Think I might get in trouble with this one?

In case you haven't noticed, the Obama/Biden transition team is using www.change.gov as their "official" Internet presence, after bum-rushing a milquetoast bureaucracy with the request. I asked them to stop:

Please cease and desist the use of the .gov Internet domain immediately. Since there is no "Office of the President-Elect" in the governmental hierarchy of the United States, such misrepresentation as your camp is engaged in is disingenuous. You insult the work of legitimate governmental entities with your presumption.

As an indication of maturity, please us a .com, .org, .info, or other generally acceptable domain. It is a deception to identify anything having to do with the Obama administration as "governmental" before his inauguration.

If you'd like to pass along a similar sentiment, well, you know where to find Barry and Joe.

--Mike

Here is grace.

People who've followed this blog for awhile know that I've aimed it at some awfully graceless attitudes from time to time--with most of those attitudes being held by people who profess to be fellow Christians. But when there is the chance to point at something which is literally "graceful," it is worth reading.

The above link, to Michelle Malkin's column referencing the story of Dong Yun Yoon, holds him up as an example of patriotism. Her praise, however, is far too faint; it is not mere patriotism in action, but grace. I have no way of knowing whether or not Mr. Yoon is a professing Christian, but his example is compelling, whether as a brother in the faith or as a real-life Samaritan whose actions should convict us all.

--Mike

Rest easy, John Mark

Earlier this evening (as in just a couple of minutes ago), I found out that one of the folks who have contributed to this corner of the Internet had passed away. Fellow blogger Keith Solomon has written an eloquent article about this gentleman, who participated here primarily under the sobriquet of "John Mark."

It is awkward to consider his passing, since we never had the opportunity to meet in person; however, his change in demeanor was a blessing to see. Even at this moment he is completely healed, and experiencing by sight the presence of God which we only know by faith.

Please read Keith's article.

--Mike

Wonk, wonk, wonk.

Here's the deal.

Having a wonk as President isn't a good idea. Apparently, as if it's a rule of some game, being a wonk means trading off something--like a moral grounding.

The last wonk we had was Bill Clinton, and I think the White House cleaning crew is still trying to get some stains out of the Oval Office carpeting. He may have been able to rattle off the names of all manner of foreign dignitaries (and pronounce their names correctly), but Clinton's moral compass was long ago smashed into tiny little pieces.

While President Bush hasn't exactly been everything a conservative could've hoped for, he wasn't a wonk. His morality has been solid, and though people may disagree with his conclusions, it cannot be argued that he has arrived at them without a strong moral influence on his decision-making process.

Now, the nation is back to a wonk--two, if you include Biden. Oh, yes, Obama can rattle off all sorts of foreign-policy goodies, even though he's only spent hours more in Iraq than Gov. Palin. People like Jon Meacham of Newsweek can perhaps get Chris-esque tingles at the mention of the Lightworker, but even before the election we understood that Obama has no moral rudder.

At the end of the day, the Office of the Presidency is one where decisions must be made. Good decisions are made by people with good moral character.

With the announcement of planned executive orders from Obama to allow the harvesting of yet-to-be-born children for experimentation, as well as the prohibition of crude-oil exploration, we see that the bad decisions from the latest Wonk-In-Chief have already begun.

--Mike

"Dear Mr. Obama": An eloquent case for McCain

Couldn't have said it better.

--Mike

Letter from 2012 in Obama's America

This morning, I came across an interesting news article, regarding Dr. James Dobson's political action group, Focus On The Family Action. It has published a "letter from the future," written from the viewpoint of an individual Christian living in the year 2012.

Read it here.

It is, I fear, more than a bit accurate. If you share that perspective, voting for anyone other than John McCain and Sarah Palin is a remarkably bad idea. And if you don't share that perspective, you are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

--Mike

Fred Thompson is one optimistic guy.

Take a few minutes and watch this.

--Mike

More from the Obama cult's Music Department

I found this earlier today at BeliefNet.com, and after picking my jaw up off the floor, though it was worth letting you know about it.

Familiar with the song "Lord Prepare Me To Be A Sanctuary"? Here we have someone who's done a little lyric surgery, changing "Lord" to "Love." And love for whom, you might ask? Why, the Lightworker himself, Barack Obama.



God forbid that enough of Obama's cult followers vote on Tuesday, November 4th to see him become the next President. As I've observed before, and as Joe Biden has promised, an Obama Presidency will be loaded with trouble.

