*Scroll down for updates – links to Dobson’s broadcast and Obama’s speech*
Readers have hinted or outright begged me to start blogging politics again. I fill a void and provide a much-needed voice, they tell me. Do I really?
I listened, and here I am again. I knew once I started blogging about Barack Obama, there’d be no turning back. Every day there’s something new. Like a ball of snow rolling downhill, growing larger with each tumble, so is the momentum of political blogging. I don’t know how long it will last. This post is a mixture of politics and faith, so let’s dig in.
Obama Misinterprets Scripture
Have you heard the latest? Focus on the Family’s Dr. James Dobson has accused Obama of distorting the Bible. Like John Kerry before him, Obama misinterprets Scripture to make a political point. Big shock, right? That’s what politicians do. People use whatever they’ve got. For Kerry, it was faux concern for “the poor,” pontificating to others even as he lived on the wealth of his second wife’s dead first husband.
For Obama, it’s his ethnicity (the black half, anyway) and its pander power. He knows that many blacks are socially conservative on certain matters (homosexual “marriage” and child killing), but will vote for an infanticide-supporting liberal just the same. Quoting the Bible, whether accurately or inaccurately, makes him seem like a real Christian to these socially conservative voters.
Here’s the crux of the latest controversy:
“Dobson took aim at examples Obama cited in asking which Biblical passages should guide public policy — chapters like Leviticus, which Obama said suggests slavery is OK and eating shellfish is an abomination, or Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, ‘a passage that is so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application.’
“‘Folks haven’t been reading their Bibles,’ Obama said.
“Dobson and Minnery accused Obama of wrongly equating Old Testament texts and dietary codes that no longer apply to Jesus’ teachings in the New Testament.”
Testaments, Old and New
People who don’t know the Bible make this mistake all the time. In essence, the Old Testament (OT) points to the New Testament (NT), and the NT explains the OT. The God of the Bible has many attributes, namely wrath, mercy, and grace. The whole Bible reveals these attributes and more. There isn’t a levitical God and a sermon-on-the-mount God. He’s one and the same.
Regarding Obama’s remark, Bible-reading, -studying, and -believing folks know that the OT dietary and ceremonial laws and the sacrificial system were shadows of things to come. Under the Old Covenant between God and Israel, the Hebrews had to observe dietary, ceremonial laws, and sacrificial rituals. The ultimate purpose of these laws were to show men that it was impossible to get oneself clean enough or observe enough Sabbaths or kill enough lambs to satisfy God. And obey the Ten Commandments perfectly? Forget about it.
The Old Covenant stood until the resurrection of Christ, whose death ushered in the New Covenant, one that depended not on the “goodness” or cleanliness of the people, but on God’s mercy and grace toward the people. Under the law, people washed before prayer, but only Christ can clean us and make us worthy of God to hear those prayers. Under the law, people sacrificed many animals to take away their sin, but Christ is the final, once-for-all sacrifice that takes away sin. The New Covenant believer is made righteous and justified not through his works, but through the work of Jesus Christ. Through God’s grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone, people receive eternal salvation.
To reiterate what I just said, refraining from eating “unclean” things (also see Acts 10), washing before prayer, and killing a spotless lamb on the altar for the sins of the people, and the like, were signs pointing to the eternal, a time when the Messiah would come and take away the sins of the people. Christ fulfilled these dietary, ceremonial, and sacrificial laws.
What About the Ten Commandments?
While the dietary, ceremonial, and sacrificial laws have been fulfilled, the moral law, also known as the Ten Commandments, is still in effect. And get this: we’re still required to obey God’s moral law perfectly. Wait…didn’t I just write that it’s impossible to obey the law perfectly? How, then, can God require such a thing?
Christ himself said that he came not to abolish the Ten Commandments but to fulfill them. (Matthew 5:17-19) Yes, God still requires that we observe the law, and we should strive every day to do so. But even as the saved person disobeys the law through word or deed, he has been forgiven. Disobeying the law is sinful, but the salvation of Christ spares us from the penalty of our law-breaking. The requirement is still there, but Christ took within himself our punishment – past, present, and future.
Simple, yes?
There is so much more to this subject, but I hope I’ve explained this small aspect coherently. My purpose is to put Dobson’s and Obama’s remarks in context. If I failed, I’ve no doubt my erudite readers will let me know. Good Tuesday to you all!
And send this post to Barack Obama if you get a chance. 
Update: For readers confused about whether the NT references homosexuality and whether God considers homosexuality a sin under the New Covenant (dietary laws have passed away, you say, so why not laws against homosexuality?), see Romans 1:24-28 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, and read James White’s post, Romans 1:26-27 and Homosexuality.
I also recommend his book, The Same Sex Controversy: Defending and Clarifying the Bibles Message About Homosexuality.
Perhaps Christians confuse the issue for you by only citing Leviticus. As you can see, Christians can and should cite NT passages on this issue. Sin is sin, know what I mean? But if you want to get specific…
Update II: Judge for yourselves! Download Dr. Dobson’s radio broadcast at OnePlace.com, and read Obama’s 2006 speech that sparked the controversy. Listening to the broadcast and reading the speech will help you understand why Dobson takes issue with Obama. I agree with Dobson.
This post doesn’t address what role, if any, religion should play in government. I won’t get into it here. That’s something you can discuss in the comment section. This post addresses what I perceive is Obama’s apparent misunderstanding of the OT in the context of the NT. If he’s received sound biblical teaching, he knows the purpose and meaning of OT laws. But that snippet in the speech leads me to believe he does not.
There are many things in Obama’s speech I could blog about. Perhaps I will at a later date.
Related posts:
{ 11 trackbacks }
{ 77 comments }
Welcome back, LaShawn!
I figured Kerry lost the election when he started pandering by misusing scripture. God is not mocked.
