No doubt you've heard about the "Restoring Honor" Rally that took place last Saturday, August 28, in Washington, D.C. With the Lincoln Memorial as the backdrop, conservative broadcaster Glenn Beck and former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin rallied the huge crowd which came together in an effort to turn back to the Judeo-Christian values espoused by our Founding Fathers.
Interestingly, this rally was held on the same date and in the same location as the "I Have a Dream" speech delivered by Martin Luther King, Jr., forty-seven years ago. Civil Rights leaders cried fowl, while Beck claimed the timing was merely a "coincidence" that proved to be "divine providence". Because Dr. King's niece Alveda King spoke at the rally, one has to wonder about "coincidence".
In case you missed the news coverage by the mainstream media, here's how CBS News reported on the rally.
According to this clip, the size of the crowd was estimated to be between 100,000 and 600,000. Actually, NBC estimated that 300,000 people attended the rally. It was comprised primarily of two groups — Tea Party Conservatives who demand "drastically lower taxes and less government" and Christian conservatives who are calling for a "much greater role for religion in public life".
This evening Bill O'Reilly spent his entire program discussing the monumental event. He invited Glenn Beck to come and explain why he organized the rally. Beck talked of his love of country and strong desire to turn back to Judeo-Christian values. He shared on the O'Reilly program that all rights come from God, which is why the rally had a theocratic theme. At the rally, Beck pleaded with attendees to "Help us restore traditional American values". Toward the end of his interview with Beck, O'Reilly made the following comment: "I don't think there's anyone else who could have mobilized that many people."
Charles Krauthammer was invited to share his take with O'Reilly's audience. He explained that the only obliquely political statement in the entire rally came from Sarah Palin who remarked: "We don't want to change America. We want to restore it." He further explained that the rally wasn't really about Glenn Beck. It was about the Tea Party Movement. Krauthammer explained how it began as an opposition movement, and how the group was able to demonstrate the positive side of the movement at the rally as they honored the military, family, and traditional values.
It's important to point out that this was truly a spiritual revival as well as a multi-faith worship service. There were pastors, priests, rabbis, and other religious leaders who participated.
Not surprisingly, there is a controversy erupting within Christendom. Glenn Beck, a professed Mormon, is creating much dissension among Christians. Some are highly offended that a high profile individual who practices a false religion is calling people back to God, while others believe this action is a step in the right direction. Personally, I have mixed emotions and can see both sides of the issue.
We would love for you to share your position on the "Restoring Honor" rally. Was it beneficial or harmful to the cause of Christ?
Can’t be any worse than what we are now seeing from the current “Christendom leadership”.
Anything that takes away from their power agenda nowadays seems to upset these deceivers and create dissension.
It has just taught me even more that we are NOT to follow any man and we are to Follow Christ.
I now listen to NO man about “his” religious thoughts as I have my OWN.
Almost all “bringing America back to God” talk has been mostly law and very little Gospel. It is impossible to bring people back to God through a political agenda and only possible through Christ.
Deb,
Like you, I have mixed emotions. I knew there would be controversy over a Mormon leading the charge, and I don’t want to see people embrace some sort of ecumenical movement that minimizes the significance of serious doctrinal differences. Yet I see nothing wrong with people of various faith groups working together to call people to embrace their core values and allow those values to shape how they live their lives, which is what I understand the message of the rally to be. It is a good thing if we are talking about how we ought to live and treat one another, and what we expect of our political leaders in that regard (after all, they mostly just reflect the values of the society from which they arise). But if we set aside what we believe is central to our faith in order to just “get along”, we will lose the very basis of those values. It’s a fine line.
I don’t think it is necessarily either beneficial or harmful to the cause of Christ — I think it is about something else. I hope it doesn’t just turn into a modern day version of the Christian Coalitian / Moral Majority, in which conservative Christians and other with similar values try to get certains kinds of laws passed or certain kinds of people elected. That’s been tried and didn’t really get us anywhere — the focus is all wrong when we try to advance Christ kingdom or to enfore moral values through political means. But if Beck and others are just encouraging people to live rightly and treat others rightly and through that make our communities and society a better place, by being better people, I’m for it. Time will tell what comes of it.
I think that’s similar that what Beck’s point is — that we can’t accomplish spiritual things through political means, so we need to focus our faith rather than on politics. The problem is that Beck has a wrong view of Christ, and he seems to think that just a generic view of God, and faith in whatever you view Him to be, is sufficient to transform people’s lives. But only the real Jesus can do that.
I think it would be a truthfull statement to say that this crowd is what gave us eight years of disaster after disaster with George Bush. Now they want to blame Obama for everything that is wrong with the country after less than two years in office. Bush and his pals nearly ruined this country and anybody with a brain larger than a split pea knows it.
I guess my brain is smaller than a mustard seed, then. 😉 Actually, I am more interested in your thoughts surrounding a call to faith in this country. We all will disagree politically. Yet we may find some common faith grounds.What is your thinking on that?
Bill,
Of course, it isn’t at all possible that someone could disagree with your exalted opinion, sir, and have any intelligence. We should be so glad we have elites who know so much more than us ignorant masses to lead us into the promised land.
But since you brought it up (rather than giving your thoughts on the topic at hand), I’ll share with you an email I received just today …
If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a TelePrompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?
If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan’s holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?
