Debate and Switch

Guest contributor

The second Republican Presidential held Monday June 13th in New Hampshire began revealing some interesting information about the candidates.


For the first time, the field of seven Republicans, which now includes Minnesota Rep.  Michele Bachmann, were put on the spot about everything from the economy to the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

And in this group, there were plenty of surprises.  About an hour into the discussion, CNN's John King launched into a series of questions about marriage, specifically, whether these seven would support a federal amendment protecting it.  "Are you a George W. Bush Republican, meaning a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, or a Dick Cheney who... [thinks] this decision... should be a state's decision?"

Herman Cain was the first to answer.  "State's decision," he said flatly.  Gov. Tim Pawlenty disagreed.  "I support a constitutional amendment to define marriage between a man and woman."  Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) went out on a limb claiming, "the federal government shouldn't be involved" at all. But if it were, he wouldn't support a federal marriage amendment (FMA) anyway.

Former Speaker Newt Gingrich told King that his position hinged on the Defense of Marriage Act.  "I think if that fails, at that point, you have no choice except to [pursue a] Constitutional amendment.

That left Gov. Mitt Romney, Sen. Rick Santorum, and Rep. Bachmann, all three of whom have never shied away from the marriage debate.  And they didn't stood firm in this debate.  Each one threw their support behind a Constitutional amendment.

To Cain's point that this is a state issue, Sen. Santorum had the best response.  "Three-quarters of the states have to ratify a Federal Marriage Amendment.  So the states will be involved in this process."

Santorum is exactly right.  A federal marriage amendment is hardly in conflict with the states.  It protects the majority that do have amendments (31) – making it the most pro-states' rights position of all.

Later, the candidates weighed in, very gingerly, on the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal.  Again Cain and Paul lined up against social conservatives, saying that although they didn't favor repeal, neither would reinstate the policy.

Pawlenty and Gingrich seemed to lean toward banning open homosexuality in the military, but both responded that they would have to confer with military officials first.

Santorum was the strongest on the issue, stating unequivocally, "The job of the United States military is to protect and defend the people of this country. It is not for social experimentation. It should be repealed."

For his part, Romney shrugged off the question.  "[G]iven the fact that you're insistent," he told King, "the answer is, I believe that 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' should have been kept in place until the conflict is over."  Still, he pushed, "we ought to be talking about... jobs."  As far as two and a half million American soldiers are concerned, this is about jobs.  They're the ones working 24-hour days, sacrificing everything to defend us.  And, as Marine Commandant James Amos told Congress, nothing could impact their performance more than forcing the military to embrace homosexuality.  This is an extremely risky proposition that will not only cost jobs, as some people leave the military, but lives as well.

Most frequently quoted Bible verse?

At one time John 3: 16 was the most frequently quoted Bible verse:
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” But today the most frequently quoted verse is Matthew 7: 1: “Judge not, that ye be not judged.”

“Judge not, that ye be not judged,” has become so popular because it is also one of the least understood verses of our day due to the groundswell of postmodern relativism philosophy. At the core of this philosophy are the beliefs; “that may be true for you, but it's not true for me.” And; “live and let live.” These principles are clearly contradictory to Scripture so it is little wonder that those who appeal to Matthew 7: 1 do it in an attempt to silence Christians. This tactic is quite effective because many Christians also have a flawed understanding of this verse.

Paul Copan writes in “True For You, But Not True For Me,

It’s been said that the most frequently quoted Bible verse is no longer John 3:16 but Matthew 7:1: ‘Do not judge, or you too will be judged.’

We cannot glibly quote this, though, without understanding what Jesus meant. When Jesus condemned judging, he wasn’t at all implying we should never make judgments about anyone. After all, a few verses later, Jesus himself calls certain people “pigs” and “dogs” (Matt. 7:6) and “wolves in sheep’s clothing” (7:15)! Any act of church discipline (1 Cor. 5:5) and rebuking false prophets (1 John 4:1) requires judgment. [1]

Let’s unpack this so that we can better understand this within the context of Scripture so that we are better equipped when confronted with this argument. Remember that we interpret Scripture through Scripture not through our modern day philosophy or circumstances. Indeed, extracting a single verse to support one’s view is known as a “proof-text”. [2]

Jesus said “Do not judge lest you be judged” (Matt. 7:1; Luke 6:37). But He also said, “Judge with righteous judgment” (John 7:24; see Deut. 16:18). These are not contradictory statements since the context of Jesus’ words in Matthew 7 tells us what He means by “not judging” and what it means to judge with “righteous judgment.” Jesus was condemning those who judge using two standards of morality, one standard for the judge and another for the accused. The Bible maintains—in both the Old and New Testaments—that the standard of judgment must be equal for both parties (Num. 15:16). “For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it shall be measured to you” (Matt. 7:2).