“Folks haven’t been reading their Bibles”??? Is there no end to that man’s arrogance? Now he’s going to lecture us about what the Bible says?
Keep on talking, BO.
“A fool’s lips bring him strife,
and his mouth invites a beating.
A fool’s mouth is his undoing,
and his lips are a snare to his soul.”
Proverbs 18:6-8 (NIV)
“Like a ball of snow rolling downhill….”
Why is everything bad WHITE with you?
Don’t be a hater, LaShawn!
That was LOL-funny, Dan.
Good to “see” you, ElCee.
The thing that really brought me up short in regard to God’s attitude toward sin and the Law’s helplessness to atone for it was Leviticus 4. It prescribes the sacrifices that must be made in order to atone for sins that one commits *unintentionally*.
But get this – although you can only perform the sacrifice if you are made aware of it, you are guilty the *moment you commit the sin*. Suppose that walking along the road, you don’t notice the dessicated remains of a long-dead rat, and step on it? Congratulations – you’re now ceremonially unclean. And you will remain unclean until you perform the proper ritual for cleansing after contacting the corpse of an unclean animal.
Paul was a Pharisee, trained in the Law, and schooled by the Greeks in logic and argument. No wonder he wailed, “Who will rescue me from this body of death?”
Indeed, Corrie. It was a hopeless situation pointing to one filled with hope!
Obama did the same thing with suggesting I think the sermon on the mount meant that there should be gay marriage. Anyone recall this?
Tell me it isn’t so! – Admin
Good to see you back to yourself, LaShawn! I’ve missed your political commentary. I say we let Obama say whatever he wants because you know, if you give someone enough rope, they’ll do the rest.
Yup, Matt, he said that. He didn’t specify how it applied, but he did say that he thought it was “more central than an obscure passage in Romans”.
But he’s against gay marriage. Well, that is unless states decide it’s ok.
When Kerry was running I wanted to tie a pair of flip-flops to the bumper of my car, but it was too late in the season to find any. But this year I’m saving a bright yellow pair. I have a feeling I’ll need them.
The OT (Leviticus, specifically) is often quoted authoritatively by people opposed to homosexuality (homosexuality, like eating shellfish, also being labelled an “abomination”). Why does one tenet survive while others fall?
Seems a bit selective to me.
i’m a long-time reader, but have never commented. great post! i hope this means you are here to stay during the election. your voice is desperately needed.
I really enjoy your political blogging. Thanks for ‘coming back’!
BTW: Anything new on moving to England/Scotland?
I knew you would post on Dr. Dobson and Sen. Obama today. Good post. Sen. Obama’s former church was all about that black theology, not the true, inspired and uncompromised Word of God.
Sorry to say that there are many churches within a variety of Christian denominations that are weak on the bible. I have personally experienced weak (non existent) and strong bible teaching in both Baptist and Presbyterian churches. Getting an understanding on the Word of God and maintaining bible study along with prayer is paramount to the Christian life.
I guess Sen. McCain is realizing that he better be careful about what comes out of his mouth concerning Christianity and the bible. Sen. Kerry linked in this post for biblical ignorance, is not the only presidential candidate to screw up on the bible in some way. Cal Thomas in a book he wrote some years ago tells about George Bush the elder speaking to a group within the religious right, incorrectly quoted (messed up) John 3:16.
Don’t vote for Sen. Obama, but do pray for him and his family to get into a church that teaches the true, inspired and uncompromised Word of God.
Actually Y’Shua nor the Apostles or even the Elders gave believers a pass on the laws of dietary purity, but why Obama is using that is beyond me. I believe he and Michelle are just as big of swine-eaters as anyone else.
It’s ironic that Dobson was criticizing Obama on Obama’s biblical interpretation. Because when you look at Obama’s full remarks, his point was that in a pluralistic society, nobody’s religious view should be exalted by government over anyone else’s. That was Obama’s message. Not a very controversial one.
A lawyer from Chicago is now a qualified Biblical theologian. What a joke!!!
“My purpose is to put Dobson’s and Obama’s remarks in context.”
And that you did indeed La Shawn!
Great post!
Ya Know – Barrack (or barry) is 1/2 WHITE.
I read that article from the Associated Press and not sure why there IS a controversy. I’m not sure what James Dobson’s complaint is or what Barack Obama is trying to say.
The only thing that James Dobson is right on is Abortion. There is just as little justification for that than there is the overall lawlessness that occurs in the body.
And I stand corrected…because it’s not been verified whether the Obamas observe the law of purity in their diets or not, but THAT is not a matter of public policy, but more of a mater of obedience to scripture.
Abortion and Homosexuality, on the other hand ARE issues that have a face in public policy, and as such, Senator Obama is on the WRONG side of those.
That’s like my Jewish brothers who take steriods, but won’t take criticism from so-called Christians because they eat abominable foods and don’t keep the Biblical Sabbath. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
Senator Obama, and politicians in general, really shouldn’t be quoting scripture. He’s trying to be the President of a country full of the sacred AND sacrilegious. All this talking gets you caught up. He doesn’t know enough about scripture to be going there.. and James Dobson should continue to Focus on the Family and stay out of politics.
Here’s the ‘Cliff Notes’ version for those without a background in the Christian lore (that we base so much of western language and literature on, it would be a shame even for non-Christians to be out of the literary loop):
1) At the Garden of Eden, God said (paraphrased here, of course), “Don’t eat the fruit of Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, or you will surely die.” Satan (as the Serpent) tricked Adam & Eve by lying — saying that they would not really die; but be ‘enlightened’ instead. Until then, there was no death known to mankind; and it’s conceivable that God may not have included death as part of His original Plan for us.