If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia , would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the nonexistent “Austrian language,” would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?
If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had stated that there were 57 states in the United States, would you have said that he is clueless?
If George W. Bush would have flown all the way to Denmark to make a five minute speech about how the Olympics would benefit him walking out his front door in Texas, would you have thought he was a self important, conceited, egotistical jerk?
If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to “Cinco de Cuatro” in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?
If George W. Bush had misspelled the word “advice” would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoes as proof of what a dunce he is?
If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he’s a hypocrite?
If George W. Bush’s administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11?
If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans, would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?
If George W. Bush had created the position of 32 Czars who report directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate on much of what is happening in America, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?
If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?
So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive? Can’t think of anything? Don’t worry. He’s done all this in 15 months — so you’ll have two years and nine months to come up with an answer.
You just cant accept the truth about Bush and his in competance. The 8 years of Bush speaks for itself. He screwed up every thing he touched. I guess you would sleep better if Mccain and half term governer Palin were in charge. There is not enough room on this blog to list all of Bushes failures. Obama has tried to clean up some of this garbage but has onlt been damned and demonized by the right wing demagogues such as Palin Beck and others. You “SIR” dont get it now and you will never get it.
Bill
Would you please comment on the faith part of the rally? That was the reason for this post. This is a faith blog looking at those issues. Sure, politics will enter it from time to time. On this blog we have people from all over the political spectrum.
Also, a blog is meant to be a place to share ideas. To say someone “never” will get it shows a lack of respect for each individual and his/her ability to look at facts and come to a conclusions which may differ from yours. I have changed my mind on many issues through the years and I would hope that you have done the same. I have a profound respect for God’s works in the heart of every human being, and,as such, respect their thoughts and never shut the door to communication.
How long you going to give Obama before ANYTHING is his responsibility?
Bush got 9 months before 9/11 hit his presidency.
Half the time Obama has already been in office.
Such an overgeneralization regarding Obama or Bush can’t be taken seriously. To blame the ruin of a country on one man, either one, is just plain ridiculous.
Dee,
Your admonition should have been given to both parties. Junkster’s post was a bit over the top, to put it mildly.
I am continually amazed at the objection to the national debt having become an objection to our current president. The national debt was roughly $1 Trillion when Reagan took office, roughly $4 Trillion when Bush I left office, roughly $4 Trillion when Clinton left office (yep, about the same, and there was a surplus the last couple of years), something around $12-13 Trillion when Bush II left office. That debt is a big reason for the crash of ’07. Those are facts, not opinions.
The debt does make it difficult to get the country out of the present recession, because, as economists know, the time and the only time to run a deficit is to get out of a recession or to fight a major war after taxes have been raised as much as possible (not cut). But the existing large debt is a barrier to borrowing that is needed to overcome the recession, so we may have one for a number of years, perhaps until we elect a R president and the Rs in Congress allow him/her to spend the money necessary to get us out of it. As long as employment and business/consumer spending are down, the tax revenues will continue to be down (no income, no tax revenue!), and the debt will climb, regardless of who is in office.
BTW, GWBush talked us into a recession starting in late 2000, early 2001. His scare talk of that time led businesses to cut back on spending and hiring, triggering that recession. You can look that up.
Now, on the call to faith. Mormonism is not a form of Christianity. Mormons believe that Jesus had a heavenly mother, God the Father’s consort. Further, they believe that in heaven we will all be equal to Jesus, gods in our own right, if we have lived the right kind of life and have been baptized, either ourselves or by another person being baptized for us after we die. That is just the start. It is not the faith we know as Christianity, in any of its common forms, and is so radically different that it cannot be considered Christian. To call it Abrahamic is to mischaracterize it. More appropriately it is the sole Moronic (after the angel Moroni) religion!
All I can do for you after reading your comment is “I’ll pray for you”.
Arce
I was hoping someone would bring this up. I spent about 1 1/2 years meeting with a man high up in the Mormon faith. We discussed issues of the differing faith. I spent a whole bunch of time reading about Mormonism, on the Mormon sites. I was surprised to find out some of their beliefs. Did you know that Brigham Young. said there were people who looked like the Amish who lived on the moon and farmed? You can read about it on the Mormon sites.BYU has it on their site as a Q+A. The BYU professors did not know how to deal with this so they said that all of the moon has not yet been explored so perhaps he is still right!
I showed this to my friend who is a Naval Academy graduate and he was surprised but could not give me a rational explanation.
The most astonishing thing I learned is that they haven’t got a good explanation on how the universe got started. As you know, they believe that Jesus is the god of this world. Good Mormons will be given their own planet on which to rule and will become gods of their worlds as well. So, I asked the obvious. If there is reproduction going on, Jesus was merely the offspring of god for this world, how did the whole thing get going. Are there many gods ruling many worlds and who was the first, the Creator God over all? This man, a leader in this area, could not answer this question. He said that it is a mystery.
However, he did tell me the Moronic joke so he had a good sense of humor!
donecuador
Could you help me understand to which comment you are referring?
Arce
I was referring to Bill’s comment about a brain smaller than a split pea. He ended his start to finish political based comment with an insult to all who might disagree with him.
On the other hand, Junksters first comment thoughtfully dealt with the faith issues of the actual post. Junkster then responded to Bill with his own political thoughts which are more in depth than one who has a “smaller than a split pea” for a brain.
