Widows, orphans, and reinvestment.

“The Lord has seen this, and God is displeased that there is no justice” ~Isaiah 59.15, gnt

Just finished listening to Obama’s speech about his plan for the nation recovering from this economic crisis. And though he’s often accused of sounding socialist, is it possible that what he is truly seeking is justice?

Look, Obama is no prophet—is certainly no Messiah—and will most likely only achieve a quarter of his promised change. He’s a politician. However, what he does say sounds right.

Invest in the right things, beginning with education. This is the biggest area in which Obama speaks to me (maybe, in part, because I’m married to a school teacher). Education and opportunity are so important. That’s our nation’s future. That’s the future of our world.

In the Word, care for the widows and children is an imperative, not an option: “Do not take advantage of a widow or an orphan. If you do and they cry out to me, I will certainly hear their cry. My anger will be aroused, and I will kill you with the swords. Your wives will become widows and your children, orphans”(Exodus 22.23-24, niv). That’s pretty strong stuff, but the point is that we should treat “widows and orphans,” whomever we say those marginalized ones are today, as if they were our own.

And though there are lot of other promises that Obama made during this speech, may at least the emphasis on education, the invesment made in our children, bear fruit—fruit that will endure. For they are not just our, but GOD’s children after all.

Surely this is the opinion of just one man.

Wade Williams, 75, called his local registrar, angry that he had yet to receive his voting card.

Why was he so angry?

He told her that he had to “keep that n***** out of office.”

Seriously.

And he told her that he had a shotgun at home he was willing to use if he didnt get his card.

Obviously, he was arrested.

But this is the opinion of just one man, right?

Or maybe two.

On the radio there was a person called into a talk show, saying that he wouldnt vote for Obama because, as he said, “it IS the White House after all.”

So two men, maybe.  At least two feel this way.  But tell me there arent any more.

Or women either.

PLEASE.

Pro-Life, Pro-Obama?

So I read an article that pointed me towards this website which I found very interesting.

Now, for the record, I’m still undecided as to who I am voting for and am looking forward to the debate this evening.

And I dont know whether or not the topic will come up BUT the above website, ran by a non-partisan group called Matthew25, provides resources that show that even though Obama is consistently Pro-Choice as far as his voting record goes, his intended policies may in fact reduce abortions more than overturning Roe vs. Wade.

By focusing on health care, education, and child care programs, the idea is that in order to tackle the central issue of abortion, one must focus on the underlying causes.

It has always been my opinion that very few persons, if any, really want to have an abortion.  Most who do, though, find themselves in a position that they dont know what else to do.  They are too poor to feed another hungry mouth.  Too young to make a responsible, informed decision.  And too alone to know where else to turn.  Plus, adoption is a confusing and intimidating process on all sides.  Therefore, it seems sensible that one can achieve the goal of reducing abortions by tending to all these other issues—especially education.

Check out the site, then let me know what you think!

The church hypocritical.

“Within the nation’s largest Protestant denomination, a woman may not lead a church or a home.  But prominent Southern Baptists see nothing wrong with Sarah Palin serving as vice president—or perhaps even commander-in-chief someday.  In other words: A woman can run the White House, just not her own house”(Associated Press, 02 October 2008).

This pretty much speaks for itself; however, a few comments.

First of all, the Second Testament was written in the first century Greco-Roman world.  A world that was patriarchal, where each household had a ‘paterfamilias’, the family-head sometimes of both his immediate and extended family.  There were no single, working mothers—they would have either been stoned for adultery or left for the State or Temple to care for.  Yes, things change.

In fact, a recent report aired on World News Tonight said that the majority of people surveyed, both men AND women, admitted that it was the WOMEN who made all the decisions in the family—the women who were running the household—materfamilia, shall we say.

Therefore, even if the majority of men WANT to believe they are the head of the family, it’s only by title.  And to try and contradict this reality with wcriptural proof is actually pretty amusing, like a t-shirt that reads, “Behind every good man is a woman who deserves all the credit.”

Second, focusing on Scriptures like 1 Timothy 2.12 and Ephesians 5.22 in order to emphasize the point that women shouldnt have authority over men means that a person has to ignore the existence of Phoebe.  Who’s Phoebe?  Well, Paul, in Romans 16.1, tells us that she’s a ‘diakanon’ of the church—a word that in Greek means minister.  A lot of people want to gloss over this by saying that the word actually means “deaconess,” some lesser position that she must’ve held.  But this isnt true.  The word is diakanon.  It gets translated as deacon.  It means minister.  The same word is used by Paul to refer to Tychius (Eph 6.21) and even himself (Col 1.23).  Phoebe was a MINISTER.  Women should be ministers.