2) God taught mankind to sacrifice animals as an atonement (giving up something valuable to beg forgiveness), as the death penalty for sin was defined by a spilling of blood. Until blood was spilled, the *penalty* for a person’s sin was still hanging over that person’s head.
3) In the New Testament, Christ came ‘not to destroy the Law, but fulfill it’; which is to say, the Ten Commandments were not discarded — but instead that the blood penalty would be paid for by Christ’s death in place of the animal sacrifice that the Israelites were famous for in the Old Testament. So after Christ died, no more animals needed to be sacrificed. He ‘paid the bill’ to remove the debt from our shoulders.
4) As a way of looking forward (as La Shawn noted, above), the Old Testament animal sacrifices were to require the most perfect animal the person could find, healthy and without blemish. This wasn’t just to make the person’s sacrifice cost the person more (i.e., they couldn’t get away with sacrificing the most scrawny, ugly lamb); it also pointed to the fact that Christ, the ultimate sacrifice for all of mankind, would be blameless, faultless, and not deserving of the penalty that He took for us (if He had sinned, He would be dying only for His own frailty, not ours).
Understanding these points is key to grasping that the whole of the Bible does not show humanity devoid of responsibility to live by a certain code of conduct; we are not ‘without law’ — but with the acceptance of Christ’s sacrifice, we are now ‘without penalty’.
I don’t take issue with LaShawns’ outline of the Old and New Testament. I do wonder why many (not LaShawn in particular) discard the Old Testament on dietary issues but not homosexuality. Under the “New” covenant would not homosexual love be permitted? What about the “conversion” of Jews as decribed in Acts?
Obama’s point is that the Bible cannot be used as a yardstick for public policy. It can rightly inform the opinion of an individual voter, but to support a policy position based on Biblical understanding is inadequate. To participate in the public forum, other lobjective,logical arguments should be made, i.e. abortion is bad because it compromises the health of the mother etc.. vs. God said in Psalms he knew me in my mother’s womb so its murder”
Dobson misses the bigger point. Make a cogent, logical argument and you will earn respect. Call someone a sinner or immoral and you will be ignored.
Dr. Lawyer,
The dietary requirements of the OT are encapsulated within Leviticus (?), and are specifically spelled out as an element of the Old Covenant, AFTER the 10 Commandments are given. Their lack of applicability in the New Testament is directly addressed.
The “dim moral view” of homosexuality is first encountered in the tale of Sodom & Gomorah (sp?), before the happenings at Mt. Sinai, i.e. before the Old Covenant. The penalty for homosexual practices is articulated in Leviticus(?). That homosexual practices is still considered to be a “bad thing” is again articulated in the New Testament (Romans, IIRC)
In short, the Bible’s moral view of homosexuality predates the Old Covenant (of which the dietary laws are a part) and thus is not a part of it. The prohibition continues during the New Covenant.
Very thoughtful post Dan Oblak..
Dr. Lawyer,
Go back and read La Shawn’s update on the references in the New Testament on homosexuality and you will have your answer as to why “many discard the Old Testament on dietary issues but not homosexuality.”
Mark 7:14-23
14 Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. 15 Nothing outside a man can make him ‘unclean’ by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him ‘unclean.’”
17 After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. 18 “Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him ‘unclean’? 19 For it doesn’t go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods “clean.”)
20 He went on: “What comes out of a man is what makes him ‘unclean.’ 21 For from within, out of men’s hearts, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, 22 greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23 All these evils come from inside and make a man ‘unclean.’”
NIV
Acts 10:9-29
9 About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10 He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11 He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12 It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. 13 Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”
14 “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”
15 The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”
16 This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.
17 While Peter was wondering about the meaning of the vision, the men sent by Cornelius found out where Simon’s house was and stopped at the gate. 18 They called out, asking if Simon who was known as Peter was staying there.
19 While Peter was still thinking about the vision, the Spirit said to him, “Simon, three men are looking for you. 20 So get up and go downstairs. Do not hesitate to go with them, for I have sent them.”
21 Peter went down and said to the men, “I’m the one you’re looking for. Why have you come?”
22 The men replied, “We have come from Cornelius the centurion. He is a righteous and God-fearing man, who is respected by all the Jewish people. A holy angel told him to have you come to his house so that he could hear what you have to say.” 23 Then Peter invited the men into the house to be his guests.
The next day Peter started out with them, and some of the brothers from Joppa went along. 24 The following day he arrived in Caesarea. Cornelius was expecting them and had called together his relatives and close friends. 25 As Peter entered the house, Cornelius met him and fell at his feet in reverence. 26 But Peter made him get up. “Stand up,” he said, “I am only a man myself.”
27 Talking with him, Peter went inside and found a large gathering of people. 28 He said to them: “You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him. But God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean.
NIV
Rom 14:1-21
14:1 Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. 2 One man’s faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3 The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him. 4 Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
5 One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7 For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. 8 If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.
9 For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. 10 You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. 11 It is written:
“‘As surely as I live,’ says the Lord,
‘every knee will bow before me;
every tongue will confess to God.’”
12 So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.
13 Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother’s way. 14 As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. 15 If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died. 16 Do not allow what you consider good to be spoken of as evil. 17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18 because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.
19 Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20 Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21 It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.
NIV
The above post will hopefully help us understand that those who are in Christ are free to eat any and all foods, that food prohibitions are no longer valid. However if one chooses to follow the OT food laws they are free to do so but they are not to pass judgment on those who do not just as those whose conscience allows them to partake of all foods are not to pass judgment on those who feel they must obey food laws.
Below are a couple of scriptures that specifies those who will not inherit the Kingdom of God. The list covers a lot of people that attend and don’t attend church.
Galations 5: 19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery,[c] fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21 envy, murders,[d] drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
1 Corinthians 6: 9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,[a] nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.