The blog is really supposed to be on the faith issues.
Bill,
I am no fan of the progressive nature of much of Bush’s actions and policies. The solution to them, however, is not a more extreme form of the same. I only posted the Bush email to highlight the absurdity of calling those with whom you disagree politically stupid. But what do I know, with my less-than-pea- sized brain and all.
I’m not sure how you came to the conclusion that folks here were Bush supporters because of a discussion of the spiritual implications of Beck’s rally. I’d ask you to use your superior reasoning skills to explain that, but I’m probably too thick- headed to comprehend the logic of someone so beyond us all.
Arce (pronounced like RC, the cola, or Sproul),
As I just replied to the oh-so-wise-one Bill, my intent was not to support Bush. Nor was it to denigrate Obama (though that may well have been the intent of the email’s original author). I just wanted to demonstrate that anyone can pick at the actions of someone they disagree with and call them stupid. It takes much more thought and substance to actually engage the topic at hand, which you do well.
Well stated.
I meant what Arce said was well stated. But also what you said, Dee. 🙂
I posted the following comments on the blog “Following Judah’s Lion” after Rick Frueh wrote about his concerns. He believes the rally was “Astonishing” and “Deception on Display.” –
Radiance said…
“With all due respect, your blog entry implies that Christians such as William Wilberforce of England had no business joining together believers and non-believers alike to (nonviolently) call for the end of the slave trade in Great Britain. The LORD called Wilberforce home two days after England abolished the slave trade.
Your blog entry implies Christians had no business standing alongside Martin Luther King Jr. and sharing the dream that, “We will be able to speed up that day when all of God’s children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, “Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!”
Can religious people make an idol of politics? Yes. Do religious people of lose sight of an eternal perspective? All the time. But does God call some believers to be politically active? Of course, the same way he calls some to be pastors, some to be carpenters, some to run crisis pregnancy centers, some to be professors at secular schools, some to be scientists, and some to be artists!
All too often religion is used as a cop-out from shirking away from the responsibilities called for in this present age. One of the gifts God has graced American believers with is political freedom. The right response is not to insult and scoff at our blessings. The right response is that we learn, as in the parable of the talents, to rightly & thankfully honor God’s blessings and take advantage of them for His kingdom and His glory.
To be sure, no cause is “perfect” except the “Great Commission,” but by standing with others for the sake of the common good: for universal justice, equality, and righteousness –> we are merely acting out as an extension of our Gospel-centered lives.
At the end of the day, we leave GOD to be in charge of people’s souls…We can’t expect every person we stand together with on issues to “become a Christian” — but we are called to love and work together with them where we share common ground, and to live at peace with them nonetheless.
12:15 PM
Rick Frueh said…
Politics is at odds with the gospel and is a manipulation that attempts to leverage moral causes without Christ. Light and darkness should not cooperate in causes that change the outward cup and leave the hearts comfortably unchanged.
12:34 PM
Radiance said…
Also, while it is right for Christians to hold fellow believers accountable, and to point each other back to our First Love and our ultimate priorities –> we must not immediately get into “judgment” mode the moment we see believers being involved with causes not close to our own hearts or temporal vocations that we ourselves do not hold.
We risk becoming Pharisees on the sidelines merely critiquing and pointing fingers at those GOD might have called to an earthly arena beyond the church. It’s not for us to limit the ways GOD uses believers and scatters them to act as His salt and light in various places, in different ways. We can’t presume to “know better” about the unique callings the Lord Jesus has for each of our lives.
So rather than rush to judgment about people, we can warn believers to “proceed with caution” — but it gets a bit ridiculous when we think every person who draws a crowd is the Anti-Christ, or that every person who cooperates with non-believers in temporal affairs is automatically offending the Gospel.
I think back to the founding of our country and the private conversations and letters exchanged between believers and deists/unbelievers. They all worked together for a common cause, but at the end of the day each held their own convictions regarding the things of religion and they often exchanged their ideas together — Christians evangelized their co-workers, and engaged in theological discussions with their counterparts.
Eternally speaking, God will sort through the tares amongst the wheat.
12:36 PM
Rick Frueh said…
The founding fathers, believers and unbelievers, worked together for a cause that was unchristian at its core – the violent overthrow of the government primarily because of taxes. That cannot be supported by Scripture. If I am overtaxed today can I violently overthrow the government as well?
God can and does use oppressive governments in the lives of believers and the furtherance of the gospel.
12:45 PM
Radiance said…
God often uses corrupt causes for His ends…We live in a fallen world and history is a lot more complex and complicated than we may believe.
Honestly, I’m not justifying the Revolutionary War, but I’m referring to events such as the ratification of the Constitution. This took place a decade after the war.
So, regardless of where people stood on the war itself, many came together afterward to forge the new nation in light of the new circumstances, and offered their voices and opinions regarding the new laws were being formed. Believers and non-believers worked together to achieve this.
1:03 PM
Radiance said…
Finally,
The reason why we are allowed to blog and engage in discourse like this in the first place is BECAUSE live in a free country. If freedom is such a curse and believers can only operate best under oppressive governments, why bother blogging? Why should we bother to live in America in the first place?
Hi Junkster
So glad you’re back!!!!!!!!!
Darn!
Awesome, Radiance! Thank you for sharing this. It is an important dialogue.
Loved your comments, Radiance.
