and others apparently expect their President to violate the spirit if not the letter of Article VI, Section 3 of the United states Constitution.

CB, you want to know about Obama’s selections and their views on the New Testament?

Well, his Chief of Staff is Jewish. So, no Jesus for Rahm Emanuel. I hope you do not suggest that people should be excluded from government appointments due to their Jewish theological convictions and/or general lack of belief in Jesus as the Son of God?

Timothy Geithner is a Jew as well. Lawrence Summer is also a Jew. Hillary Clinton is a Methodist. Bill Richardson is a Catholic. Janet Napolitano is a Methodist. That’s pretty diverse, right? Protestant, Catholic, Jew.

As a side note, CB, don’t you think it’s a bit inconsistent if not downright hypocritical to say what you’ve said about Obama in regards to abortion and then turn around and voice your support for the pro-choice Condoleeza Rice as Secretary of State???

Brother Big Daddy,

Politico reported:

“On the three Sundays since his election, Obama has instead used his free time to get in workouts at a Chicago gym.”

Politico reported:

“Asked about the president-elect’s decision to not attend church, a transition aide noted that the Obamas valued their faith experience in Chicago but were concerned about the impact their large retinue may have on other parishioners.”……….

“Because they have a great deal of respect for places of worship, they do not want to draw unwelcome or inappropriate attention to a church not used to the attention their attendance would draw,” said the aide.”

Politico reported:

“Obama was an infrequent churchgoer on the campaign trail, though he did make a series of appearances in the pews and pulpits of South Carolina churches ahead of that heavily religious state’s primary.”

I didn’t mean to make you retort so violently over what Politico reported, yet inconsistency seems to be pretty easy to glean out of what Politico is reporting in the article. Inconsistency is one of the things that the article illuminates. But, your right to say that this occurs with any politician, whether Bush or Obama. You are also correct that the government is not the church and Obama may choose to play basketball every Sunday for all I know. I actually like to play basketball myself. My encouragement though was that he would take the advantage of hearing the gospel every Sunday, find a gospel centered congregation and realize the wisdom from engaging in such activity. All of that is not such a bad thing.

It was not my intention to put you on edge. So far, Obama has done exactly as prescribed based upon his past political agendas. I don’t think we will see a lot of surprises.

Blessings,
Chris

Brother BDW,

Violent may have been a bit overboard. But, Politico did seem to have an agenda in their article. I must admit that was the second article I have read from Politico,….not a site a wonder into often.

Obama does have an interesting road to hold if he intends to confess His allegiance to Christ amid his aspirations for political gain. I will be praying for him and those he chooses to trust in his administration as he leads America during these years to come.

Blessings,
Chris

Mr. Weave,

I sincerely hope that all people receive Christ and that is the point of my statement. Surely you do not actually believe such a concern for the eternal fate of men is some type of religious test. Surely, you yourself have such a concern.

Now, if you really want to know my views of church and state, rather than reading a vast conspiracy into one sentence expressing concern for the lost, take a look at some of my academic writings, such as in First Freedom, a book recently published by B&H.

As for your advice to church members, again, I would recommend that you reconsider your extremely bad advice. Life changing transitions are exactly the time people need to place themselves in a church of Jesus Christ.

As for Mr. Bush, I am not a huge fan of his economic or religious policies, but this post is not about him. Frankly, unless I am writing history, his policies will soon not matter, while Mr. Obama’s policies certainly do.

Now, it is plainly obvious from your misreading of Chris and CB and me all for different reasons and all at the same time that you have had a bad day. Please consider carefully your responses before hitting the “Submit Comment” button. For the sake of clarity and the advancement of knowledge, ask yourself whether you are truly reflecting what a person has said or not before you comment. For the sake of Christ and His chruches, ask yourself whether what you are saying is edifying or not before you comment. Need I quote you some Scripture in this regard?

In Christ,
Malcolm

I am quite certain that I did not misread YOU, Mr. Yarnell. I think I explained that above – even in context.

As to me and my assumed “bad day” – I had a law school professor once remind me why it’s important that we not get in the habit of assuming….

With all this sage advice, you might should consider starting a blog of your own. Malcolm’s Wise Words of Wisdom. Thanks for the lecture though. I now must leave for an event at the untrue church where I attend.

(more from the Politico.com article):

“The issue of where he worships is, of course, fraught. For about two decades, Obama and his family attended Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ. But, with the public disclosure earlier this year of incendiary sermons at Trinity by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama and his wife, Michelle, in June resigned their membership in the large South Side congregation.

At the time, the then-Illinois senator said that he didn’t want his “church experience to be a political circus” and expressed regret for the unwanted attention members of the congregation had received, noting that some reporters had taken church bulletins only to call sick members and shut-ins.

During the campaign, Obama returned to Chicago to attend the South Side’s Apostolic Church of God on Father’s Day Sunday to give a speech aimed at the black community on the importance of fatherhood and family.

A number of Washington, D.C., churches of different denominations and traditions are now competing to become the spiritual home of the new first family.

The Obama aide said the family “look[s] forward to finding a church community in Washington, D.C.”

Mr. Weave,

Those who have engaged in misinterpretation, even when disabused of their misinterpretation by the original writer, exhibit a postmodern form of reading.

As a point of spiritual concern, please answer me this: Why do you belong to an untrue church?

In Christ,
Malcolm

BDidd Aaron Weaver, who is promising folks at baptistlife.com he will do a review of Baylor Proff Barry Hankins new book on Al Mohler and Richard Land’s mentor Francis Schaeffer, alerted me to this discussion.
For the last couple days I have been wrestling with CB Scott and my friend Bama SBC 2nd VP John Killian on these matters.
It is now a strong discussion at bl.com
You fellows have no answer to Berkely proff Gorney as interviewed on NPR Fresh Air Oct 29 or 30; easily googled up.
A Wikipedia searched article destroys all the accusations CB Scott has made about Obama and his abortion politics.
McClaren has left the Richard Land/Rick Warren position, and Garry Wills diced and sliced your arguments to pieces in his recent book American Christianities The Rove Era.
You are a disservice to civil and rational discussion with these tired accusations and wedge issue politics.
The list of folks you would name as baby killers is getting longer by the day as you madly persist in further marginalizing yourself from mainstream Christian civil discourse on this troubling issue.
Get a grip

Malcolm,

I must come to Stephen’s defense here. He was going to make a statement, but his fingers must have “aborted” his mind’s “birthing” a coherent communication.

Of course,if we take the position of the Pro-Choice camp the communication was not coherent while it was present in his mind. During the thought gestation period it was only “gibberish.”

Therefore, we cannot fault his fingers for the destruction of what could have been a coherent communication.

For, after all, who can know when a communication becomes coherent?

Until it is decreed differently by the courts we must assume Stephen’s communications to be gibberish and not coherent at all.

cb

Preacher Yarnell:

Take it up with Proff Gorney of Berkleyand her chat on NPR Fresh Air.
And Garry Wills the Catholic Scholar.
Gorney is easily googled up and there are links at her NPR event that goes through the court case where your and CB Scott’s propaganda on late term abortions are splayed and filletted.
Your arguments have failed for thirty years among Mainstream Christians in America; even the American center.
You do not win the debate by mocking me; very small on your part, very, very small like your hero WA Criswell is turning out to be in the annals of America’s religious history.

Stephen,

All in fun. Anyways, thanks for speaking up for liberal Baptists. We are always glad to hear from left field. Happy Thanksgiving.

In Christ,
Malcolm