Race is Always the Issue

     Being a conservative like I am I know that I have bias. We all do. If you don't think you do then your probably one of the people I'm addressing in this article. But what amazes me is that so many liberals (political, not theological) can't see they are often more guilty of what they accuse conservatives of than we are. For example, while it is so fresh in my mind, I was accused by a liberal of being hateful for my article called “Why I don't support Barack Obama”. The main thrust of the article is because I'm a Christian and because Obama supports abortion, I can't support him. I will admit to using some harsh language in describing those who support abortion. I was accused being hateful and judgmental. This amazes me in light of the fact that they blame President George W. Bush for everything. During the inauguration of President Obama, the extremely disrespectful crowd, with no respect for the office, booed Bush and Cheney when they entered the stage. No hate there.

     But the issue that gets me most and the thrust of this artical is that of race. One might think, if you watch the main stream media, that conservatives are racists and liberals are lovers of all man kind. Not only do I think that this is more accurately judged on an individual basis. But also, I think if anything it is the opposite. Let me take a shot at explaining my point.

     Joseph Hayne Rainey (June 21, 1832 – August 1, 1887) was the first African American person to serve in the United States House of Representatives and the second black person to serve in the United States Congress (U.S. Senator Hiram Revels was the first) and the first African American to be directly elected to Congress (Revels was appointed). He was elected to fill a vacancy in the Forty-first Congress of the United States as a Republican. He was reelected four times. As a Congressman, Rainey was dedicated to passing civil-rights legislation.^a

     Hiram Rhodes Revels (September 27, 1822 – January 16, 1901) was the first African American to serve in the United States Senate. Since he preceded any African American in the House, he was the first African American in the U.S. Congress as well. He represented Mississippi in 1870 and 1871 during Reconstruction. In 2002, scholar Molefi Kate Asante listed Hiram Rhodes Revels on his list of 100 Greatest African Americans. Republican.^b

     Brooke, Edward William, 1919–, U.S. senator (1967–79), Admitted to the bar in 1948, he served (1963–66) as attorney general of Massachusetts, where he gained a reputation as a vigorous prosecutor of organized crime. Elected (1966) as a Republican to the U.S. Senate, he became the first African-American senator since Reconstruction.^c

       BRUCE, Blanche Kelso, a Senator from Mississippi; born in slavery near Farmville, Prince Edward County, Va., March 1, 1841; was tutored by his master’s son; left his master at the beginning of the Civil War; taught school in Hannibal, Mo.; after the war became a planter in Mississippi; member of the Mississippi Levee Board; sheriff and tax collector of Bolivar County 1872-1875; elected as a Republican to the United States Senate and served from March 4, 1875, to March 3, 1881; was the first African American to serve a full term in the United States Senate.^d

     There have only been five African Americans in the U.S. Senate. If you've lost count, three of the five were Republicans. I can hear the objections already. That was then, and this is now, and the Republicans have changed a lot since then. Well, the Democrats haven't. They are still oppressing minorities today. Keeping them poor and dependent on the government with all of their social programs. Teaching them a poor work ethic by giving them affirmative action. Of course, today if a black person is successful in the Republican party he is labeled an “Uncle Tom”.^e After all I don't remember the same tears of joy when Clarence Thomas was nominated to fill the seat of Thrugood Marshall. I don't recall Oprah or the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) dancing in the streets when President Bush nominated Collin Powell as the nations first black U.S. Secretary of State. And we mustn't forget the amazing Condoleezza Rice, first black female U.S. Secretary of State.

     Yes, there have been democrats in there as well. But the Republican record is pretty impressive. Let's not forget the very first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln. The great emancipator himself.

     So the problem I have is that I believe that this election for many democrats is, it's all about race. Obama was the junior Senator from Illinois. Why all of this confidence that he can run the country? I believe the answer is in what happened on election night. People were crying and repeating over, and over; “What an historic moment”. What? The only thing that makes it historic is that Obama is the first U.S. President who is half white. I mean half black. I mean African American. Sounds like some pretty shallow people. Wasn't it Martin Luther King Jr. who said, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." Only words.

     I will end with a few questions from a typical white person, like Obama's grandmother. Is Obama torn between hating his white half, while loving his black half. Is it wrong for me to be proud of being white? If this election is historical just wait until we get someone who is all black. 

I wouldn't be rejoicing if a white liberal got elected as President. So why should I put aside all of my views and convictions just because his skin is a different color?

      No matter which way I look at it, it seems that to the liberals, this election is all about race.

a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_H._Rainey

b http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiram_Revels

c http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/people/A0809073.html

d http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=b000968

e http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncle_Tom

Why I do not support Barack Obama

This was first published on my facebook page and most of the comments were positive. With one exception from a person who said that it was full of hateful lies. Well, you be the judge.