I think it is a historically and scripturally uninformed position for Rick to call the America revolution unchristian at it’s core. One only needs to read the Declaration of Independence to know that it was far more than a tax revolt. But it was wise of you to not be sidetracked by that point and stay focused on the value of believers working together with unbelievers for the common good.
Don’t feel bad, Dee. I like Arce fine, but nothing compares to the ladies who brought us the Wartburg Tingle!
Aww, thanks!
Junkster
You made me laugh so hard! Super glad you are back!!!
Off Topic: That Mom [Karen Campbell] > september 1 podcast: patriarchy/patriocentricity two, part eleven ~ Jon Zens and What’s with Paul and Women, part two
Arce:
“roughly $4 Trillion when Bush I left office, roughly $4 Trillion when Clinton left office (yep, about the same, and there was a surplus the last couple of years), ”
When Clinton came into office the national debt was $4.23 trillion.When Clinton left office, it was $5.77 trillion. That’s an increase of national debt by 36%.
“That debt is a big reason for the crash of ‘07. Those are facts, not opinions.”
I don’t believe your facts are correct.
Recessions occur when there is a slow down in spending. It is widely believed that the recent recession was caused by the bursting of the housing bubble. Financing was so easy that there was a build up of housing. It finally reached a point where there was an over-supply. When demand dried up, housing prices started dropping and foreclosures rose sharply. This led to big bank losses and finally the tightening of credit, causing a severe liquidity crisis. We were funding growth by the use of leverage, but when the liquidity crisis happened, growth came to a screeching halt because companies and banks had to deleverage, since they were unable to continue borrowing as they had been. All that to say, you’re incorrect about the national debt being the reason for the crash of 2007, (which was really more like the crash of 2008; negative GDF growth didn’t occur until the 3rd qtr of 2008, when the liquidity crisis hit, and lasted through the 2nd qtr of 2009).
“BTW, GW Bush talked us into a recession starting in late 2000, early 2001. His scare talk of that time led businesses to cut back on spending and hiring, triggering that recession. You can look that up,”
I did look it up and you could not be more wrong. If deficit spending digs us out of a recession, as you correctly wrote, then surpluses get us into recessions. Let’s be consistent. And as you said, we ran surpluses the last couple of years under Clinton. The recession started two months after Clinton left office, in March of 2001. Surpluses mean we were overtaxed, and money spent on over-taxation could not be used for business expansion, thus, slowing growth, and causing recession.
“as economists know, the time and the only time to run a deficit is to get out of a recession or to fight a major war after taxes have been raised as much as possible (not cut). ”
And that’s exactly what Bush’s fiscal policy did. It cut taxes and ran deficits to get us out of the recession. Then, as businesses became more profitable and expanded, due to the tax relief, they actually, in turn, produced more tax revenue, helping the war effort. Unfortunately, we continued overspending, which caused the additional debt. But, let’s be clear and get our facts right, we were out of the recession in November of 2001, only eight months after it began, even with 9/11 squeezed in. We emerged from the recession, in large part, due to Bush’s fiscal policy and the Fed lowering interest rates.
“But the existing large debt is a barrier to borrowing that is needed to overcome the recession, so we may have one for a number of years”
While you are right that borrowing could be used to overcome the recession, that kind of thinking is what got us here in the first place. Ultimately, we need to adopt a policy of cutting expenses, balancing our budget, paying off debt, and funding business growth by excess revenue. And if we’re going to fund growth by revenue, not borrowing, then we need to cut taxes to allow more revenue growth.
Finally, how does all this apply to faith and the Beck rally? We need to return to biblical values, which also include financial biblical principles. The whole counsel of the bible shows the lack of wisdom in going into debt and is considered a bad consequence of not choosing to follow God. Our nation’s policy, on the federal level, state level, city level, corporate level, and personal level, of borrowing money to fund growth or to spend excessively, is not godly, and we need to change our thinking regarding this.
The good news is, after WWII our national debt as a percentage of GDP was the highest is had ever been, peaking in 1946 at 121.25%. This was due to deficit spending, following the war, to kick-start the economy. In 1956 is was 1/2 and in 1966 it was 1/3 of the peak at around 40%. We’re around 94% now. So, we can turn it around, if we’ll do what’s needed.
Does Rick also hold the view the Israel was ungodly by wiping out all it’s enemies? Does he also think that God is ungodly for telling them to do so?
Violence should not necessarily be equated with ungodliness, should it?
Finally, I also loved your responses. You were so right on.
BILL,
I am not exactly a fan of Beck’s nor of everything Bush has done, nor do I think all of Obama’s political stances are wrong…However, I do take issue with your snide remarks about “half-term” governor Palin. My main problem with Obama is the fact that he has surrounded hismelf with Chicago-bred, Saul Alinsky-ite THUGS as his main political advisors. Folks like Rahm Emanuel…And I assure, THEY are the ones primarily responsible for driving GOVERO PALIN’S FAMILY INTO BANKRUPTCY–> driving her out of office, and near personal ruin after she returned to the state following McCain’s defeat in the presidential race.
If you get the facts from the ground, it’s pretty monstrous what went on over there in the months following the election and I think Palin sugarcoats her accounts of things so as to avoid looking like she’s pitying herself…
I don’t think you understand how ugly things really got for her after the election ended…how many Obama cronies, DNC operatives, and no doubt probably some GOP establishment types had literally SET UP CAMP in Alaska to hit Palin with frivolous ethics complaints and lawsuit after lawsuit — virtually rendering her motionless to continue doing her job!