--Mike

Obama's cult of personality now has a Children's Music department

This is, in a word, disturbing. As is the newest addition to this article--scroll down so you don't miss it.

Particularly if you're a parent.

(EDITED TO ADD: Here's the video in question.)



(Hat tip to Nikki Shepherd.)

Obama supporters are now enlisting children to sing the praises of their Dear Leader. (And I don't use the term lightly.) They have a lovely, innocuous statement on the home page of SingForChange.com--let's examine it together. Quoting thusly, and like so (in italics):

Sing for Change chronicles a recent Sunday afternoon, when 22 children, ages 5-12, gathered

All on their own, of course. In matching t-shirts. In front of an Obama backdrop. Even the synchronized hand motions were the children's idea. And they just happened to get together in the presence of (as is mentioned elsewhere on their site) "three High Definition cameras (Panasonic HVX250’s)" and an "RED camera set up on a SteadiCam." It's not exactly Andy Hardy putting on a show in a barn, is it?

to sing original songs

Let's pull over and park there for a few minutes.

"Original songs?" If you've ever worked around a children's choir of any sort, you know that "original songs" have to be rehearsed. A lot.

Here. Examine the lyrics. The first song was allegedly penned by a 9-year-old:


WE’RE GONNA CHANGE THE WORLD
Music and lyrics by Lily Campbell

We’re gonna spread happiness
We’re gonna spread freedom
Obama’s gonna change it
Obama’s gonna lead ‘em

We’re gonna change it
And rearrange it
We’re gonna change the world.


SING FOR CHANGE
Music and lyrics by Kathy Sawada

Now’s the moment, lift each voice to sing
Sing with all your heart!
For our children, for our families,
Nations all joined as one.
Sing for joy and sing abundant peace,
Courage, justice, hope!
Sing together, hold each precious hand,
Lifting each other up;
Sing for vision, sing for unity,
Lifting our hearts to Sing!


YES WE CAN
Music and lyrics by Kathy Sawada

Yes we can
Lift each other up
In peace, in love, in hope
Change! Change!

For the record, Kathy Sawada is the "choir director" in the aforementioned video, and (surprise!) an Obama supporter. But let's continue...

in the belief that their singing would lift up our communities for the coming election. Light, hope, courage and love shine through these non-voting children who believe that their very best contribution to the Obama campaign is to sing.

A 5-year-old wants to sing for the Obama campaign? Really? Now, a 12-year-old responding to Obama propaganda is one thing, but are we seriously supposed to believe that the youngest members of the Dear Leader Singers independently voiced a desire to sing so that Obama might get elected?

To be involved in a cult of personality is one of the least rational things I can imagine. I've seen people who do this with this entire Obama nonsense, and I've seen them up close, too, in other venues. Such misplaced worship is, indeed, disturbing.

--Mike

EDITED TO ADD: Want another example of Obama Youth, particularly since the previously referenced Sing For Change video has mysteriously disappeared? Here you go:

Feeling very 21st Century today

One of my great laments in this so-called "modern age" has been the lack of personal jet packs. I have been so saddened by the absence of such devices that, as you may remember, I've taken it personally.

But no more. Watch this:


I should be more hopeful.

--Mike

The Vote: Pragmatism, Principle, or Petulance?

On Tuesday, November 4th, there will be an election for the American Presidency--and, more importantly, for the future of the nation itself.

Looking back on recent history, it is obvious that we as a nation survived the Clinton administration, and are surviving the administration of George W. Bush. With the dark times of the Clinton era and the vacillations of the GWB era as reference points, I believe that the United States would've survived a Kerry administration. Or a Dukakis administration. Or even (and these are frightening words to type) a Gore administration.

I do not believe that the United States of America will survive a Barack Obama administration. That is to say, survive an Obama administration as a representative republic guided by the United States Constitution.

Barack Obama is that most dangerous of individuals--a dilettante. Some time at a pseudo-Christian church and, suddenly, he's a theologian. A trip to Europe, and he's a foreign policy expert. Less than six months' actual experience in the U.S. Senate, and he's Presidential.