     I am a Christian. I'm a real Christian. I actually believe that the bible is the very Word of God and that Jesus Christ is the promised Savior and the second person of the Trinity. I believe that He (Jesus) came to save us from sin.

     The reason I clarify what a christian is, is because everybody and their mother calls themselves a christian in America nowadays. The problem with this is that bible describes what a true christian is like. The Bible is clear as to the “fruit” a true christian will produce.

     With that said I make the following statement without apology. You can not be a christian and be pro-choice. As Gregory Koukl put it:

"Let me put the issue plainly. If the unborn is not a human person, no justification for abortion is necessary. However, if the unborn is a human person, no justification for abortion is adequate."

    With that said I make the following statement without apology. You can not be a christian and be pro-choice. Can you be a christian and vote for Obama? I believe it is possible, but only if you are ignorant of the fact that Obama is a baby killer. I know, those words sound harsh. The reason I use the words “baby killer” is because I believe that people who are pro-abortion need to stop candy coating what abortion really is. Abortion is murder. If you vote for someone who is guilty of this heinous act then the blood of all of these defenseless babies is on your hands as well. You are a murderer of children just as much as supporters of the Nazi's in WWII made you guilty of genocide.

     With that said, I'm sure liberals or “said faith” Christians would fire back with some anti-war statement and think they have made a an excellent argument. However, a statement such as that would only serve to prove that they have no idea what the Bible teaches.

     Twice, Obama voted against bills prohibiting tax funding of abortions. In February 2004, his wife, Michelle, sent out a fundraising letter, which actually stated her concern over the rise of conservatism in the Country, and that the ‘so-called’ partial-birth abortion was a legitimate medical procedure that should be protected.

     I conclude with this thought. If Obama turns the economy around, ends the war in Iraq and causes the United States of America to be respected across the world, I still will never support a pro-abortion president.

Isaiah 5:20 “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!”

The Evangelist

     Years ago when I was a brand new Christian I was introduced to the traveling evangelist. I must admit that as a young Christian I was quite taken in by some of these men. They would come into the church and start their week long revival meeting. Some were just called evangelistic meetings. Either way the evangelist would preach a week of messages that he probably preached in the last town. I was always confused about whether or not the meetings were for Christians or for the lost. After all he is called an “evangelist” in other words an “evangelizer”. Yet so many of the messages were for those in the church. I believe it may have something to do with the fact that it is harder now than ever to get the lost into church than it has been in the past. Therefore, preach to the ones who are there.

     Many of the messages were decision messages. They were meant to bring about a decision. But not just any decision, a public decision. Why a public one? Well, we were told that it was because a public decision is one that sticks. Because others can keep you accountable. Also Jesus said “Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.” (Matt. 10:31). This, of course, is totally out of context. But it helps to put the pressure on.

     One of the tools used by the Evangelist is called “doubt”. If he can get you to doubt whether or not you have really trusted in Christ or not then you are more likely to make that public decision. Then with every head bowed, every eye closed, and no one looking around, (except the evangelist, pastoral staff, and trained crew of counselors), would you raise your hand so I can prey on you, I mean pray for you. Then with the piano playing “Softly and tenderly” through twelve times the people go forward. Of course if there is a visitor in next to you who simply will not budge, you are to encourage them to go forward by telling them you will go up with them if they would like. Oh, I almost forgot about the tithe message.

     Maybe some or all of these thing are all too familiar to you too. It didn't take me long to realize something was amiss. Well, maybe it took me longer than I remember. I soon learned that when the word “evangelist” is mentioned in the New Testament it is referring to more of a church planter than an itinerant preacher. With this bit of knowledge I started to ask people why we have evangelists as we know them today? The answers I got were anywhere from; “An Evangelist is a sheepdog” to “Just because something is not biblical doesn't make it unbiblical.” Of course, with that logic you could condone crack cocaine. But I digress.

     The thing that started to really bother me was when I got to seminary. I noticed that in the class we were taught just what I came to learn on my own about Evangelists. But these Pastors, Students, and even the church affiliated with the seminary still had evangelists in their churches. Why? We are, or I thought we were, Calvinistic in our doctrine. Yet these circuit riders are using Finney like tactics.

     Here is what I think is the reason. Besides the fact that the president of the seminary and the evangelist are old college buddies. As I got closer and closer to some of these men I notice that to say you're calvinistic and to be calvinistic are two totally different things. Many of these Pastors say they are trusting in God for results but then engaging in Finney like tactics. To me this just means they don't really trust in the power of God to accomplish His will. Instead, they look at their dwindling numbers and call up the manipulating Evangelist. Too many pastors are focused on the wrong things. Large numbers don't glorify God. Who cares if the numbers in your church are way down? Leave the numbers up to God. And never, never compromise.

Rest in the LORD and wait patiently for Him; Do not fret because of him who prospers in his way, Because of the man who carries out wicked schemes.” Psalm 37:7