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...

Two interesting things happened this weekend... I began separate discussions with two self-professed "Evangelicals" both of whom, I believe will likely support Barack Obama in the fall.

Over the next day or so - I'd like to replay for your benefit and discussion the two sides of the debate. I'd also greatly appreciate your further thoughts - as this is a genuine attempt to hash out the evangelical's role in the election in November.

Let me state up front - that I am not a supporter of either primary candidate. I have written intense criticism of both men. And if you do not believe me - go check my column archives for the months of November 2006 - January of 2007.

Nonetheless Christians are REQUIRED to participate in the election of 2008 - if we choose not to we are exercising disobedience to a known command - to "render to Caesar that which belongs to him." (In this nation - WE - are Caesar therefore our duty is to rule justly and at minimum that means voting righteously!

The column that began the first discussion with an evangelical named Steve was my syndicated piece from Sunday that discussed Barack's "solution" to the AIDS crisis. Not behavior, not different choices, not discernment - CONDOMS! In response this is how Steven began the conversation:

You seem to be quite dismissive of Evangelicals who support Obama in this election.  As one of them, I think there are more important issues than "condoms" and I'm not sure you are right about this micro-issue.
Sincerely,
Steve Savage

To which my responses began:
Steve's reply:

First of all, the President has little if anything to do with those moral and religious issues.  More importantly, the mission of the Church is far better accomplished through Kingdom means than through the "arm of man."
 
As for potential persecution - I don't really see that happening and if it did it would only be what Jesus told us to expect.
 
Presidents DO have have a role in deciding whether or not to start wars, whether or not to abandon civil liberties and violate treaties, whether or not to ignore important warnings from the scientific community, and how to resolve international issues in places like Pakistan, Afganhistan, Iraq, Iran etc.  They do have an influence on whether we move to a rational energy policy.  They do have a role in whether or not we can resolve important issues like Social Security, Health Care and Immigration.  A responsible Evangelical voter must also consider all of these issues.

Christians who thought they were voting based on Biblical values in the last two elections were instrumental in giving us a president who made some very poor choices on the issues he could effect.
 
I don't support the killing of innocent children - in the US or in Iraq or anywhere.  However; electing a President who might-make-a-nomination-that-might-someday-influence-a-court-decision-that-might-or-might-not-change-the-opinions-and-actions-of-still-unconvinced-pro-abortion-Americans hardly seems to be the best way to do something about killing innocent children.
 
Sincerely,
Steve Savage

My response, from my phone, driving about 65mph headed down 95 to DC:

Yes you do support the killing of Children as Obama supported the killing of born children...

End of first exchanges...

Obviously there is much more that could be said to the plethora of Steve's anti-biblical views. Which are astounding really... given that he is touting himself as  an evangelical it is fair to measure him by what he claims to be. I know Obama does not wish to be, his supporters likely don't either... But for now... to claims of the back and forth...

What say you?

He might have been a little slow off the mark on this, but it is the best thing for him to do. He CLEARLY supports the people of California, Obama clearly embraces the judicial tyrants in black robes:

My friends at Protect Marriage received this yesterday:

"I support the efforts of the people of California to recognize marriage as a unique institution between a man and a woman, just as we did in my home state of Arizona. I do not believe judges should be making these decisions."

DISTINCTION is what McCain needs in this election - not conformity, and this gives him one more night stick to beat Obama over the head with.

As truly as distasteful as it may now seem. We've got us a race-monger-baiter-pimp who is about to run in a general election for President.

Because it gins up emotions easily - and causing roughly 12% of the population to begin raging regardless of fact, truth, or reality - Barack went racy-race on Friday night talking to donors in Florida.

He repeatedly claimed that John McCain and the GOP would try to "scare" voters in their general election messaging on the basis of race.

And he's probably right...

Because as we all know nothing is more frightening than a half-white man, threatening to do things that only liberal white people like...

So 62% of Americans say, "DRILL HERE, DRILL NOW!" When you pay $5 a gallon for gas it's easy to understand why. Every item of food you now eat has become much more expensive to consume (unless you grew it in your own backyard.)

Coupled with that dilemma is the reality that nobody believes the environmental whack jobs anymore.

Al Gore the love guru of the greenies has been shown to not only be the biggest hypocrite/liar/inventor of new imaginations related to global warming (every claim of his movie now being discredited by more than 41,000 meteorologists, climatologists, and earth science academics), but someone that can't even control his own energy usage. Gore this year consumed 10% MORE than he had a year previous. (Gore justifies it by saying, "I'm so important that I HAVE to!") By the way his margin of INCREASE was enough to power more than 230 homes for a year.

But in addition to that - all the "the end of the world is at hand" types have refused ocean drilling because of the fear of pollution to the marine under life. The problem now is that we all have seen that when a level 5 Hurricane swept through the gulf (Katrina) followed by a level 4 (Rita) - even though the rigs in the gulf (over 800) had some damage to the rigs themselves, NOT ONE DROP OF OIL was spilled.

Given that - I expect this 62% to increase - big time the more the price of gas increases. And Barack Obama says - no more drilling, no more exploration, no more depending on ourselves to supply the energy we need...

And that's NOT change we can believe in...

There are good and bad ideas on how to solve our energy crisis... from the Obama corner - here's the dumbest thing that could possibly be done!

And one of the smartest!

According to those who study such things, Al Gore is has a more huger carbon fatprint than he did last year...

Gore energy use was UP 10% on the year, meaning his energy margin over his use a year ago - would be enough to power 232 homes...

...well okay - I don't really have it - but here's something even better!

I've written many times before of the unbelievable talent, sincerity, and tremendous hard work that Brooke Barrettsmith has put into her debut album. August 19th will prove me right... Pre-Order your copy now by clicking her album in the side bar.

Here's a sneak preview:

Shame on him, and shame on his publisher - Thomas Nelson. Even a casual, cursory understanding of either the Christian faith, or the candidacy of Barack Obama would have easily demonstrated how at ODDS the two are.

For shame...

John McCain and Barack Obama probably think this headline is good news.

When I'd much rather see people learn lessons from something like this instead...