In essence, no one is above the law, not even those who make and enforce it. The Pharisees demonstrated a system based on two standards of justice: “They tie up heavy loads and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger” (Matt. 23:4).

If the “judge not” concept were taken to its logical conclusion, every court room in the country would have to be shut down, every judge laid off, and all attorneys sent packing. This says nothing of the Supreme Court and Congress, two institutions that deal with judgment on a national scale.

Endnotes:
1. Paul Copan, “True For You, But Not For Me”: Deflating the Slogans that Leave Christians Speechless (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany, 1998), 32.

2. Proof-text definition: A proof-text is a verse or short passage from the Bible used by someone as part of his proof for a doctrinal belief he wishes to substantiate to others. However, since verses and passages may rely extensively on the context in which they appear for correct interpretation, pulling these out of their context and having them stand alone in a “proof” can, at times, be very misleading. In addition, a set of such proof-texts can completely ignore other passages which, if added to the mix, might well lead to an entirely different conclusion. Someone who relies strongly only on a list of proof-texts in order to make a doctrinal argument may have a very weak case for his argument. Noting that a religious teacher relies heavily just on proof-texting is viewed in theological circles as a very negative evaluation. (Dewey).

Keep Jesus Out of Your Socialism (Part 2)

Dr. Michael Youssef | June 15, 2011

In part one of this series, I made clear, from the words of Jesus and the New Testament, that ministering to the poor and the needy among us is the work of Christian individuals and the church, not the secular government. Jesus said, "The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because He has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. . . ." Today's Religious Left wants to change that to, "He has anointed the federal government to preach good news to the poor."

The Christian gospel is a message of salvation, not a message of income redistribution and raising our neighbor's taxes. Jesus said that the way to serve the poor is by giving generously of our own resources. "But when you give a banquet," He said in Luke 14, "invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous."

The Religious Left is very generous—with other people's money. In fact, I believe the founder of the Religious Left was none other than Judas Iscariot. When Mary, the sister of Lazarus, anointed Jesus with costly perfume just days before the crucifixion, Judas lectured her and said, "Why wasn't this perfume sold and the money given to the poor?"

Notice that Judas put on a show of caring for the poor—even though the money was Mary's, not his! The motives of Judas, John 12:6 tells us, were corrupt and self-centered—and Jesus responded with a stinging rebuke.

At least one of the Lord's disciples was a "social action Christian" in the Sojourners mold: Simon Zelotes (Simon the Zealot). Just as Sojourners president Jim Wallis was once president of the Michigan State chapter of the militant Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), Simon Zelotes was a young political radical who attached himself to Jesus because he thought Jesus would lead a revolt against the Roman Empire.

Simon saw Jesus as a political Messiah who would topple the powerful while lifting up the poor and oppressed. But Jesus was not a political Messiah. He didn't attack the Roman Empire. He did battle with the Evil Empire of Satan himself.

Jesus didn't tell the Roman government what its budget priorities should be. Why? Because His agenda was much larger than the agenda of Simon Zelotes or the Religious Left. His eyes were fixed on eternity. He said, "My kingdom is not of this world."

The Religious Left has missed the meaning of that statement. Yes, there is a place for Christian social action—but that place is in a personal lifestyle of generosity and compassion to the poor. Jesus didn't tell the rich young ruler to become a political activist and affect public policy. He said, "Go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

It's true, there's poverty in America, and some of the poor can't lift themselves out of poverty without help. Some are physically or socially disadvantaged. Some are down on their luck. They need and deserve Christian compassion and the good news of the gospel.

But a huge number of people receiving government assistance are substance abusers, welfare cheats, or chronically lazy. Doesn't the Bible tell us, "If a man will not work, he shall not eat" (2 Thessalonians 3:10)? Why must the "makers" of society support the "takers" of society? That's not compassion. That's theft. Wouldn't it be more compassionate to encourage the takers to develop self-respect by becoming productive citizens?

