"what do you mean by that?"

i hesitate to post the following because this blog has never been about pushing a political agenda.
that is not what this post is about either. it is about the mis-use of the label "christian".

jesus was not a "white middle class republican", so i do not think that "good christians" can only vote republican, or even that a candidate's religious beliefs should be the litmus test for their ability to lead. while i would hope that all politicians would accept the gospel and live lives of obedience to christ, i do not withhold my vote for them solely on the basis of their faith (or lack of).

because much is being made about senator barack obama's faith, and with his current campaign openly seeking to reach the "evangelical vote", information about his beliefs and his commentary on them is easily available... one could almost say it is constantly presenting itself.

i can honestly say that if (when?) similar contradictions between professed faith and actual beliefs present themselves about john mccain, i will address it with the same scrutiny. again, this post is *not* about why someone should or should not vote for obama, but rather it is about why we must be clear that christianity has specific beliefs that cannot be compromised and maintain the name "christian".

that being said.... consider the following from a 2004 chicago -sun times interview with senator barack obama.
i will present them without commentary. simply read his own words (the whole interview is linked for context) and see if his description of being a christian leaves wondering what he means by "christian".

"I am a Christian..."So, I have a deep faith," Obama continues.
"I'm rooted in the Christian tradition. I believe that there are
many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there
is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people.
...[t]hat there are values that transcend race or
culture, that move us forward, and there's an obligation for
all of us individually as well as collectively to take responsibility
to make those values lived."

........

"The difficult thing about any religion, including Christianity,
is that at some level there is a call to evangelize and proselytize.
There's the belief, certainly in some quarters, that if people
haven't embraced Jesus Christ as their personal savior,
they're going to hell."

Obama doesn't believe he, or anyone else, will go to hell.
But he's not sure if he'll be going to heaven, either.

"I don't presume to have knowledge of
what happens after I die," he says. "When I tuck in my
daughters at night, and I feel like I've been a good father
to them, and I see in them that I am transferring values
that I got from my mother and that they're kind people
and that they're honest people, and they're curious people,
that's a little piece of heaven."

obama reads my blog

hope and change: the lowercase for vice president!!

it would seem senator barack obama reads my blog!
from worldnet daily:

Some have been taking issue with largely unnoticed
comments made last year by Sen. Barack Obama
declaring the U.S. is "no longer a Christian
nation" but is also a nation of others, including Muslims and
nonbelievers.
...
"Whatever we once were, we're no longer a Christian
nation. At least not just. We are also a Jewish nation,
a Muslim nation, and a Buddhist nation, and a Hindu
nation, and a nation of nonbelievers," Obama said
during a June 2007 speech available on YouTube

see! i told you .. just go back and read yesterdays post! i said these words
"this notion of america being a christian has got to go. that label is not true."

so.. you heard it here first... "barack obama reads the lowercase and agrees with stephen cavness."


obviously i am joking. (among other reasons...his remarks were made last year) the senator's purpose for his remarks is not in the pursuit of religious truth, but rather political gain. (just as any politician of any
party is prone to do)
he goes on to say:

"Somehow, somewhere along the way, faith stopped
being used to bring us together and started being used
to drive us apart. It got hijacked. Part of it's because of
the so-called leaders of the Christian Right, who've been
all too eager to exploit what divides us," he said

now, many people who are lumped into the "christian right" i have little in common with, so my purpose is not to defend that label. my point is to show yet another example of tolerance being redefined as "do not say anyone is wrong, much less live as if your moral claims are absolutes".

i am all for being "together" with my fellow americans. we can and should be cordial and friendly with those with different beliefs. we can disagree without hating those we disagree with. but let us move past this silly notion that tolerating something or someone means we must validate those beliefs- and that anything less is "intolerable".

stop with the forwards!! -email integrity

i have recently been receiving a ton of email forwards about how america should rally together and stand against a muslim being president, yet another reason not to vote for barack obama.

let me set the record straight...

barack obama is not muslim. in fact...(from CTV)

"I've been to the same church -- the same Christian
church -- for almost 20 years," Obama said, stressing
the word Christian and drawing cheers from the faithful
in reply. "I was sworn in with my hand on the
family Bible.
Whenever I'm in the United States Senate, I pledge allegiance
to the flag of the United States of America. So if you get some
silly email ... send it back to whoever sent it and tell them this
is all crazy. Educate."

Obama is referring to a debunked chain email circulating
widely on the Internet that suggests he is hiding his Islamic
roots and may be a terrorist in disguise. It says he was sworn
into the Senate on the Quran and turns his back on the flag
during the pledge.

There are some truths in the email's details. Obama's middle
name is Hussein. His father and stepfather were Muslim. And
he spent part of his childhood in Indonesia, a largely Muslim
country. But he attended secular and Catholic schools, not a
radical madrassa.

though it could be debated whether or not the "christian church"
obama attends is what most people think of when they hear
"christian church" - it is not a muslim organization.
the chicago sun-times reports

Presidential hopeful Barack Obama belongs to the United
Church of Christ, one of the country's most racially diverse
and liberal Protestant denominations -- the first to ordain
an openly gay minister and to call for equal marriage rights
for all people, regardless of gender.