It was costing her and the state time and money to fight off all these things and she did not have the same shields of protection guarding against the madness, as say a President would. She did the brave thing in deciding to step down and it was the honorable thing to do for the sake of her state. Her Lietenant Governor recently won the primary by running on the continued furtherance of the agenda she instated.
Did you also know someone BURNED her church in Wasilla in December of ’08? The person used arson and there still have been no arrests made.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/12/13/palin.church/
Quite frankly, you seem to have been pulled in by all the trendy Palin-hate and Palin family bashing going around, which FAR exceeds the kind of criticism aimed at Obama in terms of the level of vitriol.
(please excuse the typos)
And to note, when I say “Chicago-bred” , “Saul-Alinsky-ite” THUGS –> I don’t mean Chicago itself is the problem, I’m referring to the city’s notorious corrupt political scene from which Obama got his start and training. Think the Rod Blagojevich scandal.
Saul Alinsky is the author of “Rules for Radicals” and Rahm Emanuel and many of Obama’s advisors are disciples. Just one example of something Alinsky wrote is: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon” –> no doubt that’s the main tactic used to destroy Governor Palin and her family.
The politics of personal destruction is the reason why SO many good and worthy people get deterred from entering public service — and I believe the Tea Party movement has had a huge hand in FINALLY fighting back and a lot of Establishment-outsiders are coming to the forefront. 🙂
Some other points to keep in mind:
Leaders such as Washington and Lincoln invoked GOD in several of their landmark speeches, and the need for the nation to turn to religion–> but none ever presented the Gospel, and I’m pretty sure neither ever publically invoked the name of Jesus Christ… (I may be wrong though.)
Should we not say “one nation under God” while reciting the Pledge of Allegiance because the people we may be saying it with do not believe in the same God?
They also believe that Jesus and Satan are spriritual brothers and satan chose the evil path. They believe Jesus became “god” after the resurrection.
“I think it is a historically and scripturally uninformed position for Rick to call the America revolution unchristian at it’s core. One only needs to read the Declaration of Independence to know that it was far more than a tax revolt. But it was wise of you to not be sidetracked by that point and stay focused on the value of believers working together with unbelievers for the common good.”
Some of you might be shocked to find out this is the position of many well known leaders such as Piper. They just don’t talk about it a lot. But if you have listened to them long enough, you will see it. Actually Piper was stronger about this years ago before he becamse so famous.
Lydia
I had no idea. Maybe that is why he is facing such stress in his life. He has been trying to reconcile various conflicting elements in his life. Fascinating!
Yep.I can speak to the fact that they hate anyone brining up the Satan and jesus being brothers stuff.
They have a saying on the god thing that goes
“As God once was, so are we
As God now is, so shall we be.”
They believe that they shall be gods some day. One of the most interesting dangers of Mormonism is their belief in the after life. There are three levels. The Celestial (for the devout Mormons to rule over others); The Telestial (For good religious people like us) and The Terrestrial (Which is for the bad guys who will live an grow in the new kingdom watched over by the benevolent Celelstials.
Radiance
Thank you for mentioning the Saul Alinksy book, “Rules for Radicals.” This man was very dangerous and he is often quoted by the left.Communism has long sought for the hearts of people, believing that it could coercively enforce “equal sharing” and thus usher in the new utopia.
Thy Peace
Thank you for keeping us up on this. we will be writing more in the near future on this topic.
FWIW, I live near DC–and I voted for Obama–and I’m glad I did. I’ve never listened to Glenn Beck personally, nor am I interested in doing so. I despise fearmongering and dehumanizing rhetoric on both sides of the aisle.
If you’re interested in exploring the religious aspects of the speech, here is a link you may find interesting from Jim Wallis at sojo.net, http://blog.sojo.net/2010/09/02/an-open-letter-to-glenn-beck/
Acme, thanks for shaing that article — it was interesting and thoughfully written. But I find it interesting that you admit you’ve never listened to Glenn Beck, but you can can somehow judge him as using fearmongering and dehumanizing rhetoric. I’d get that if you had listened even once or twice and come to that conclusion, but without having done so, it’s hard to take your judgment seriously.
I don’t care much for politics in general, but as a woman, I feel a strong stake in Governor Palin’s political future, in large part because of all the excesses of complementarian doctrine pervading the church (as this site does a good job of examining.)
How wonderful would it be to have a woman President, who is fiercely pro-life and open about her faith, stir conventional thinking up a bit. 🙂
Radiance,
I agree with your main point, but here is some additional info to consider. Washington made multiple, explicit references to Jesus Christ, in public and in his provate correspondence. Some examples:
Almighty and eternal Lord God, the great Creator of heaven and earth, and the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ; look down from heaven in pity and compassion upon me Thy servant, who humbly prorate myself before Thee.
George Washington (prayer at Valley Forge)
What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ.