Would Jesus endorse government policies that encourage and enable addiction, indolence, and welfare fraud? Certainly not. The Religious Left should read His parables, especially the Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25:14-30), the Parable of the Vineyards (Matthew 20:1-16), and the Parable of the Tenants (Matthew 21:33-46). In those parables, Jesus blesses hard work, personal responsibility and the freedom to achieve.

Government programs can't separate the truly needy from the welfare cheats—but private Christian charities can. Private charities are far more effective than government at meeting needs, changing lives, eliminating fraud and waste, and dispensing compassion. Our stance as Christians should be pro-compassion, not pro-bureaucracy.

The place for compassionate Christian social action is in the church, and in the lives of individual believers. When the church becomes a political pressure group, telling the government, "Confiscate more wealth from those who earned it and give it to those who have not," then the church has formed an unholy union with the kingdoms of this world.

Income redistribution is not Christianity. It's Marxism—and mixing the two only pollutes the Gospel and betrays the Great Commission.

Stay tuned for Part 3: Is America a "fallen nation"?

Gay Movement Has a New Poster Child

Recently CNN ran a three part series covering 38-year-old Kirk Murphy’s suicide in 2003. The thrust of the series is to place the blame of Kirk’s suicide on a government-funded experiment at UCLA to try to cure his effeminate behavior when he was five.

Part one of the series:


I fully recognize that if I presented only my view here, I would immediately be labeled a hateful homophobe among other unmentionable adjectives. For this reason I’m posting an editorial opinion article authored by long time cultural and political blogger Sandra Rose. Sandra Rose herself is gay and eloquently exposes the Kirk Murphy story for exactly what it is; “the media’s new poster child”.

Siblings say UCLA’s anti-’sissy’ therapy caused their brother’s suicide 33 years later
Wednesday, June 8, 2011 | Sandra Rose

The gay media has a new poster child to generate sympathy for their cause and to further their agenda of promoting gay acceptance.

His name Kirk Murphy, and he was a successful accountant until he hanged himself in 2003 at age 38.

Normally when a person commits suicide, it is usually due to depression and despair that has been undiagnosed or untreated for years.

But nowadays when a gay person commits suicide, the media latches on to the story and repackages it to push their gay social acceptance agenda, as if depression had nothing to do with it. Just this week, a former Duke University and Chicago Bulls basketball star leaped from the roof of the NY athletic club and plunged to his death.

His name was Tom Emma, 49, and he was not gay that we know of. So the media handled his death differently. A few paragraphs into an article reporting his death comes the words: “Sources told the Daily News that Emma had been depressed.”

Nowhere in the reports on Kirk Murphy’s suicide do you see the words “depressed”or “depression.” Why? Because it doesn’t fit the gay media agenda.

Even though he died in 2003, Mr. Murphy’s family knew that all they had to do was mention the words “anti-gay” and “suicide” in the same sentence and his story would make headlines all over the country.

Kirk Murphy was an effeminate boy who preferred playing with girls toys and dressing in girls clothing. So, when he was 5, his mother took him to a government-funded program at UCLA to try to cure his effeminate behavior. Dr George Rekers, who founded the program, was an anti-gay activist who was outed by a Miami newspaper last year when he was spotted at the Miami airport with a gay male escort whom he had hired to travel with him.

Mr. Murphy’s siblings blames Dr. Rekers and the UCLA program for their brother’s suicide, even though he took his life 33 years after the therapy.

According to London tabloid the Daily Mail, “Kirk’s family believe the therapy directly contributed to his death, and say he was never the same again after the sessions to get rid of his ‘sissy’ characteristics, which included instructing his father to beat him for feminine traits.”

CNN’s Anderson Cooper, who is himself gay, interviewed Murphy’s sister Maris and brother Mark for his 360 show on CNN last night. Maris, who was nine months old at the time and couldn’t possibly remember anything, told Cooper that the therapy her brother received left him “just totally stricken with the belief that he was broken, that he was different from everybody else.”

Well, he was different from everybody else. He was different in the sense that other boys don’t normally play with girls toys or wear dresses. But don’t let Anderson Cooper tell it.

And therein lies the essence of the gay media agenda: to gain sympathy to change laws that grants gays inalienable rights, such as teaching school children that homosexuality is normal.