An Obama administration, it is clear, would attack fundamental Constitutional rights, as his recent Second Amendment comments made clear. With his selection of renowned plagiarist (stealing from RFK and Kinnock), bigot (remember "clean" and "articulate"?), and comedian Joe Biden as running mate, Obama has shown that "Change we can believe in" starts with suggesting a denizen of the seamier portions of the Beltway would make a dandy Vice-President.

(Yes, I referred to Joe Biden as a "comedian." Don't you remember his favorite joke about Rudy Giuliani? "There's only three things he mentions in a sentence--a noun, and a verb, and 9/11. I mean, there's nothing else." Bah-dum-bump. Get it? Terrorist attacks are punch lines to Biden.)

Obama has developed, and is developing, a cult of personality. In the literal, technical sense. Problem is, apart from a TelePrompTer, he doesn't have much personality, or terribly much to say. The nation cannot afford the devastation that will come from giving Barack Obama real political power.

But what of John McCain? As a Christian, I am stopped short by a man who declares he's a Christian, yet specifically insists he is not "born again." Even some non-Christians are familiar with Christ's own words in John 3:7, "Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again." No option there. While George W. Bush has erased any theological sophistication we might have hoped for him by suggesting that Islam is a viable religion, McCain has gone a step further. He is as guilty of cherry-picking the Bible as is Barack Obama.

Now, I understand that there were many "Christian" moments during McCain's imprisonment in a North Vietnamese P.O.W. camp, but here's the question. If they were transcendent examples of personal faith in Jesus Christ, rather than episodes that were exclusively emotional, would McCain not adhere to the teachings of Christ as revealed in Scripture?

McCain attends a Baptist church, yet refused to be baptized by immersion. He considers Islam "honorable." He generally avoids discussing personal faith in Christ, defaulting to mentions of a "higher power" rather than specifically mentioning Christ or Christianity.

One of the motivating factors in George W. Bush's election, and re-election, was the notion that Christians could vote for a fellow Christian to serve in the office of President. As with the miserable administration of Jimmy Carter, we have seen that candidates' professions of faith in Christ have failed to consistently translate into solid leadership. But in the 2008 election, neither of the two major-party candidates gives any tangible evidence of being a Bible-believing, Christ-honoring, twice-born child of God.

So how should we vote?

There are three popular answers. First, there is the notion of "pragmatism"--that we vote for the "lesser of the two evils." Or, more properly, we vote for the major-party candidate whose victory would prevent the less desirable major-party candidate from being elected. Second, there is the notion of "principle"--that we vote for a candidate regardless of that candidate's chances of being elected; this notion opens up the potential of casting votes for individuals such as Bob Barr and Ralph Nader. And third, there is what I call (and which works for alliterative purposes) the notion of "petulance"--that we refuse to vote for any candidate who fails to meet a remarkably high standard for the office of the Presidency.

For a good while, I have considered that the third option might be the best; after much prayer, thought, and research, I have concluded that the third option is, indeed, petulance. Books are being written that, at face value, suggest that refusing to vote in this election is a reasoned, supposedly Biblical stand. It is the civic equivalent of holding one's breath until one's face turns blue; it mistakenly presumes that there can be, or will be, a "perfect" candidate.

It has been widely proclaimed that a vote for John McCain will dilute the Republican Party, and that those who might normally vote Republican should abstain, in the hopes that the party can regroup for the 2012 election. Unfortunately, this is a partisan line of thinking, one as bad as the standard Democrat mindset of "party over country." Realistically, the Republican Party was diluted in 2000 with so-called "compassionate conservatism," in 1996 with "owing" a nomination to an unelectable candidate, and even in 1990 with the abandonment of a no-new-taxes vow. The Republican Party was heavily damaged long before John McCain backed into the nomination, and it is hubris to think that abstention from voting will translate into persuasion of the G.O.P. power structure.

Considering a principled vote is not, on its face, a bad idea. That is, until you consider what principle is actually at play. If the goal is influence, then the principle of influencing a vote requires a vote for a presidential candidate with a realistic chance to win an election--providing that candidate doesn't have destroying the country as a chief end. When a principled vote becomes a Quixotic one, then it is ultimately wasted.

So what are we left with? Pragmatism? Well, it isn't as though we're left with it, since we never strayed from it in the first place. Votes, as a matter of course, are exercises in pragmatism. We vote on things every day, though perhaps not generally with the import of a vote for President. But we do vote, on everything from clothing choices to commuting routes to what we'll have for lunch. Rarely, if ever, is there a perfect choice in any vote; it is pretense to suggest otherwise. When we vote, we make the best available choice from a given field of possibilities. Why should the vote for President be viewed any differently?