George Washington (speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs May 12, 1779)
I have sinned against heaven and before Thee in thought, word, and deed. I have contemned Thy majesty and holy laws. I have likewise sinned by omitting what I ought to have done and committing what I ought not. I have rebelled against the light, despising Thy mercies and judgment, and broken my vows and promise. I have neglected the better things. My iniquities are multiplied and my sins are very great. I confess them, O Lord, with shame and sorrow, detestation and loathing and desire to be vile in my own eyes as I have rendered myself vile in Thine. I humbly beseech Thee to be merciful to me in the free pardon of my sins for the sake of Thy dear Son and only Savior Jesus Christ who came to call not the righteous, but sinners to repentance. Thou gavest Thy Son to die for me.
George Washington (from a 24 page authentic handwritten manuscript book dated April 21-23, 1752)
I’ve heard preachers who couldn’t do as good a job presenting the gospel as that! 🙂
Lincoln is a little harder to pin down. The following quote is often attrbuted to him (starting shortly before his death):
When I left home to take this chair of State I requested my countrymen to pray for me, I was not then a Christian. When my son died, the severest trial of my life, I was not a Christian. But when I went to Gettysburg, and looked upon the graves of our dead heroes who had fallen in defence of their country, I then and there consecrated myself to Christ; I do love Jesus.
But there are those who dispute it. Nonetheless, after his death, his wife was very explicit in her affirmations of his faith in Christ.
Indeed!
Oh Cmon’ Bill, who do ya think bankrolled Barack Obama into the oval office after Cindy McCain’s beer fortune started running dry on behalf of her husband John? We’re run by a corporate oligarchy of high rollers. Have been since the close of the Civil War. They simply changed their front man after Dubya served his two terms.
I have a limited amount of time–as we all do. There are a number of folks I don’t tune into–sometimes based on what I’ve heard from others — just like there are some movies I know I’m not interested in based on genre and so on.
I contributed the article because it came into my email–and because it was the topic at hand, not because I think I’m an expert in someone I don’t listen to.
Hi Acme
Thank you for the link to JIm Wallis. I have read his writings and find him compelling but I do have some differences with him about solutions within our American culture. However, I respect him.
Acme, when you mention fearmongering and dehumanizing rhetoric, it becomes a conversation stopper. Its kind of like using the word “racism.” You used these words in direct juxtaposition to Glenn Beck’s name. Yet, you have never heard him or read him.How do you know that he is a fearmongerer? Also, which fearmongerers on both sides are you referring to?
I am really not interested in the political aspect of Beck. I am more interested in his insertion into the debate of faith in America. Wallis has a strong political bent yet I know it is based in his understanding of faith. There are some who might consider him provocative, more political than faithful. Yet, I respect him enough not to use off putting remarks such as fearmongering.
All I would ask is that we all fight fair. I love a good disagreement
Thanks fair enough — we all understand time limitations, priorities, and the recommendations of others. But the clear implication of your comment was that Beck is a fearmonger and dehumanizing, and it isn’t really fair to make such a claim based on hearsay.
I find fearmongering and demonizing pretty universal tools in politics and punditry–not specific to Mr Beck. It keeps people fired up and interested. It sells stuff and I guess makes the world go round but it’s not my thing.
I’m sorry. I don’t mean to shut down discussion. I’ve found Wartburg Watch an interesting place to read and occasionally comment. I’ll see myself to the door,
What should be remembered first and foremost is that Beck is a consummate and clever businessman. It matters not one whit whether the intelligentsia on the left hold him up for ridicule, or whether right-wing rubes out here in Christendumb dote on his every word, he will get richer.
And you are so very right about what makes this world go round, it was said best in the film version of “Cabaret”. It’s money, and if Beck ever had a falling out with Faux News, there’s more than one agency who’d be more than happy to write him a contract just for the advertiser dollars he’d bring in alone.
Acme,
Don’t leave! We rarely discuss topics that have a political bent. Your comments are always welcome here.
Blessings!
“FWIW, I live near DC–and I voted for Obama–and I’m glad I did. I’ve never listened to Glenn Beck personally, nor am I interested in doing so. I despise fearmongering and dehumanizing rhetoric on both sides of the aisle.”
If you read Jim Wallis enough, you will find the same things. And we have seen the same things with Obama.
Acme
Please don’t leave. I just want to go beyond pejorative words to something much deeper. If you truly believe that Beck or others with a different political bent are fear mongering, please explain how. I so much want this blog to be a place where we go deeper and see different sides of a disagreement.
Also, I am frustrated that that the discussion of Beck has become more political than faith based. Beck provides an excellent template to look at many issues: cooperation between faiths, the issues with Mormonism, the insertion of faith into politics, etc.
In fact, your Wallis link was interesting and we could get into a fine discussion on how he conducts his faith in the public square. I am glad that you are here and challenging us.
Muff
I actually think Beck is a devout Mormon who really believes what he “preaches.” Have you ever heard him talk about the history of the founding fathers?
I don’t buy everything that Beck says but his love of the history of this country challenged me so much that I went to DC and spent some time in the National Archives contemplating the original Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights. I also saw one of the 4 original Magna Cartas from 1297 (?) written on sheepskin.
I am returning this weekend to take my son through the Museum of Natural History and its exhibit of the evolution of man. We hope to help our son to understand how he can be a committed Christian and also believe in theistic evolution and old earth creationism.
Also, I have a dear friend who is a Norwegian citizen. She says that the US is blessed to have a news service like Fox News because it provides a different point of view to the news and is actually open to faith. I travelled with her to Norway and Sweden and she pointed out how the news services over there only give one point of view. It is sad to see a population that is convinced that they know the truth of newsworthy events when they only hear one side.And, as we know from history, there are many sides to the story.