Gay marriage and abortion are both, to a certain extent, red herrings. What’s at issue here is whether or not the US government can or should pass a law on strictly religious grounds. In other words, is “the Bible told me so” sufficient justification for passing a particular law?
Obama’s did not say that Dobson’s or Sharpton’s biblical interpretations are incorrect, and neither did he attempt to present a hermeneutic of his own. I assume his examples were chosen because they relate to current issues, but they have obscured the greater point. His stated position is citing a Biblical passage is insufficient justification for legislation–that because our government is a secular institution it must ground its laws in reason and logic in addition to religious considerations.
He’s 100% right and any orthodox Christian ought to agree with him. All it should take to convince you is a thought-experiment where Mormonism is the dominant religion in the US (not out of the realm of possibility) and Senate Majority leader Craig Romney proposes a piece of legislation that has its sole justification in the Book of Mormon. No attempt is made to explain the purpose for the law in anything other than religious terms. Would you support this legislation or not?
Doesn’t this essentially parallel with John Kerry and James 2, where it is stated that government social spending does not count as a religious work? If we don’t want government to by our stand-in for doing good works, we shouldn’t want government to be our stand in for personal morality either.
Dr Lawyer says:
“Obama’s point is that the Bible cannot be used as a yardstick for public policy. It can rightly inform the opinion of an individual voter, but to support a policy position based on Biblical understanding is inadequate.”
So true. Like I tell the people who I consult.. TEACH/PREACH the Word and LIVE your convictions. This is a tough thing.
More from Dr. Lawyer:
“To participate in the public forum, other lobjective,logical arguments should be made, i.e. abortion is bad because it compromises the health of the mother etc.. vs. God said in Psalms he knew me in my mother’s womb so its murder”
Now, the example you gave comes under scrutiny but I see what you’re saying. Skeptics attack the FOUNDATION of the Bible, not INTERPRETATIONS of scripture. Either that or those who claim to believe, will simply say that THEIR convictions tell them that their G-d wouldn’t see it “that way” and that he knows their heart. I know because if I haven’t heard it all, I’m getting close.
I think that people, voting their convictions, are not the problem. It’s wanting their Biblical convictions (outside of the commandments against murder and theft, and MAYBE false witness) which is terribly problematic.
What can you do when governments legislate the right to have sex with someone of the same sex and then marry them, or to kill unborn children? These people aren’t trying to marry YOU or kill YOUR children are they?
But trying to kill me and take my property is another matter. I think SOCIETY as a whole frowns upon that, do they not.
The Oracles of Yahweh speak to ALL 4, but governments don’t. “Black” or not, I don’t care about Senator Obama’s stance on abortion and homosexuality. All that means is what I’ve been saying ALL ALONG is that he was a carnal Christian – at best, and IF HE WERE a Muslim, which he was NOT – he would have been a pretty pathetic one at that. Even Muslims know what the Almighty approves of regarding food, homosexuality, and abortion.
It’s his OTHER policies and positions that concern me. Those will impact me and my family. I’m going to be a Servant of Yahweh no matter how many gay wedding ceremonies he attends or complicit he is in baby killing. But making me suffer at my doorstep, or setting things in motion for such things to happen – is unacceptable. Father Yah is going to judge HIM – not ME – regarding all that other stuff..
Thanks BikerDad and others on the homosexual context…I see your point.
Still, I think the main point is that most non-bible scholars will not find Biblical arguments persuasive by themselves. Dobson and his ilk use the Bible as a tool for exclusion, not compassion and understanding for non-belivers. For example, where would Jews and Mormons fit in Dobson’s theocracy? Who’s version of the Bible would we use, majority vote? I was raised as an Seventh-Day Adventist, do I have to go to church on Sunday?
Where is he when funding is cut for Medicaid programs and other social programs that aid the poor? State sanctioned execution of the mentally disabled?
I can understand if someone feels abortion is immoral. I may even agree. I just don’t think enough attention is focused on other immoral government actions. It seems the only time evangelicals are highly motivated to participate politically is when anti-gay or abortion matters are on the ballot.
Mr Obama is what Professor Craig M Gay would call a “practical atheist.” meaning that he professes to believe in God yet chooses to live as though God does not exist. He has been secularized in his world view. Mr Obama believes that the secular takes precedence in the public arena and that his (and everyone else’s) faith is a private matter that is not allowed to shape public policy. This is the prevalent view of most Americans. Those who derive their moral practices from the Bible are marginalized at best and persecuted at worst. The so called progressives, to whom Mr Obama is beholding, would reject Mr Obama out of hand were to say, as most orthodox Christian’s do, that homosexual practice is contrary to the natural order as created by God, and that Jesus is indeed the only savior of the world by whom all must be justified. \
Because Mr Obama is not concerned with Christian orthodoxy but is more concerned with getting elected he must espouse multiculturalism, tolerance (the kind of tolerance that excuses inappropriate behavior rather than true tolerance that says I disagree with you, I believe you are wrong, but I will tolerate your beliefs and practices in the name of a free society)and moral relativity. Mr Obama is so indebted to his left wing constituents that he can’t take any moral stance that is politically dangerous (such as believing in personal sin and Godly judgment).
Nice pic: The Ten Commandments had Roman numerals, and were arranged as bullet points?
Busted! I was trying to trick people into thinking that was a photo of same Ten Commandments Moses carried. Hey, thanks a lot for calling me out, pal! A girl can’t even have a little fun. – Admin
Sorry Larry, those scriptures are not talking about Kashrut, and this is not really a debate on that.. I just mentioned that in the larger context of my post. I’ve seen all the scriptures that are used to justify eating what one wants and I haven’t seen a single one yet from those opposed to the dietary restrictions that have been in context.. and personally I just don’t feel like going there right now.