The most succinct expression of this line of thought is from radio commentator, author, and cultural activist Janet Folger. With regard to voting for the lesser of two evils, I quote her thusly and like so, "Until Jesus Christ's name appears on the ballot, that's exactly what we do in every vote."

Please, when Tuesday, November 4th arrives, do not be petulant. Please do not believe yourself to be voting on principle by wasting your vote's influence. Take the time to make the best choice from the available field.

The best available choice is John McCain.

--Mike

EDITED TO ADD: The addition, on the morning of August 29th, of Sarah Palin as John McCain's running mate was, simply, brilliant. It makes voting for McCain a much, much easier prospect.

On "canceling a soul"

I've recently encountered the online work of Dr. Warren Throckmorton, a psychology professor who also blogs about issues of faith, family, and culture. After reading an article of his addressing legal and moral aspects of abortion, I submitted a response that was (I know, not surprisingly) rather involved. At Dr. Throckmorton's suggestion, I am re-posting my response here for discussion, and as a way to recommend his site to you. Quoting thusly, and like so:



It is interesting to read the scattered, specious, insubstantial opinions of people who haven’t taken the time to consider the consequences of indulging abortion-on-demand. Before addressing the behavior of Mr. Harrison’s (not “Dr. Harrison,” since he forfeited the use of that title after killing his first child), let’s review some of the boilerplate previously advanced, shall we?

1) Okay, I just find this law a little creepy. It isn’t as though women who choose to have an abortion don’t know why they there are there. It seems like a way to shame or scare people off from having abortions - rather than just giving them medical advice. And in what sense is a fetus whole or separate anyway.

I didn’t realize someone had to be “whole or separate” to be human; apparently, conjoined twins don’t make the grade. Do you understand that the developing child has a separate brainwave pattern, a separate heartbeat, and can even have a separate blood type from his or her mother?

And some of the best medical advice one can give a pregnant woman is “Don’t kill your child.”

2) Of course most people know that the images associated with abortion aren’t pretty.

Neither are images associated with lots of medical procedures.

Let’s just park there for a moment.

Abortion is not a medical procedure. It can be hidden behind abortionists’ phraseology, but at the end of the day, what negative medical condition does it address, treat, or relieve? Unless you’re of a mind to define pregnancy as an illness or other deleterious medical condition, the only available answer is “Why, none, Mike.”

I think most people would freak if they actually saw the images associated with open heart surgery - but we don’t expose people to that. In short there is no reason to be blatant with the imagery *unless* someone wants to push an anti-abortion agenda.

Abortionists lie to the women whose children they kill. Forcing them to tell the truth–and isn’t it fascinating that they must be forced to do so?–is only asking them to be held to the same standard actual, legitimate physicians must attain. To use your example, would you tolerate it if a heart surgeon working on a family member–or on you–lied about the goal of a surgical procedure?

Somehow, I doubt it.

3) What percentage of abortions does this procedure represent?

A remarkably small percentage, thanks for asking. But partial-birth abortion is but one tool in the abortionist’s kit. Are you familiar with the standard procedures used in the vast majority of abortions, or do you need details?

And given that the original Roe v. Wade decision does give States authority to regulate 3rd trimester abortions, wouldn’t that indicate there was some sort of necessity for this procedure?

Most state legislatures have been flummoxed by Roe v Wade and every other pro-abortion ruling since. But I thought you were the one who wanted to note how very, very rare third-trimester abortions were in the first place?

As for the law in question, I think it is just as bad as a law that said doctors have to tell their patients that “God thinks abortion is bad” or “If you vote for a Democrat, innocent children will die.” All of these statements (including the one in question) are based on philosophical or political beliefs not medicine. Medical science does NOT define when life begins (nor do I believe it should). It does define when life ends, but that is more of a legal definition (i.e. when can a doctor legally stop trying to revive or treat a patient).

It doesn’t take “medical science” to develop a definition for the beginning of human life, not when common sense is such a handy aid.

Would you say that a developing child eight months past conception is a living human being? Most folks would say “yes.”

How about seven months? Six? Five? From what I’ve heard and read, children only 22 weeks post-conception have survived premature delivery, which pushes things back to the five-month area.