There was a need for a challenging alternative in the news. Fox has been unbelievably successful in providing this. We have so many choices to get our news here in the US. I subscribe to my local newspaper which many would call liberal. I read the editorials out of the New York Times and I listen to Fox News. I think I get a well rounded view of the world.
I do the same with the faith. I know my faith really well. However, I have read books by atheists, Hindus, Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses and on and on. I regularly read ExChristians.net. I then take the objections to Christianity and see if I can come up with some ways to express the faith to these unique groups.
Is Beck getting rich? Yep. But he is getting rich doing something that he really believes in, IMNHO. So are the famous lefties. Our job is to cut through the morass and find the truth. I’m sure trying.
Dee,
I think it’s great that you spend time in DC looking into our history, and that you plan to take your son to the Museam of Natural History. I hope you also teach him that one can be a committed Christian and a rigourous scientist and not believe that evolution (theistic or otherwise) is good science. I know you don’t like or agree with Young Earth creationism, but theistic evolution isn’t the only alternative. Hugh Ross’ view of Progressive Creationism comes to mind. I personally believe that Adam was physically created from dust as a distinct being, apart from evolutionary processes, just as the Bible describes the event. I am indifferent as to when that event took place or how old the universe is.
The truly important things to teach your son about these matters are to reason and think for himself, to understand the philosophical and theological implications of his conclusions, and to recognize that our understanding of both the Bible and the physical universe and its origins are quite limited. Thus we should be humble about our own views and willing to adjust them as we learn more, and gracious toward those who disagree with our conclusions.
Well stated, Junkster!
Junkster
I am sorry that my comment didn’t include the full breadth of what I meant. In fact, as to Hugh Ross, I went to hear him give a talk at the Fixed Point Foundation in Birmingham. We are major fans of this guy and I got the opportunity to tell him that after his wonderful talk. I took copious notes and am planning to do a post on it in the very near future. (I hope I can do it well. The talk was directed at scientists and revolved around 12 or 13 dimensions in the universe. I can barely cope with 3)! My son knows of our deep admiration for Ross.
Believe it or not, we also have explained YE to him and explained why we know the science to be poor or dated. But, we encouraged him to explore it for himself and pointed him to Ham and Wise.
What I am trying to accomplish with him is the following. As science becomes more and more complex and more and more accurate, he may one day be presented with a false dilemma:Bible or science. What we want him to know that there is a way to reconcile all of this and give him the freedom to believe while pursuing science (he is thinking about pharmacy).
Also, today there is a news story that Stephen Hawkings believes that he can prove that the universe started from nothing (something to do with gravity) and God is no longer necessary as an explanation. What we want our son to know is that this sort of scientist has an agenda which is to disprove God. Hopefully, we can help him to see what constitutes good science versus scientifically based philosophy as he begins to explore this subject for himself.
Over at ExChristians.net, over half of the deconversion stories seem to point to an insistence on YE as a starting point for their growing disbelief. I want my son to know that he has options as he explores this subject within the context of his faith.
Does this better explain my intentions?
Oh, I meant to point out that Obama sat under the teaching of Jeremiah Wright for 20 years. I listened to quite a few of his sermons during the primary before Obama started distancing himself from Wright. Wright preaches hate and blame. It is nothing less than Marxist Liberation Theology. It is pure evil.
Lydia
Thanks for bringing up Liberation theology. That might make an interesting post. Many folks have no idea how badly this theology mixes politics via violent overthrows of governments with religion.I seem to remember the Pope recalling a bunch of priests from South America who had gone off reservation by advocating by carrying guns and participating in some skirmishes. Fascinating stuff.
Dee,
I didn’t think you weren’t doing what you should — just offering my two cents for the peanut gallery. I have had many discssions with my son about these things, and I hope that I have done as good a job as you in helping him see that science and the Bible are not at odds when both are properly understood (and that it’s more than likely that we don’t understand either nearly as well as we’d like to think we do). 🙂
Junkster
Your two cents is worth hundreds of dollars in my book! I agree with you that we don’t understand either as much as we think. Could you even imagine how we would use computers, even 30 years ago? I often wonder what the world will look like if the Lord tarries. There is a wonderful science fiction trilogy called The Lamb Among the Stars. Here is a link at Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Shadow-Night-Lamb-Among-Stars/dp/1414313276/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_c
It beautifully imagines mankind settling in the universe and following God and then what happens when evil begins to take root.
Its books like this and CS Lewis’ sci fi trilogy Out of the Silent Planet that make me say “Balderdash” to Hawkings. Christians have longed dreamed of life in the universe. He claims that life anywhere else would disprove the unique creation of humanity. He is not well read in this particular Christian viewpoint.
Blessings, as always!
Sorry if my tone was a tad cynical. I’m known for that and believe me, I have no patience with much of the well funded left either. I think my main indiscretion here was that I did not address directly the topic of this post which was Beck’s insistence that America’s problems can all be solved by returning to our so-called Judeo-Christian heritage.
Well and good, but conflating the ideas of the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason with Judeo-Christian theology is simply pandering to populist sentiment. Nowhere in scripture do we find anything resembling the rights of man or human rights, but rather the notion of theocracy and its corrolary of divine right of kings.
