A day ago I began the relaying of on going discussions I am presently having with "moderate evangelicals" on the issue of fuzzy thinking in this election cycle, and most pronouncedly - their support for Barack Obama. More of my discussion with Steve Savage follows... Also interesting is this insider account that is now emerging about that supposed meeting Obama had evangelical leaders a couple of weeks ago. Original accounts that hit the media headlines were all favorable and had Obama and Franklin Graham embracing. I could decipher by who was quote in the original account that it had in fact been an Obama supporter that put the story into the media rotation.

None of the significant names from the evangelical side of the equation (something Obama does not fall in to) would comment on the meeting or the proceedings.

Undoubtedly, I thought to myself at the time, they refused comment in order to not spread - likely very blunt and direct thoughts to the future front runner into the gossip mill of the mainstream press.

Reports now emerging, several weeks later, indicate my hunch had been spot on. According to these reports Franklin Graham - peppered Obama about his "salvation." Even from the way the Obama supporters among the clergy termed the interaction - it was OBVIOUS that Barack Obama was not then, and likely is not now a born-again, Biblical Christian. Of course this surprises NO ONE who is a born-again, biblically based Christian - but for lackeys who draw no distinction between someone who says, "glo-reee" and one who admits before God, "I am a sinner, incapable of righteousness on my own. I accept the price paid on my behalf by your sinless Son Jesus Christ. I submit my will and choices to the truth of His word and will. I submit to His authority, Lordship, and redemption. I have and do trust Him to be in me, and for me - what I can not ever be for myself," there IS a big difference, and that's likely what got under Obama's skin as he was peppered in the meeting.

Obama can play church some of the time but he can not play Christian ANY of the time in front of everyone and expect those of us who truly are ones - to not recognize him for what he is...

Moving on...

More of my interaction with an "evangelical" who claims to be strongly supportive of Obama.

KMC: "Yes Steve you DO support the killing of unborn children just as Obama has supported the killing of born(alive) children."

Steve Savage: You are right in a certain sense.  Obama stands for abortion rights and that comes as part of the package.  It is unfortunate.  Consider that if you supported president Bush you also effectively supported the killing of children in Iraq and the starvation of people in Africa in the future because of our inaction on global climate change.  This is why we, the Church, cannot try to accomplish our aims through political means.  The people involved in politics are complex and the process is complex. We do the Church damage when we are too closely aligned with a party or a political ideology and need to retain our independent, prophetic voice.  I would argue that the Church made a huge error in adopting the language of "rights" in the debate about abortion.  It is a moral issue not a rights issue.  A woman in our church  and her baby just narrowly survived a delivery complication that has around an 80% mortality rate.  Her baby didn't live because of a "right" - their lives were an obvious gift of God and that is really what it is in every case.  A woman who is pregnant in circumstances where that is not a joyful thing does not really have a "right" to abort.  She has a huge moral dilemma and an "obligation" to make a choice.  This is not about "rights" and ultimately it is not really about law.  The "truth-speaking" function of the Church has been side-tracked by attaching our message to those non-Kingdom concepts and mechanisms.
 
Jesus very specifically rejected politics as a means of advancing His Kingdom though he had plenty of radical things to say about politics.  Governments have a role in God's General Grace and their authority must be respected, but when Peter and Paul and Jesus said that they were talking about the Roman Empire which certainly did not govern by Biblical values.  Government is what it is.  We make the best choices we can as voters to try to keep the society functioning and peaceful so that the Kingdom can do its unique work through the power of the Holy Spirit - not the power of law or policy.

KMC: Then by your own standard you should reject politics and sit out the election...

Anthropolgical climate change is a myth... Scientists in the 100,000's are agreeing to that now... So hanging "starving childen" on any administration based on it is also false. And in fact arguments can actually be made that the alternative fuel set-asides of food crops for fuel purposes have contributed more greatly to the starving of children in Africa - than the climate difficulties themselves...

You may well believe the church should not be involved in politics - but you sir violate your own principle.

I do believe that we are responsible for the direction of our nation. Our greatest threat is radical Islam, followed closely by attempts like yours to remove God's principles from the greater arena of life. But in order to embrace your position and be consistent you would need to also reject evangelism.

All that aside - to knowingly elect someone who has vowed thrice on the campaign trail to undue the institution of Biblical marriage - puts you outside - the both known and expressed scriptural purpose of the matter. In other words you seek to undo marriage as well.

That my friend is rebellion...