So how about four months? Are you interested in saying that a child who’s a human being at five months’ gestation wasn’t a human being at four? Or at three? If we keep dialing back, developing children have a discernable heartbeat at roughly three weeks’ gestation, and discernable brainwave patterns at six weeks.

Even before this time, from the moment of conception, the developing human being is just that–developing, and with unique, and uniquely human, genetic information. Common sense will tell you that life begins at conception, if you’ll just employ it.

4) Perhaps we should get into a discussion about what abortion was like BEFORE it was legalized - would images of coathangers and the loss of the life of not only the child but the mother be better?

Ah, one of the best red herrings of them all. But read your own words: You define abortion as “the loss of the life of… the child”. Please ask yourself why you’re limiting your own argument to the choice between one death or two, when you could be considering scenarios where no one dies!

I see abortion as one of those necessary evils.

What other “evils” are “necessary”? I’ve never encountered even one, so I’d appreciate hearing why any sort of out-and-out evil is ever necessary.

I don’t agree with it, I stand opposed to it, but I will not force my particular belief onto someone else by voting for legislation that tries to make it illegal.

Then you are actively engaged in cognitive dissonance. If you say you believe a thing to be wrong, but you refuse to enter the arena of ideas and contend for the advancement of what you say you believe, you do not have a belief, but rather a lukewarm opinion that brings you comfort.

I think there needs to be limits to its use and that we should use eduction (sic) as one of our best weapons to lessen its occurrence. I do not, however agree that the world would be “better” if it weren’t legalized.

Millions of children have been murdered by people pretending to be doctors. It has been facilitated by politicians and judges with no substantive morality, and pursued by women (and the men who aid them) who range from the brainwashed to the hedonist. How is the world a better place by indulging the slaughter of fifty million children in the United States alone?

Bill Clinton, for all his faults, had a great quote that I use often: “Abortion ought to be safe, legal and RARE”.

“Faults”? Bill Clinton is a diabolical individual; you would do well to never consider anything he says to be “great.” But what inspires you to think his quote is even something he believed? What did William Jefferson Blythe Clinton ever do to make abortion-on-demand more rare? Anything?

Here’s an even better quote for your mantelpiece: “We must champion the innocent and the defenseless; there is no one more innocent, more vulnerable, than the child yet to be born.”

Now as for Mr. Harrison (and I use the “Mr.” loosely), it is evident from his statements that the psychological strain of killing approximately 20,000 children has taken its toll. If he frequents a church that at all preaches the Christian Gospel, he cannot help but be aware of (even if he will not admit it) the ramifications of willfully, freely violating God’s own standards by murdering child after child over the years, much less the ramifications of rejecting the call of God to repentance and faith in Christ.

While those of us who are Christians should pray for his salvation, we must not allow ourselves to be surprised when a man who indiscriminately takes life makes statements that are non sequiturs.

Dr. Throckmorton, you are being generous in your statements considering what Harrison has said. He will not entertain the notion that one of the 20,000 he has killed could have been anything other than an anguished, tortured human being with no chance of redemption; were he to do so, he would face being personally convicted of the crimes against God and humanity he has enthusiastically committed.

–Mike

Obama and Christianity, part 2

I'm flattered... ahem... that Joseph Farah of World Net Daily reads my blog, since he's written an editorial that echoes the conclusion inescapably reached in my previous article with regard to Barack Obama's counterfeit Christianity. It quotes an interview with Obama from a few years back in the Chicago Sun-Times; in case you don't have time to follow the link, here is the crucial section, thusly and like so:

"So, I have a deep faith," Obama continues. "I'm rooted in the Christian tradition. I believe that there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people.

"That there are values that transcend race or culture, that move us forward, and there's an obligation for all of us individually as well as collectively to take responsibility to make those values lived."

It's perhaps an unlikely theological position for someone who places his faith squarely at the feet of Jesus to take, saying essentially that all people of faith -- Christians, Jews, Muslims, animists, everyone -- know the same God.

Obama is a flat-out liar. It has never been the "Christian tradition" that there are "many paths to the same place." The exclusivity of Jesus Christ was demonstrated throughout thousands of years of history, and illustrated in the Bible--literally from Genesis through Revelation.

