Evangelicals face a difficult but clear choice on Nov. 8th

Commentary by James Shott

Of all of us are struggling with the difficult task of selecting from four candidates for President of the United States, with the two leading candidates having shown themselves to be highly flawed. But perhaps evangelical Christians have the most difficult task.

Since NBC “Today” co-host Billy Bush released the 11 year-old recording of vulgar “locker-room” banter between himself and Donald Trump, and since the recent accusations of Trump making inappropriate sexual advances to several women years ago, Christian’s face the question of how to react to the moral infractions that have been shown, and alleged.

Andy Crouch, the executive editor of Christianity Today magazine, expressed the general displeasure of evangelical leaders to these things, writing, “Indeed, there is hardly any public person in America today who has more exemplified the ‘earthly nature’ … that Paul urges the Colossians to shed: ‘sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires, and greed, which is idolatry’ (3:5). This is an incredibly apt summary of Trump’s life to date. Idolatry, greed, and sexual immorality are intertwined in individual lives and whole societies.”

Those who have been around for more than a few years remember a similar situation involving President Bill Clinton and then-First Lady, and now presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton from the mid-1990s. In both cases religious folks had plenty to object to on moral grounds.

Bill Clinton’s affair with a White House intern led to his impeachment by the House of Representatives, not for his immoral conduct, but for lying about it under oath to a federal grand jury. Despite this, Clinton was able to finish his second term as President.

While nearly everyone agrees that such conduct is wrong, not everyone agrees on how important these kinds of things are in terms of whether they should disqualify someone from becoming or remaining President of the United States. It obviously was not considered important enough to remove Bill Clinton from office.

But that was then and this is now, and today Christians and Christian activities are being criticized as never before. A faction of the public wants to ban public Christmas scenes, and to malign religious institutions in general.

Donald Trump’s political enemies think evangelicals must focus on the she-said/he-said of the recent allegations of inappropriate sexual advances on women, and believe that if these allegations are true he should be disqualified from the presidency.

However, many or most evangelical Republican leaders are sticking with Trump, saying that despite his lewd comments there is no other real option for them. They generally say they will not abandon Trump, as quite a few Republicans in Congress have already done.

“It’s not like this is new,” said Family Research Council President Tony Perkins. “That’s why I aggressively supported another candidate in the primary, Ted Cruz, who I share values with. But we only have a choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump now.” And Franklin Graham conceded that while Trump’s comments on the recording are troubling, they are not sufficient to abandon him, and that the “godless progressive agenda of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton likewise cannot be defended.”

Evangelicals face criticism for not walking away from Trump and his immoral behavior, but they realize that one of the two flawed candidates will win the election, and they must support the one that has the best plan for the country and the most favorable view of the place of religion in their lives. Trump may fail the first test, but he passes with flying colors on the second one.

American Values President Gary Bauer believes that if Hillary Clinton becomes president, religious schools will be forced to do things that are against their religious principles; she will appoint liberal justices to the Supreme Court; religious displays in the public square will face bans; and Clinton has expressed hostility for Second Amendment rights. Donald Trump takes the appropriate view of these things.

“A Christian who cannot see the difference between a candidate who has sinned and yet promises good policies, and a candidate who has sinned and promises bad policies,” he wrote, “has been failed along the way — either by our educational system, our political leaders or our faith leaders.”

“And, he wrote, “voters should do everything they can to make sure Crooked Hillary never steps foot in the Oval Office!”

Basically, most evangelical leaders seem to offer this rationale: We are not voting to fill a vacancy among the Seven Archangels; we are voting for the President of the United States. They realize that Trump’s views on the Supreme Court, the flawed tax system, the dangerously high National Debt and deficit spending; the severely weakened military; our weakened relations with foreign nations; the stagnant economy and lack of good jobs; the immigration problems; and liberal attacks on guaranteed rights are the most important considerations in who to vote for in this election.

Christian leaders are displeased with Trump’s actions, but recognize that as imperfect as he may be as a human being, he is a vastly better choice for President of the United States for them than Hillary Clinton, who will win the election if more people abandon Trump for morality reasons.

Cross-posted from Observations

Obama And The Pope’s Divisions

Obama And The Pope’s Divisions

A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

“How many divisions does the Pope of Rome have?”  That question was asked by Joseph Stalin and addressed to Winston Churchill.

“In 1944, at a time when the Soviet Union bore the brunt of the struggle against Nazi Germany, it was important to convince Stalin that the Western democracies accepted him as an equal. “‘In the world of the future, for which our soldiers have shed their blood on countless fronts”, the British Prime Minister said in his bombastic style, “our three great democracies will demonstrate to all mankind that they, both in wartime and in peacetime, will remain true to the high principles of freedom, dignity, and happiness of the people. That is why I attach such paramount importance to good neighbourly relations between a restored Poland and the Soviet Union. It was for the freedom and independence of Poland that Britain went into this war. The British feel a sense of moral responsibility to the Polish people, to their spiritual values. It is also important that Poland is a Catholic country. We cannot allow internal developments there to complicate our relations with the Vatican…”

“How many divisions does the Pope of Rome have?” Stalin asked, suddenly interrupting Churchill’s line of reasoning.

Churchill stopped short. He had not expected such a question. After all, he was speaking about the moral influence of the Pope, not only in Poland, but, also, throughout the world. Once again, Stalin reaffirmed that he only respected force, and brought Churchill back down to earth from the nebulous heavens.”   …   Valentin Berezhkov, Stalin’s Interpreter. (SOURCE)

Sixty-eight years later, President Obama seems to be dismissing the Pope’s divisions just as Stalin did.