AndrewN, great post. I am not a fan of secular complicity in sin either, but what can you do. This is not a Theocracy. If you ask me to VOTE on same sex marriage or abortion, the answer is easy.
No one has asked me to vote on it – yet. Until then, I serve Yahweh, and live my convictions. Put it on a ballot and you’ll no doubt be disappointed.
Thebigdoddy, I am sure you have heard all the arguments regarding food laws and have chosen to continue eating Kosher foods that is perfectly fine because… the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, 18 because anyone who serves Christ in this way is pleasing to God and approved by men.
Larry Waddell,
I don’t know Obama personally but I think he would take issue with the label “functional atheist”. He chose to work in a poor Chicago community after attending Harvard Law. This shows his capacity to pass up wealth for the common good. You don’t have to be religious to love God and your fellow man. Non-orthodox does not equal atheist.
What is Christian or righteous about publicly affirming Jesus then running up the deficit, waging war and authorizing torture (Bush)?
Christianity has been hijacked by the far right. I WANT my President to be secular when he executes his duties. I want a reasonable, logical debate on issues, not someone who sees his post as a devine calling and therefore not subject to scrutiny.
Religious devotion and godliness may be admirable personal qualities but they are no substitute for intelligence or sound judgement.
I’ve heard that scripture regarding this matter too my brother, and it’s all good. Perhaps I shouldn’t have brought it up the way I did. Sorry about that.. seriously.
My resignation is due to the years and hundreds and hundreds of discussions about it…and it just makes me tired. Now I’ll have to go eat some of those Sarah Lee bite sized cherry cheesecakes.
Anyhow, my larger point is that people don’t think too clearly about the Senator. Why were they sooo bent out of shape about Jeremiah Wright with the “he went to that Church for 20 years…” and blah blah blah? I bet if you strung all the Sundays he actually attended and participated, you MIGHT get two years out of that. That’s what 104 services out of about a thousand or more. Okay, I take that back, I say 3 years, 156 services out of a thousand.
He probably didn’t know what was being preached, because if he did ONE of TWO things would have happened.
1. He would have left.
2. He would have actually learned something.
Obviously he did neither.
Outside of the BLT mess and some (not all) of their liberal views on homosexuality in the UCC denomination in general, they are a serious Bible teaching denomination, and stress works and activism within a Biblical context, no matter HOW one might feel about some of the things Jeremiah Wright has said.
Outside of that (other mess), there would have been a great opportunity for Senator Obama to get a great foundation…
Hey, thanks a lot for calling me out, pal!
I figured somebody at a Texas Kinko’s faxed it to Dan Rather or somethin’, La Shawn…
What about the point on slavery? And…
“Dobson and Minnery accused Obama of wrongly equating Old Testament texts and dietary codes that no longer apply to Jesus’ teachings in the New Testament.”
I can’t find the full transcript. Did Obama equate these to the New Testament or simply point out texts that one would not view as applicable to public policy without going into whether the New Testament makes those texts moot or not?
because I tell you with certainty that until heaven and earth disappear, not one letter or one stroke of a letter will disappear from the Law until everything has been accomplished.
Matthew 5:18, pal. Jesus was Jewish; he sure didn’t come down here to destroy the Law his Dad set up? Must be convenient to throw out the entire portion of the Book where God reveals himself, but, then again, we all like bacon and shrimp, Bible or no Bible.
“When he speaks of a new covenant, he makes the first obsolete. Now what is growing obsolete and aging is about to disappear. ” Hebrews 8:13
See I can proof text too!
But, more generally, Hebrews 9 and 10 are excellent reading on the relation of the OT law to NT ethics.
Particularly Protestant of you:)
Man is not saved by faith alone.
“Faith, if it have not works, is dead.”
Comment by Greg — 06.24.08 @ 5:10 pm
I can’t find the full transcript.
Read it here:
http://www.barackobama.com/2006/06/28/call_to_renewal_keynote_address.php
I want to know what a proper response is to someone who calls you a racist because you are voting for McCain …..
It’s one of those things that sort of ends the debate. All you have to do is call someone a racist, and the dialogue is over.
To date, no pro-life president has been able to overturn Roe vs. Wade. I should also note that sending our nations youth off to die in a needless war is just as immoral as abortion. It just so happens that we have to choose one over the other. Those who are out of the womb are just as valuable as those within it.
La Shawn,
It’s important to point out the passages in Romans as they directly speak of homosexuality. However, I think that the record of the first church council in Acts is just as important but much more frequently overlooked, as it was by “Dr. Lawyer”. This whole question of “to what extent do the Old Testament (Jewish) regulations still apply to Gentiles under the New Covenant?” was decisively answered there. It was ruled that Gentiles did not have to convert to Judaism to become Christians. They then briefly listed the parts that were still relevant under the New Covenant. The Old Testament prohibitions of “sexual immorality” were explicitly upheld, while the vast majority of the dietary laws were not (cf. Peter’s experience with Cornelius).
I knew you couldn’t stay away.
LorMarie is right, and I SERIOUSLY doubt that Roe v. Wade will EVER be overturned, which means..
Spread the WORD and LIVE your convictions, and outside of murder and theft, stop expecting the government to spread the gospel for you.
So glad you’re back.
1. Judaism wasn’t a “religion” at the time the council convened in Judea.
2. The Body of the Messiah has the right and privilege to judge matters pertaining to righteousness and judgment, but it does NOT have the authority to do away with any of Yahweh’s Law. Not a single bit of it.
3. I know of no Messianic believer or Yahwist or Jew for J-sus who believes that keeping the Law (any of them are required for salvation)…
4. ..which is the controversy that made the council at Judea necessary in the FIRST place.