It may be simply that he is so immature and naïve that he has been incapable of questioning the anti-Christian scum that Jeremiah Wright has been pumping into him for the past two decades. (Obama's recent statement that he has severed his relationship with the cultic, deceitfully-named Trinity United Church of Christ changes absolutely nothing about his twenty-year affiliation with them.) Or, it may be that Obama consciously chooses to deceive others. Either way, he may be the single least-qualified individual ever to run for the Presidency of the United States of America. And that's including the other two leading candidates, Hillary Clinton and John McCain, neither of whom have any business setting up camp in the Oval Office.

I'd really like you to read both the WND piece and the source material from the Sun-Times; if you need another reason, here's another tidbit from the confused mouth of Obama, thusly and like so:

"The difficult thing about any religion, including Christianity, is that at some level there is a call to evangelize and proselytize. There's the belief, certainly in some quarters, that if people haven't embraced Jesus Christ as their personal savior, they're going to hell."

Obama doesn't believe he, or anyone else, will go to hell.

But he's not sure if he'll be going to heaven, either.

"I don't presume to have knowledge of what happens after I die," he says. "When I tuck in my daughters at night, and I feel like I've been a good father to them, and I see in them that I am transferring values that I got from my mother and that they're kind people and that they're honest people, and they're curious people, that's a little piece of heaven."

Barack Obama uses Christianity as a prop. Such behavior cannot be rewarded.

--Mike

Obama, Wright, and the cultic church they have in common

(New information added 5/3/08.)

Yes, you read me correctly--and I don't headline this lightheartedly. Don't believe me? See if you can tell what words I've changed in the following quote. Thusly, and like so:

We are a congregation which is Unashamedly White and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the White religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are a Caucasian people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent Europe, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the prosperous time of being slaveowners, the good old days of segregation, and the joyous years of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously enjoy privilege as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a White worship service and ministries which address the White Community.

What sort of Aryan nonsense would that be, right? It's not exactly Aryan, but a subtle expression of the anti-Christian belief system known as Liberation Theology. The tweaked quote above came straight from what (at this writing) is still Barack Obama's home church and Jeremiah Wright's senior pastorate, the Trinity United Church of Christ on West 95th Street in Chicago. If you think I'm stretching to qualify that "church" as practicing Liberation Theology, I refer you to Wright's own "talking points" (the church's term) on that subject. Among them:

The vision statement of Trinity United Church of Christ is based upon the systematized liberation theology that started in 1969 with the publication of Dr. James Cone’s book, Black Power and Black Theology.

Black theology is one of the many theologies in the Americas that became popular during the liberation theology movement. They include Hispanic theology, Native American theology, Asian theology and Womanist theology.

Black liberation theology defines Africans and African Americans as subjects – not the objects which colonizers and oppressors have consistently defined “others” as.

To have a church whose theological perspective starts from the vantage point of Black liberation theology being its center, is not to say that African or African American people are superior to any one else. African-centered thought, unlike Eurocentrism, does not assume superiority and look at everyone else as being inferior.

Systematized Black liberation theology is 40 years old. Scholars of African and African American religious history show that Black liberation theology, however, has been in existence for 400 years. It is found in the songs, the sermons, the testimonies and the oral literature of Africans throughout the Diaspora.

(The above reference to the "Diaspora" does not refer to the scattering of the Jewish people after their Babylonian exile, as the word is generally used. It has been co-opted by black liberation theology proponents to refer to the period when sub-Saharan Africans were sold into slavery--often by other Africans. To say that referring to this wretched period in time as a "scattering" is an understatement.)

Liberation theology of any stripe is non-Christian. It seeks to enthrone ethnicity or political persuasion in the center of an individual's life, rather than seeing God have that place. When people practice liberation theology, they do so in place of practicing Christianity.

Still not convinced? Here's something else from Trinity's own site; I'll make comments where appropriate.

We believe in you, O God, Eternal Spirit, God of our Savior Jesus Christ and our God, and to your deeds we testify:

Note that, in this little declaration, there will be not one mention of God the Father. "Trinity" Church? Hardly.