The UCC prides itself as being "out front" on social justice
issues, battling civil rights, women's rights and gay rights ahead of
the mainstream. One Sunday hymnal equally celebrates male and
female images of God.

The UCC was formed in 1957 by a merger of churches
from Congregational, Christian, Evangelical and Reformed
traditions. The denomination traces its roots to Christians
who ordained the first African-American minister (1785)
and the first woman minister (1853).
It's also home to the Cathedral of Hope in Dallas, the world's
largest gay and lesbian church. Obama and his wife, Michelle,
are members of Trinity United Church of Christ,
a South Side [chicago] church led by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr...

so obama is not the picture of conservative evangelical christianity, but he is not a muslim.
so now that we are informed, it would be irresponsible,slanderous, and lying if we continue to perpetuate these false facts via conversational gossip at the water cooler,church, or by email.

we don't have to like obama, and we don't have to vote for him. but if we are christians, we are obligated to tell the truth when confronted with error-not pass it on.

getting past the credentials...

any commentary on candidates for the 2008 presidential election should not be considered an endorsement or otherwise.. this is simply an exercise in promoting informed decision making.

mike huckabee, a favorite of many evangelicals for u.s. president, was a former baptist pastor before he was the governor of arkansas. because huckabee has "baptist minister" in his credentials, many evangelicals have hitched their wagon to his campaign. but does simply having held a position mean what we assume it means?

a friend passed along this article [baptists not on board]on candidate mike huckabee and after reading it, i came across this one [the false conservative]. both of them raised my eyebrows because i had never heard much of this information. and i wonder if many of huckabee's supporters have heard it either.

granted, the tone of the articles will be colored by the agenda of the author, but at the most basic level, facts are facts and certain actions of the past do not seem to line up with what assumes from a "conservative" nominee.

even "baptist" presidents get it wrong

although the title of this post may get readers expecting a "bush-whacking", the topic at hand is about former president jimmy carter with a cameo role by former president bill clinton.

i first heard of this a few months ago and it has recently come up again with carter's new book recently having been released.

here is the back story from the january 21 issue of the washington post:

Former presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton
are leading an effort to forge dozens of small and
medium-size, black and white Baptist organizations
into a robust coalition that would serve as a counterweight
to the conservative Southern Baptist Convention...


On Jan. 9 at the Carter Center in Atlanta, the two
ex-presidents brought together the heads of 40
Baptist denominations and organizations to launch
a year-long organizing effort that they hope will
climax with the celebration of a "New Baptist
Covenant" in early 2008. Clinton described himself
as just a "cheerleader" for the effort and declined to be
interviewed.

One of the main organizers, William D. Underwood,
president of Mercer University in Atlanta, said the
covenant's members will spend the coming months
identifying joint projects to undertake in international
aid, domestic poverty relief and missionary work.

"We're not against any other group
of people of faith," he said. "We're against the fact
that 100,000 people died last month of malaria.
We're against the fact that hundreds of
thousands of Africans face starvation each year

now, although i am a southern baptist, i am not so elitist as to think that the sbc is the only denomination containing god loving and obeying christians. i have friends, mentors, and heroes from various denominations including the general baptist, pcusa, pca, anglican, and non-denominational churches.

this to say, i do not feel threatened by a group of people coming together forming a new denomination.what i am wary of is the founding of a new denomination on principles contrary to, or other than scripture.

the quote above from organizer william underwood bothers me. he has made a false dichotomy between churches that care about meeting the physical needs of the people in the world and those who stand against the teachings of other faiths.

it is possible to stand against teachings contrary to scripture *and* reach out to the needy. one need not say " we are not for religious battles, we are for helping the needy." the gospel based church does both. in addition, one can be against what other "faiths" believe, and not be against "people". this language only serves to muddy the waters. i am sure mr. underwood would be against the beliefs of those who sacrifice babies in the name of their gods, but you would never know it from the way he worded his statement.

(for the record, for all of its faults, the southern baptist convention is one of the largest providers of disaster relief in the country. see here, here, and here)

but what about mr. carter? what are the beliefs that he feels so strongly are not represented by the southern baptist convention, the denomination of which both he and clinton were once members?

for starters, he has recently stated in an interview with belief.net (found here) that one need not accept christ to be saved. he bases his answers on a mind bending, smattering of out of context biblical references.

this ex- president, who many christians listen to and respect his word on christianity out rightly, who teaches sunday school, is *wrong* about the gospel.

so this is where the new baptist denomination is starting. i do not fear for the sbc because of numbers or competition. i fear for the soul's of those who follow any gospel based on something other than the gospel of jesus christ, no matter what the denomination.

mr. carter would do well to heed the words of the apostle paul to the church at galatia:

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him
who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to
a different gospel-- not that there is another one, but there
are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of
Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach
to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let
him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again:
If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you
received, let him be accursed

(1:6-9)

[read al mohler's excellent coverage of this same interview here]