5. Keeping the Sabbath, dietary law, were no brainers which is why the council SPECIFICALLY addressed..
a. Avoiding blood
b. Things strangled
c. Meats (not just ANY meat either)
d. Fornication fornication
And this thing about CIRCUMCISION being a prerequisite for salvation was thrown out, since it was a SPIRITUAL circumcision and was the ONLY thing noted spiritually that replaced a hard-coded Law.
(As an aside, Paul took a lot of heat, and still does for some of his seemingly contradictions, which he continually had to keep clearing up. You have to study that for yourself though)
Not bashing Paul because he has done more good than I ever could have. His exposing the “once circumcised always circumcised” mess was truly a blessing from the Almighty for the benefit of ALL Gentiles, yet…
I don’t know how we got here, but my point is that the council was for NEW Gentile believers who were being terrorized by holier-than-thou previous converts and whack Pharisees who were ‘BEWITCHING’ these believers. Something had to be done about it, and these matters were violently and diligently argued, with the grace and power of Yahweh and his Spirit consenting.
But the objective was ALWAYS for them to GROW in other matters of righteous living. Those 4 items were not ALL they were required to do, but just the pre-amble to them walking in holiness as new converts.
On a personal note, I don’t care what people do, because the two greatest Commandments trump those line item ordinances.
I SAY UNTO YOU. (When Y’Shua started with that.. you knew he was speaking instruction from Yahweh)
Love Yahweh
Love your neighbor as yourself
Those are THE HARDEST laws to keep, and it’s evident in everything I see on TV, hear on the Radio, and read in the Blogs. People need to try that, then they wouldn’t have to worry about if voting for John McCain makes one a racist or not, because people are going to be racist regardless – unless they do the “I SAY UNTO YOU..”
Ya’ll shouldn’t even be talking like that anyhow.
There are too too many of ya’ll Christian bloggers who are indistinguishable from heathen bloggers with all this carnal partisan nonsense that goes on then you wonder why people accuse you of so many things.
Proclaim your spiritual identity FIRST. Everything else is just smoke and mirrors..
Seek FIRST, the Kingdom of Yahweh and all of it’s RIGHT WAYS, and everything else is just academic, right?
A good case can be made that Old Testament “slavery” (which did not resemble slavery as known in American history in hardly any particular) was indeed OK. The decision to become a slave was made either by the person himself or by that person’s parents. In effect, it was a selling of the person’s labor services for a limited time period (until the Jubilee) as a merciful alternative to destitution and death, except when the person “sold” was a girl. Then either the purchaser or the purchaser’s son was required to marry her. In effect, she was providing her own dowry out of the value of her work. There was never any suggestion that the Hebrew servant was anything less than fully human, with all the rights and responsibilities before God of any human, and the owner was enjoined to treat the slave well, because God was watching. All this has nothing to do with the horrifying concept of enslaved persons as property.
Thank you, thank you, thank you for blogging about politics, La Shawn. Yours is a voice that is much needed…thank you for not silencing it.
I am amazed that anyone would attempt to be an authority on God’s words, considering the evolution of the bible.
On religion and public policy – we must first accept the fact that a Biblical or quasi-Biblical worldview is what has shaped modern Western civilization and the general moral imperatives that have lead to the success of our society. America, in particular, is Constitutionally bound to the Bible by the proclamation of individuals being “endowed by their Creator” with rights. The concept is that our rights come from God – a higher power than any human institution (like the government), therefore limiting the ability of an institution to restrict our rights. Where is this appeal to an unimpeachable and absolute authority under a humanist worldview or one even a deistic one that rejects absolutes? Suddenly, the only authority that matters is that invented by Mankind – which could easily be the authority of the sword.
Further, Biblical moral imperatives have informed public policy in this country from Day 1. From a purely logical perspective, a free and pluralistic society can only function so long as there is a certain level of shared belief in moral absolutes. Even those that claim no such thing exists, believing themselves to be “good people,” must subscribe to some minimalistic set of absolute moral values. Life, for instance, is deemed valuable. Which is why “I’m not a murderer” is still one of the refrains of those who claim to be “good people” despite other moral failings.
The problem we face in public policy today is the fact that what once was a generally agreed upon set of social rules to which we should all aspire in the Bible, is no longer taught, while moral relativism runs free. I could easily argue any policy that cuts across Biblical, moral imperatives as being illogical and/or empirically socially corrosive. The problem is, the moment I mention that my ultimate basis is the Bible, it doesn’t matter how much sense the policy makes or how well I can articulate it outside of the Word. I’m just a Bible-thumping Christo-fascist at that point, trying to establish a Theocracy.
This is the state of our nation when it comes to the view of Biblical authority, or the lack thereof. And it makes me very sad, and very wary of the future of our nation.
As an aside, there was a comment about the comparative morality of baby-killing versus war deaths in Iraq, equating the two. I do wonder on what grounds our involvement in Iraq can be declared immoral.
Gabe says:
“I do wonder on what grounds our involvement in Iraq can be declared immoral.”
Yeah.. I’ve always wondered about that too.
Even as one who did not support going to Iraq, I still wouldn’t say it was “immoral”. Ill-advised, maybe, but lacking moral foundation…what??
I would love to see a discussion here about the proper role of faith and its practice in public life, political life, government, etc. However, I don’t really feel the need to nitpick about right or wrong interpretations of scripture. I don’t expect those who are not biblical scholars or theologians to have a perfect grasp of the depths of truth contained in the Bible. However, I do expect some modicum of humility when discussing scripture if one chooses to do so, whether in public or private. None of us this side of Heaven can claim any great authority when it comes to biblical interpretation, so those who choose to offer such should be careful to say that this is “their” opinion, belief, etc.