Now, in the spirit of full disclosure, allow to me state clearly that I am not a Catholic.  In fact, I am a Lutheran … an “old” Lutheran.  By that, I mean that I am of the conservative side of the Lutheran faith.  I have no truck with the liberal side of the denomination.  Just so we are clear.

Dismissing the Pope’s divisions is just plain stupid.  Strong word, you think?  I don’t think so.  If the President has to tick someone off … why the Catholics? 

“About 24 percent of Americans call themselves Catholics today, but about 30 percent of Americans would have been brought up in the Catholic faith. The percentage of Americans who call themselves Catholics has remained steady at about 25 percent for over 50 years, but that is because those born Catholic here who leave the church are replaced by Catholic immigrants and by converts to Catholicism. About half of former Catholics join some form of Protestant faith community, usually evangelical; the other half are mostly unaffiliated with any religion, often calling themselves spiritual but not religious.”  (SOURCE)

I would draw your attention to this sentence from the excerpt above: “About half of former Catholics join some form of Protestant faith community, usually evangelical;” (SOURCE)

Notice the word “EVANGELICAL.”  Now, tell me, was my choice of the word “stupid” too strong, huh?

Obama is making the same mistake secularists have made for centuries and, as we can plainly see, continue to make today. A politician with an nth degree of situational awareness never, I repeat, NEVER, dismisses the Catholic Church. And yet, Obama chose to do so. 

Look, I really don’t care what your position on abortion is.  My position is very straightforward and very clear.  I believe that abortion is wrong … except … when the mother’s life is in danger.

We conservative commentators warned America of the dangers of ObamaCare.  We told Americans it would be personally intrusive to a degree Americans have never known before.  Now that the evidence is laid bare, it is utterly astounding at how many Americans STILL cannot grasp how their freedom has been eroded by the legislation from hell we call ObamaCare.

It is well past time to question the judgment of the man asking for a second term as President of the United States.

J. D. Longstreet

Your Mainline Christmas Sermon: Immigration and Social Justice

In a letter to members it was pointed out by Roy Beck, Executive Director of NumbersUSA Education & Research Foundation, and recipient of the first United Methodist Communicator of the Year award as Associate Editor of the United Methodist Reporter, that many religious leaders will use their microphones and pulpits to advocate for open borders and for the “rights” of illegal immigrants, “to decry the raids and to equate illegal aliens with Mary and Joseph and their newborn babe.”

It is a shame that the religious leadership would not be standing beside us and against outlaw businesses' efforts drive down the incomes of working-class Americans and their families. But to have so many standing on the side of the economic oppressors is truly disheartening.

I completely concur with Beck’s statements. I know well of what he speaks. I earned my Masters in Theology from a highly esteemed liberal Protestant seminary not long ago. Every attempt to indoctrinate me in the ways of socialistic-style social justice failed miserably. Fortunately, I already had a strong background in traditional Christian theology, an understanding of what it means to be an American, and enough years of experience not to be easily intimidated.

Before I entered the seminary, I was somewhat politically naive. That changed rapidly as I learned that theology and politics are intimately linked. For years mainline seminaries have functioned as the religious arm of the far left progressives. Admission of any conservative political bent is literally the kiss of death. No doubt there are many closet conservative professors who would not long survive if their personal politics were known. Students hoping for plumb assignments following ordination are well-aware of which sides their daily bread is buttered.

Just as few Americans are very much aware of the growing influence of Islamofascism on American politics, even fewer Americans are aware of the Marxist trends (born of Liberation Theology) that are fast overcoming mainline denominations and informing new ministers in mainline Protestantism! Catholics and Evangelicals are not immune to this growing trend either.

Read Roy Beck's response printed in the liberal protestant (pro-amnesty) Christian Century Magazine.

Here’s an excerpt:

But Mr. Ufford-Chase’s approach to handling the illegal immigration problem in this country displays the huge blind-side that most mainline church national leaders have on the immigration issue by promoting the idea that illegal immigration is a victimless crime. While focusing on poor people in other countries who wish to break the law to get into this one, he ignores poor people and lower-middle-class people in this country for whom immigration laws are most clearly designed. The Supreme Court in the past has ruled that the chief reason for our immigration laws is to protect workers. Mr. Ufford-Chase does mention the issue of job displacement and quickly dismisses it. And then he brings up the issue of wage depression and speaks admiringly of Fed Chairman Greenspan’s suggestion that we should have high immigration in order to hold down wages. I frankly am amazed to see Mr. Ufford-Chase think that is a worthy aim. . .

In covering and commenting on the immigration issue, you should at the least consider that in the last public act of her illustrious life of public service, Barbara Jordan led a bi-partisan national commission that concluded that illegal immigration should be eliminated to the extent possible and that legal immigration should be dramatically reduced in numbers. The reason, Jordan said, was that the numerical level of immigration is so high that it serves as a tool of economic injustice against the most vulnerable members of our community. (bold emphasis added)

Beck gives us all some good advice. Don’t let this kind of sermon go unchallenged! Speak to your minister, or if you feel too shy to speak directly, “write a short note and drop it in the offering plate or comments basket in the foyer.”

Bring it up as a discussion issue in Sunday school class!

If you are deeply concerned about illegal immigration, join NumbersUSA

Trackbacked to:

Woman Honor Thyself, Right Truth