You call the worlds into being, create persons in your own image,and set before each one the ways of life and death. You seek in holy love to save all people from aimlessness and sin. You judge people and nations by your righteous will declared through prophets and apostles. In Jesus Christ, the man of Nazareth,

Perhaps you can help me here. While I in no way disagree that Jesus Christ is fully man, He is also fully God. Is that mentioned in the quoted epistle?

our crucified and risen Savior, you have come to us and shared our common lot, conquering sin and death and reconciling the world to yourself. You bestow upon us your Holy Spirit,

Not getting anything here about "God the Holy Spirit," something you think you'd get from a Trinitarian church.

creating and renewing the church of Jesus Christ, binding in covenant faithful people of all ages, tongues, and races. You call us into your church to accept the cost and joy of discipleship, to be your servants in the service of others, to proclaim the gospel to all the world and resist the powers of evil,to share in Christ's baptism and eat at his table, to join him in his passion and victory. You promise to all who trust you forgiveness of sins and fullness of grace, courage in the struggle for justice and peace, your presence in trial and rejoicing, and eternal life in your realm which has no end. Blessing and honor, glory and power be unto you. Amen.

"Your realm." Heaven? Nirvana? Wrigley Field? And note how "justice and peace" get worked into the equation. Never mind that we find grace, not justice, in Christ; never mind that as things are, we are told there will be no peace in this world.

Trinity also hosts a "Center for African Biblical Studies." Whether you wear a dashiki or a bed sheet, advocating race while appealing to the Bible never, ever works. Scripture reminds us that, in Christ, there is no "Jew" or "Greek"--by extrapolation, no "Black" or "White" or "Hispanic" or "Asian" or "Native."

Here, let's look as a few of their "ministries." As a side note, Jesus is mentioned once directly on the Ministries page, and only three times by reference to "Christ," "our Lord," and the "Son (of God)." They list 59 "ministries" on that page. A few tidbits:

AFRICA MINISTRY - promotes, educates and advocates issues concerning Africans in Africa and the Diaspora. Opportunities shall be provided for education, travel, fellowship, economic development, missionary work, financial support, and health education

FINE ARTS & LITERARY GUILD - informs the church family about artistic and cultural events focusing on African and African American heritage.

CARIBBEAN CONNECTION - This ministry is our Afrocentric congregation's attempt to educate our North American members about the many aspects of the Caribbean culture. These aspects include the cuisine, the peoples, the countries, the customs, and the religion of our Lord as practiced in the various Caribbean places.

INTONJANE - Swahili for "Coming into Womanhood" is a formal Rites of Passage program for young women, ages 8-18 years old. The program involves each participant in inspiring Christian, cultural and social awareness exercises.

ISUTHU - Swahili for "Coming into Manhood" is a formal Rites of Passage program for young men, ages 8-18 years old. The program involves each participant in inspiring Christian, cultural and social awareness exercises.

KUJICHAGULIA - The 2nd principle of the Nguzo Saba, meaning "Self-Determination;" provides resources, networking and hands-on assistance to persons who are physically, mentally, and/or emotionally challenged.

SINGLES COMMUNITY MINISTRY - addresses unique issues facing single Christian adults.

Never Married
Divorced
Widowed
Single Parent
Same Gender Loving (emphasis mine)
Upcoming Events

Tangeni Adult Dance Ministry

Ministry Purpose/Objectives
The purpose of this ministry shall be to praise God in dance. In keeping with the church’s motto of being “Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian,” we recognize that praise and worship in dance is both an expression of our heritage and an acknowledgement of our faith. Tangeni, as led by the spirit, shall provide fellowship and nurturing to its members through devotion during rehearsals, seminars, retreats and other related activities. Tangeni provides an opportunity for its members to enhance and use their spiritual gifts in order that we may minister unto the church universal and the community at large

YOGA MINISTRY - helps participants maintain physical, mental and spiritual fitness.

I love that last one--"yoga ministry" being an oxymoron, whether you're focusing on a cultic church or on a Christian church that's just confused on that particular issue. And how, exactly, does a church address the euphemistically-named "same-gender loving" other than to say "it's a sin"? Seems like that would be one short session.

And if the phrase "Nguzo Saba" rings a bell, that's because it refers to the seven principles of Kwanzaa. That made-out-of-wholecloth "holiday" was, of course, invented by a fellow named Ron Karenga in the late 1960s. Karenga, for the record, is a Marxist. For the record, his one-time "United Slaves" organization was responsible for the deaths of two members of the Black Panthers. For the record, Karenga served several years in prison for assaulting and torturing (yes, that's "torturing") two women who were members of his "United Slaves" organization.