In that spirit, I wanted to offer something I learned from a biblical theologian who teaches at Catholic university about animal sacrifice as part of the Old Covenant and why it was necessary, which made a lot of sense to me. As many know, the practice of animal sacrifice began during the Exodus from Egypt. Specific animals (bulls, sheep and goats) were required. One of the reasons for the Hebrews needing to leave Egypt to sacrifice to their God was to remove them from the environment where they had lived for 400 years and where they had succumbed to heathen practices. The “circumcision” of these idolatrous practices from their lives began with the Ten Plagues. Each plague was a repudiation of an idolatrous practice of the Egyptians which many Hebrews also had adopted. Blood, Frogs, Locusts, etc. had symbolic meaning related to Egyptial idolatry. Bulls, sheep and goats were used by the Egyptians as visible symbols of the gods they worshipped. Bulls represented the god, Apis. Worshipping Apis included fornication and orgy. The idea behind the sacrifices was to “kill” the Egyptian idolatry that had become an integral part of the Hebrews’ lives.
While Moses was on Mt. Sinai for 40 days/nights communing with the Lord and receiving the Ten Commandments, the people grew restless and reverted to old idolatrous practices, especially the worship of Apis, i.e. the Golden Calf including fornication and orgy. Only the Levites came to the defense of the Lord and struck down their brethren for this abomination. As a result they were honored above the other tribes and became the “priesthood.” Leviticus is the priestly code and only applied to the Levite priests. However, with each transgression of the people and breaking of the covenant,” another layer of ceremonial law was added, making holiness absolutely impossible for anyone to attain. This is exactly God’s point. The purpose of all the ceremonial laws was to show the people how much they needed God! This pattern of promising to obey and subsequent covenant breaking by Israel is the pattern throughout OT history. It continues to this day among all who profess a faith in one God. The New Testament and the sacrifice of Christ has not made us perfectly able to obey. However, because of His sacrifice, we are no longer cut off from God. We can be reconciled over and over and restored to a right relationship with Him if/when we truly repent. It is only through God’s grace, flowing from Christ’s sacrifice that this is possible.
Again, I learned all of this from someone else and it made a lot of sense to me. I’m sure there are many more interpretations of the meaning of animal sacrifice and the ceremonial laws. I thought this interpretation would be interesting to those who were wondering about why some practices were required under the Old Covenant but not the New. I could spend a lot more time on this, but maybe this will spur those who are interested to do a little research of their own.
Great to have you back to political blogging LaShawn — but what makes your blog so unique and valuable to me is the Christian context. Thanks!!
The comments here are so instructive, La Shawn. Some people read the first line or two of your entry and then comment and ask the very same question you ANSWER later on in your entry.
Good to have you back on politics, but please be sure not to burn out again.
Obama should study the slavery system of that time. Some people volunteered themselves as slaves because of debt they couldnt pay back. There were cases where they could actually leave slavery. Old testament slavery was not like American slavery.
Thanks for the return, LaShawn.
“I do wonder on what grounds our involvement in Iraq can be declared immoral.”
What? How about, “Thou shalt not Kill.”
Exodus 20:13
What? How about, “Thou shalt not Kill.”
Exodus 20:13
But the Bible also says this
Exodus 21:29
If, however, the bull has had the habit of goring and the owner has been warned but has not kept it penned up and it kills a man or woman, the bull must be stoned and the owner also must be put to death.
You can’t compartmentalize a particular scripture passage and then use it as a proof text for an overarching theology. For goodness sake, God slaughtered his only Son. According to your view of things, God violated His own commandment. You must interpret scripture in light of other scripture passages. Clearly God views the taking of human life justified in certain circumstances. Whether Iraq is one of those instances can be debated, but to say that “thou shalt not kill” is the reason why it was wrong is a sophmoric argument at best.
Valerie,
I suppose, then, the first hurdle would be to determine whether any killing is Biblically justifiable. And from there, decide whether war (under any circumstance) can be justified. If you come down squarely on the side of absolute pacifism, then there’s no more to discuss. Otherwise, you are, as Marvin the Martian said, debating the specifics about the Iraq war’s morality – which was my question to begin with…
Welcome back LaShawn! Glad to see you blogging about politics again!
Glad you’re back! We need your voice, insight and smart intellect.
“Thou shall not kill”
Actually, I’ve been told by a seminary graduate who reads ancient Hebrew that the Hebrew word used in that commandment actually translates better as “murder.” It then depends on whether you consider killing in war to be murder . . .
Howdy from Texas, LaShawn! I hadn’t cruised the blogs in ages (been busy with going back to school) and I’m “see” you again!
Thank Goodness La Shawn is back blogging politics! I know we all have seasons but this is where you shine!
I guess I’m the only one who is a little disappointed that you’re going back to political blogging. I discovered your blog right as you changed focus. I really enjoy your posts on faith, like defending christianity (6/17/08), and on music(it’s how I found out about Rissi Palmer and about Anjbee’s podcast).
It seems you have a gift for political post and many fans of your political blogs, so I guess I’m out numbered. Unfortunately I’m a registered independent who’s pretty disgusted and apathetic about our entire system and both parties, but I love music, the digital seen and the Lord. I hope you don’t discontinue posting on those topics completely.
I really enjoy your posts on faith, like defending christianity (6/17/08), and on music(it’s how I found out about Rissi Palmer and about Anjbee’s podcast)…I love music…I hope you don’t discontinue posting on those topics completely.
I don’t! I’ll continue blogging about faith, digital tech, and music.
Senator Obama’s arrogance, coupled as it is with his monumental ignorance, is actually quite breathtaking.
He has only recently displayed his own personal presidential seal, had the effrontery to lecture the President of Iraq on military matters, and lie about just about anything one can imagine.
What I still fail to understand is what is it about this trifling creature that so enthralls the news media and the leftwing Kool-aid-drinking set? I just don’t get it.
So he speaks elegantly. An examination of WHAT he says rather than the way he says it shows that – omigosh, the Emperor isn’t wearing any clothes!