The national media has a responsibility to promote the fact that homosexuality is not an illness or a handicap. Homosexuality will not be normal until 2 men can make each other pregnant. We are different and we should embrace our differences.

Keep Jesus out of your socialism

Dr. Michael Youssef | June 9, 2011

The headline of the full-page ad asks, "What Would Jesus Cut? -- A budget is a moral document." The text continues, "Our faith tells us that the moral test of a society is how it treats the poor."

The ad was produced by Sojourners, a self-described "evangelical" organization whose slogan is "Faith in Action for Social Justice." The ad was signed by Sojourners president Jim Wallis and more than two dozen Religious Left pastors, theologians, and activists. They urge our legislators to ask themselves, "What would Jesus cut?" from the federal budget.

How would you answer that question? My answer would be, "It's a nonsense question. Your premise is faulty. Your priorities are not His priorities."

Jesus had many opportunities to confront the Roman government about its spending priorities. It was, after all, one of the most brutal regimes in history. If the question "What would Jesus cut?" has any biblical relevance, we should be able to cite instances where Jesus lectured the Roman oppressors the same way the Religious Left lectures America.

Just compare ancient Rome with America today. Rome sent its armies out to conquer; America sends its soldiers out to liberate. Rome demanded tribute from other nations; America sends aid and emergency relief around the world. Rome enslaved nations; America rebuilds nations.

If the federal budget is a "moral document," what does it say about America? It suggests to me that America may be the most moral nation on earth! Name one other country that has spent $15 billion fighting AIDS in Africa. Name one other country that has provided more disaster relief, that has built more schools and water treatment plants, that has supplied more food aid around the world, that has sent more doctors, teachers, and technical advisers to developing nations.

Even America's military budget -- much of which is being spent to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan -- reflects the basic compassion and unselfishness of the American people. Clearly, America hardly deserves any scolding from the Sojourners soapbox.

Did Jesus ever lecture the Roman Empire about its budget priorities? In Matthew 8, when the Roman centurion approached Jesus in Capernaum, our Lord could have said, "How dare you, a Roman warmonger, come to Me asking favors? Change your priorities! Tell your bosses in Rome to stop buying chariots and start funding welfare programs!" But Jesus didn't lecture the centurion. He said, "I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith!"

In Matthew 22, when the Pharisees asked if it was right to pay taxes to Caesar, the Lord could have thundered against Caesar's misplaced budget priorities. Instead, He said, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."

In John 18, Jesus stood before Pontius Pilate, the Roman prefect, a friend of Caesar. Why didn't He give Pilate an earful about the injustice of Roman rule? If ever there was a time for Jesus to "speak truth to power" and become the "social justice Messiah," that was it!

But Jesus didn't preach the social gospel to Pontius Pilate. Oh, he spoke truth to power, all right. He delivered a profound message to Pontius Pilate -- and to you and me: "My kingdom is not of this world."

Now, I'm not saying that Christians are never called to confront their government. God bless Dietrich Bonhoeffer and the Confessing Church for standing against Nazi genocide. But that's not the situation here.

And I'm not saying there isn't a social and compassionate dimension to the Christian gospel. There certainly is! Jesus had great compassion for the poor.

He preached in Nazareth, "The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because He has anointed me to preach good news to the poor." He sent word to John the Baptist, "The deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor." Jesus presented the obligation to help the poor as an individual responsibility, a Kingdom responsibility -- not the duty of the secular government.

Both the religious and secular Left in America seem to want government to replace the church in ministering to the poor and needy. One of Barack Obama's first proposals as president was a plan to slash tax deductions for charitable donations by high-income taxpayers. President Obama reasoned that a tax deduction "shouldn't be a determining factor as to whether you're giving that hundred dollars to the homeless shelter." Maybe so -- but since private charities do so much good for the poor, why eliminate incentives for charitable giving? Could it be that liberals see private charities as competing with the big government welfare state?

In Romans 13, Paul tells us that we pay our taxes and support the government so that we will have a just, orderly society in which law-abiding citizens are protected from wrongdoers. But the responsibility for mercy and compassion belongs to the church -- not the government.

What would Jesus cut? When He stood before the Roman Empire, He didn't suggest cuts. He received cuts. His flesh was cut by Roman nails and a Roman spear. He was bruised for our transgressions, and with His cuts we are healed. That's the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Stay tuned. In Part 2, we'll see how Jesus dealt with the "radical leftists" among his disciples.