This is why I left the denomination in which I was raised—well, one of the reasons.  The hypocrisy.  And here … to go so far as to tell people to ask the same people to vote for a woman to lead their nation but not their church—talk about separation of Church and State!

But that’s a topic for another day.

You CAN meet and debate in the same week.

Yes, you CAN meet and debate in the same week.  I dont know where either candidate stands this morning on the matter of the debate, but I did read that they are being summoned for emergency meetings on the subject of the economy.  One of these poor guys is going to be stuck w/ this mess, so yes—they need to be there.

But why cant they still debate?  All a debate requires is being able to stand up, articulate yr beliefs, and possibly defend yr character.  How much preparation does that take?

Though I try not to get into heated debates as a pastor, I always have to be ready to stand up and articulate my beliefs.  And usually, never when I’m prepared to do so.

Take for instance a so-called “casual lunch” I had recently.  I was invited out for a “casual lunch,” but immediately after the plates were cleared, BOOM—So, what do you believe about the Virgin Birth?

Now the Virgin Birth has become a matter of tension along liberal and evangelical lines.  There are a lot of people out there who believe it as a literal fact, others as a symbolic truth.  Both sides believe in the Virgin Birth, just do so differently.

So at this “casual lunch” I could’ve done two things (well, three, really).  I could have said, “Can you give me a week to prepare my answer?”  Also, I could have said, simply, “Yes,” and left it at that.  But I knew neither was appropriate—I had to stand up and say what I believe.

More and more I’m learning that I’m a passionate Independent, as my answer appropriately reflected:  “I believe in the Virgin Birth b/c it’s in the Bible.  Now, whether or not it literally happened the way it did—some say yes, others no.  But here’s what I believe: the Virgin Birth shows the best of humanity and of divinity coming together, b/c of two people’s choices.  First, God chose Mary; then, Mary chose God.  If believing in the Virgin Birth means believing in the perfection of Divine-Human partnership—yeah, I believe that.”

On the spot, that was my answer, and looking at it again, I still believe it to be true.

And you know what? that came at the end of a very busy week and after a busy and stressful morning.

But I didnt ask for more time or give a simple answer, and if the candidates truly believe what they are saying, then they wont either.

Religious beliefs and political agendas.

A lot has been made recently about faith and politics b/c of the selection of a certain “hockey mom” as a vice presidential candidate.  Many have expressed concern about how some of the evangelical views of her church may effect her political decisions and infringe on the rights of others.  And others have been critical that the media has been unfair in their critique of her religious beliefs, an ironic complaint considering that just a few months back all we heard about was a presidential candidate’s church.

The question underlying the discussion about the faith of the candidates is, “What role should faith play in politics?”

Personally, I see my faith intertwined with my political beliefs, but I am able to differentiate between my religious convictions and politcal agendas.  For instance, I believe that we are called to be stewards of the earth—but does that make me an “environmentalist?”  I believe that God has given us free will—but does that make me “pro-Choice?”  I believe that Jesus taught us to turn the other cheek—but does that make me a “pacifist?”  And I believe that Jesus died upon the cross—so how could I NOT support a moratorium on the Death Penalty?

Enough people in the world dont take the time to consider these balances, to sort out what is a religious conviction and what is some political agenda, dressed up in the Gospel.

As a pastor, I never preach political agendas from the pulpit, but I do try to preach in a way that helps people make informed decisions in their lives—including their political lives.  For instance, when it comes closer to the election, I may preach a sermon that encourages people to get out and vote, but I wont tell them who to vote for.  That’s their choice, not mine, not some church’s or denomination’s.  I pray, though, it is a choice they might consult God’s help with.

As you listen to the candidates talk about faith, are you hearing them express their faith in a God who is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abundant in steadfast love, or are they just spouting off some political agenda people have credited to God?  Are you hearing them express their faith in a Lord and Savior who didnt come to judge the world but to save it, or are they passing themselves off as the commissioner of the moral police?

And as you listen to them, listen to what God has to say, especially the part about giving to Caesar what is Caesar, and God what is God’s.  Isnt that the same as differentiating between religious beliefs and political agendas?