And he’s not the Emperor!
I think that calling Senator Obama a “trifling creature” is rather petty and common, GAYLE, and I’m not even one of his supporters.
And I concur with “Comment by David — 06.26.08 @ 12:48 pm”
True, faith-based conversation from LaShawn is on point, not that her other commentary isn’t.
My problem with conservative, and to a lesser extent, independent, political commentary by so-called believers is that it’s not a good look when some of the stuff that’s being put out there looks familiar with the musings of those with un-regenerated minds.
If you’re saved, sanctified, and filled with the Holy Ghost you need to be bigger than that, and when people get called on it, their TRUE colors (figuratively and literally) come out.
Some of the most rank and outta line stuff is coming from believers on the Blogs. TownHall is a cesspool of carnality and lawlessness. No wonder so-called liberals think we’re morons.
This is SPIRITUAL WARFARE, not water Polo.
I LOVE it when you do political commentary. Hope you’ll do so at least through the election. I must confess, the more I learn about Obama the angrier I get when I hear him talk. The story yesterday on Druge about the fact that Obama carries a pocket-sized idol of some monkey god didn’t help. I’m going to have to learn how not to get annoyed. Too much campaign season left, even though 4-1/2 months really doesn’t sound like much time, does it?
You’re casting some mighty big stones, and FIRST to boot, Bigdoddy. “Cesspool of carnality?” Really?
And your point is, Gabe?
My observations are on point.
Not sure what your spiritual proclivities are, but it’s more important that YOU don’t be named amongst them than to concern yourself with MY observations.
As such, I was referring to how so-called “believers” should behave. They should not LOOK or SOUND like unbelievers.
Hi LaShawn,
Great to see some current events posts on your blog again.
I was debating whether or not to write about this “controversy” (which seems to stem more from quotes being taken out of context, rather than a serious theological discussion). I guess I’ll have to write something now, just so I can quote you!
I’ll trackback when I do my post …
Mike Laprarie
My point, Bigdoddy, is that you should be careful to concern yourself with the plank in your own eye before castigating others for their motes.
Dear Gabe,
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. If I were insulting and degrading so-called “liberals”, you all would have nothing to say.
Gayle Miller said that Senator Obama is a “trifling creature”. What do you have to say about that? Nothing.
If I subscribed to that nomenclature, I’d be 150% more Biblically on point AND Conservative that you or anyone you know, so don’t even try it.
You all stand complicit when people dog out non-whites and liberals, and even participate, but get bent when someone criticizes carnal Christian conservatives. Too bad. I’ll never EVER stop – nor will I acquiesce.
Careful there. Your self-righteousness is showing. Now to be fair, I agree with your greater point. Neither conservatives nor Christians need to provide fodder for our ideological enemies or misrepresent our faith by stooping to their level. Name-calling is unnecessary at best. And I agree to the need to police each other on such matters.
What I disagree with is your tone. You’re being confrontational without reason and in such a manner as to put yourself at odds with the ideal you claim to be defending. Again, I appreciate the sentiment. We should all elevate our speech. But the way you describe it, we’ve already sunken to the level of the average DailyKos or Huffington Post threads. Have you seen the type of bile that’s regularly featured there? THAT is where the cesspool is, friend. Further, I resent your prejudgment of me as “stand[ing] complicit” in anything, let alone “insulting or degrading” people of any ideological or racial stripe. You could count on two hands the total number of times I’ve posted and none contained anything the least bit insulting to anyone. So I thank you kindly not to cast aspersions on my honor.
How about a compromise. You continue being vigilante and calling us on our slip-ups, but do so with some modicum of respect for your fellow Children of God.
I’m not a vigilante, nor the Sheriff of so-called Christians.
And yes, I am righteous without shame.
Let’s let the compromise be that you be just as vocal in trying to call me out for what YOU perceive to be self-righteous, and take that to places where I told you that YOUR fellow Children of G-d are being unseemly.
I wouldn’t say anything, if there were nothing to be said.
And you (none of you) have said anything about the “trifling creature” sentiment. But that’s typical.
Also Gabe, keep in mind that I am fully aware that correction is selectively received by conservative Christians. The caustic language and whitewashed expletives are easily and consistently overlooked and again, as I said before, applauded, but when a “brother” like me dissents, it’s my “tone” that’s in question.
Next I’ll be “boombastic”, and “divisive”. Rebuff is only legit when so-called Christian conservatives are employing it against those who are ideologically opposed to them – and you tell ME about self-righteous.
So pardon me if too many of ya’ll make me sick. I can give you links to 10 so-called Christian message boards where the consensus is that liberal Christians are NOT saved.
If one is content to overlook such folly, then so be it – but I won’t.
Father Yahweh has consistently been for our PURITY than PUNISHING his children. But how they behave, it would seem that some punishment is in order, but that’s MY opinion.
Make no mistake, I’ve see and heard it all, including those with your sentiment who would seek to quench righteous, and condone complicity, so I’m not even offended.
1 Peter 4:
14 If you are reproached for the Name of Messiah, you are blessed, because the Spirit of esteem and of Elohim rests upon you. On their part He is blasphemed, but on your part He is praised.
15 For do not let any of you suffer as a murderer, or thief, or doer of evil, or as a meddler.
16 But if one suffers being Messianic, let him not be ashamed, but let him esteem Elohim in this matter.
17 Because it is time for judgment to begin from the House of Elohim. And if firstly from us, what is the end of those who do not obey the Good News of Elohim?
18 And if the righteous one is scarcely saved, where shall the wicked and the sinner appear?
So here we are. There are some of us, firstly, saved, and lastly conservative, who REFUSE to degrade those who don’t think or look like us, and those who, SITTING IN MOSES’ SEAT, justify doing so.
Which one are you?
Comments on this entry are closed.