Trinity United Church of Christ, located on West 95th Street in Chicago, Illinois, is not rooted in Christianity. It is a liberation-theology-spouting, ethnocentric pseudo-church preaching a synthetic gospel grounded in divisiveness and hate. A lot of people, apparently, are comfortable with that--or else, so spiritually immature that they're unable to distinguish the true Gospel of Jesus Christ (the Son of God and God the Son, by the way) from the false gospel of ethnic preference and socialism.

Wright ran a false church, as we can see and read by what passes as "sermons" from his pulpit. And Barack Obama has affiliated with that church for two decades.

How are those of us who are Christians to vote? Do we vote for Hillary Clinton, who's never been guilty of taking the Christian faith very seriously? Or do we vote for John McCain, who's not that troubled by homosexual "marriages," who made McCain-Feingold into a mine field for Christian churches, and who insists he's a Christian but will tell you point-blank that he's never been born again? Or do we vote for Barack Obama, who sat for twenty years, shining the pine of a pew in a "church" where hatred had free rein?

To quote the King of Siam, "What a puzzlement."

--Mike

EDITED TO ADD: On April 28, 2008, Wright spoke to the National Press Club, and answered questions posed to him. Lest there be any doubt Wright preaches another gospel, his own words included the fundamentals of liberation theology--and something even more damning. In case you don't follow the link, I'll post a notable exchange here, thusly and like so:

MODERATOR: Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man cometh unto the father but through me.” Do you believe this? And do you think Islam is a way to salvation?

WRIGHT: Jesus also said, “Other sheep have I who are not of this fold.”

Not exactly a straight answer, but an interesting little torture of Scripture, that. So Wright believes Islam--an anti-Christian religion that denies the deity of Jesus Christ--is a viable way to salvation, a way that makes Muslims Jesus' "other sheep"? Such belief is impossible without believing that Calvary was the debacle of the ages, and that God is a bumbling idiot.

Not through sinful judgment, but by Wright's own words are the conclusions inescapable ones: He does not--cannot, by his own statements--have a personal, saving relationship with Jesus Christ, and we should pray for his salvation, because Wright is not--and cannot be, by his own statements--a Christian.

Which puts us back to Obama, who has publicly declared himself to be a Christian. The above-referenced question asked of Wright must be asked of Obama, publicly and clearly. And for all his posturing and rumbling, Obama's answer will no doubt be as disgusting as Wright's.

For those still checking in, I'm concerned about something

(With something resembling a regular schedule again, I will be rebooting the festivities here as much as possible.)

Here's something fresh off the wire services: Paul Verhoeven, the director of motion pictures such as RoboCop, Starship Troopers, and Basic Instinct, has taken up a new career goal. No longer content to be a purveyor of secular filth, he has an anti-Christian slant to his latest effort--not surprising, since he fell in with the oxymoronically-named "Jesus Seminar" crowd years back.

The latest effort from Verhoeven is a out-of-thin-air "realistic portrait" of Jesus. Never mind the eyewitness accounts we have of Jesus' earthly life and ministry, because Verhoeven wants to suggest in this not-a-biography that Jesus "may have" been sired by a Roman soldier/rapist, and that someone other than Judas Iscariot "may have" betrayed Him.

The Catholic League's Bill Donohue considers Verhoeven's screed "laughable," but I respectfully disagree with Mr. Donohue. There's another "-able" that's far, far more appropriate for this situation, particularly since Verhoeven is setting himself up as an authority figure on the subject--as a teacher, if you will. I consider it appropriate to quote thusly and like so...

2 Peter 2

1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. 2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. 3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not

Not "laughable," Mr. Donohue. "Damnable." As in the Greek apoleia, "the destruction which consists of eternal misery in hell."

If you happen by this corner of the Internet, Paul, it's the responsibility of those of us who are Christians to tell you that your current path leads to eternal separation from God in a very real place called Hell. You can write your way into Hell, but you cannot write your way out. It matters not that you refer to yourself as a Catholic, because your actions are those of someone who hates Jesus Christ. I encourage you to repent (if it's not too late for you to do so) because, unlike Muslims who would call for your head if you so much as drew a cartoon of Mohammed, Christians want the best for even those who attack Christ as you have.

--Mike

New year, new rule

Since there are some who simply will not take a hint, comments here are now (and will be for the foreseeable future) moderated. This will slow the discussion to a crawl, but will allow me to prevent that which is neither edifying nor topic-specific from appearing in the Comments sections.

--Mike