All Posts Tagged With: "Christian conservatives"

Fellow Okie blogger Dr. Bruce Prescott examines the Christian response to the campaign slogan ‘country first.”

I have been waiting for the significance of that statement to dawn on someone in the conservative evangelical community, but to date they seem to be blissfully unaware of the idolatrous overtones of their politics.

Christians are warned not to divide their loyalties. We put “God first” or else God is not God in our lives. Nothing in scripture authorizes God’s people to equate their loyalty to God with loyalty to their nation. There is much that forbids it. Jesus commands us to be singlemindedly devoted to God and his kingdom (Matt. 6:24-34). His kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36).

Christians should read this post. It reflects the distaste I’ve had for the blind nationalism — deceptively described as “true patriotism” — that we’ve seen so pervasive within the American Church, clouding its judgment and dividing its loyalties, whether its members what to admit it or not.

Okie blogger Dr. Bruce Prescott takes issue with an essay by Cal Thomas posted by Baptist Press, in which Thomas writes:

Obama can call himself anything he likes, but there is a clear requirement for one to qualify as a Christian and Obama doesn’t meet that requirement. One cannot deny central tenets of the Christian faith, including the deity and uniqueness of Christ as the sole mediator between God and Man and be a Christian. Such people do have a label applied to them in Scripture. They are called “false prophets.”

Dr. Prescott counters:

Somebody needs to tell Cal Thomas and Baptist Press that Barak Obama is running for President, not prophet. … Someone also needs to remind Cal Thomas and the editors at Baptist Press to reread Matthew 7:1-5 and Matthew 7:15-27.

… Constitutionally, there’s no religious test for holding public office in this country. Obama’s running for President, not pastor or prophet.

*

It would seem to me that Cal Thomas and like-minded others are usurping the role of the ultimate Judge. I wouldn’t think that is the wisest position to be put oneself in. Fortunately for me and for Barack Obama, there is only One opinion that really matters.

P.S. Talking about “false prophets,” wouldn’t usurping the role of the ultimate Judge make that person a “false judge”?

Peter Wehner, a former deputy assistant to President Bush, wrote a critique on James Dobson’s critique of Barack Obama. It’s well worth the read. Here’s an excerpt:

The passage of the speech that prompted Dobson’s “fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution” and “lowest common denominator of morality” comments was this: “Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. What do I mean by this? It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, to take one example, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.”

Dobson paraphrased this as “unless everybody agrees, we have no right to fight for what we believe in.” But that’s not what Obama was saying at all. Rather, he was arguing that in a pluralistic nation like ours, politics depends on people of faith being able to persuade others based on common and accessible ground and appeals to reason — which sounds entirely reasonable. Christians who oppose abortion can make an effective case by talking about sonograms, fetal development and the moral imperative to protect the most vulnerable. That doesn’t mean one’s faith shouldn’t inform the question of abortion — or, for that matter, war, poverty and other issues. After all, President Lincoln’s argument against slavery was partly grounded in faith. But appeals to the Bible or church teaching aren’t sufficient in a pluralistic nation. That’s why Lincoln talked primarily about the Declaration of Independence.

… critics of Obama have an obligation to provide a fair and honest critique, and the attacks leveled by Dobson fall terribly short of that standard.

If Christian conservatives want to be taken seriously, they need to make serious arguments and speak with intellectual integrity. In this instance, Dobson didn’t. He has set back his cause and made some of us who are evangelicals and conservatives wince.

*
Dobson’s ‘fruitcake interpretation’ of Obama’s speech and philosophy compelled me to support the “James Dobson Doesn’t Speak For Me” website/cause/statement, developed by Kirbyjon Caldwell in response to Dobson’s attack. (Who is Kirbyjon Caldwell? He is the pastor of the Windsor Village United Methodist Church, a 14,000-member megachurch in Houston, Texas. He is one of President George W. Bush’s most influential spiritual advisors, who introduced him at the 2000 Republican National Convention, offered the official benediction at both of Bush’s inaugurations in 2001 and 2005, and officiated the wedding of Bush’s daughter Jenna.)

Last week, right after Dobson’s remarks, I added the graphic supporting the cause to the right sidebar of this blog as a personal outright rejection of Dobson’s blatant and corruptive blending and marriage of partisan politics with the Christian faith. He ignores or chooses to deny that God is neither a Republican or a Democrat.