Dee,
That reminds me — did you ever read “A Skeleton in God’s Closet”? It was a long time ago when I read it, so I don’t know what I’d think of it if I read it today, and I don’t recall much about the writing, but I did enjoy the basic story and the issues it raised. Just wondering what you thought, if you read it.
Didn’t CS Lewis once say something like if mankind ever traveled to other planets, he would only ruin them with his wickedness?
Muff, I disagree with your last sentence. The notion of “human rights”, as the basis of the American system of law and government, is firmly rooted in scriptural teaching. Everything from property rights to freedom of religion to justice and equality are taught in both the Old and New Testaments, and are highlighted in the teachings and actions of Jesus. These ideals, as expressed in the Enlightenment, and thus in the founding documents of our nation, are merely application of biblical doctrine. It’s true that the mindset of the Age of Reason reflected a failure to fully appreciate the limitations of reason, but that doesn’t mean that all of the conclusions reached by Enlightenment thinkers were incorrect.
Junkster
Whoops, thanks for reminding me. It is on my Kindle along with about 10 other books. I shall bring it to DC with me and get started, pronto!
Lewis did say exactly that. he theorized that we are the only planet that fell away from God. Because of this, we were isolated from the beings on other worlds. To them, we would only bring pain and suffering. Hence the title to the trilogy “Out of the Silent Planet.” We are the silent planet.
Junkster, Help me out here, can you point me to scripture(s) which specifically advocates government by consent of the governed? A common thread of behavioral precepts taught by the Law and Prophets in the OT along with the teachings of Christ in the NT is not the same thing as conclusive support that our Constitutional government is based on the Bible.
If anything, Romans chap. 13 is strongly worded enough to have discouraged any devout 18th cent. colonial churchman from rebelling against King George and British mercantile system.
I’m glad that we can agree to disagree agreeably.
Pax,
Muff
Muff,
Both your view and mine were argued at the time of the Revolutionary War, with some ministers and theologians taking the position that a revolt against the King of England was not biblically justified, and others taking the position that it was. One may disagree with the Founders’ views and how they interpreted Scripture to justify their position, but I don’t think it is fair or accurate to say that their views were based on Enlightenment principles rather than scriptural ones.
In short, the Founders follwed the basic principles of Just War theory, which is essentialy the argument that violence is justified in the case of self-defense or the defense of others.
Concerning the concept of “consent of the governed”, I will just say that God only established a king for Israel as a concession to the desires of the Israelites. It’s true that God establishes kings and tears them down, but, as is His typical manner of working, He has historically done so through the actions of the king’s subjects.
The following article expresses my view far better than I could:
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=24548
It is interesting to note that the English king has the title of “Defender of the Faith” which I think was added under Elizabeth 1. (Is that right?)
This also brings up another subject that I find increasingly interesting: The KJV was initiated to give King James legitimacy (because he had a Catholic mother). But it is a product produced under a state church mentality with the “Divine right of Kings” mentality. It is amazing it is as accurate as it is…with some problems, of course.
But what about a king that claims to speak for the one true God and is to be obeyed? Should a Christian go along?
The Ceasars were pagans and some claimed to be gods.
Junkster,
I think we can safely agree that other than the non-negotiables of the Christian faith embodied in say the Nicene Creed, we don’t have the same world view.
I think I should fess up right now and say that in addition to being a Christian, I am also a humanist. I sense that a great many folks on this blog believe that the two (Christianity & Humanism) cannot coexist in the life of a believer, and that by necessity, one must exclude the other.
But I reject this notion, and believe that they (Christianity & humanism) can ride in the same balanced cart together much in the same way that faith and science can.
I gotta say that I think it is indeed fair and accurate to say that the Founder’s ideas for our constitutional form of government were primarily taken from Enlightenment principles regardless of their personal beliefs as men of faith which ranged from nominal church-goer to bonafide clergymen.
Barton (wall builders site) is inaccurate and cites only parts of the Founder’s documents; the ones he knows that the average person will not check for veracity and find out that it just ain’t so in context.
Here’s what the other side has to say:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fm2OVuByYFc&feature=related
“I gotta say that I think it is indeed fair and accurate to say that the Founder’s ideas for our constitutional form of government were primarily taken from Enlightenment principles regardless of their personal beliefs as men of faith which ranged from nominal church-goer to bonafide clergymen.”
Where did the Enlightenment principles come from? Where did ‘reason” come from?
Muff,
I don’t know whether we’d agree on more than the Nicene Creed. But if you take what Chris Rodda says as carrying more weight than what Barton says, it’s safe to say we disagree on that. I would not defend Barton’s or Beck’s views on all that she discusses, as I am no expert on the source documents. But her elitist attitude and historical bias is evident throughout that video. Her use of derogatory and inflammatory terms toward those who deign to dispute her esteemed interpretations of the information at hand belies any claim of dispassion, as does her dismissal of facts that run contrary to her position. So I can’t simply trust her conclusions above those of Barton just because she says so.
I can say that, in reference to the specific Barton article I posted, looking at the sources provided, I am inclined to agree with Barton that the Founders generally interpreted the Bible in such a way that supported the American Revolution. It is not that they ignored the Bible or only got their ideas about the nature and role of government from extra-biblical sources — given the worldview of the era, that is extremely unlikely. It is likely, as implied by Lydia’s question about the source of Enlightenment principles, that Enlightenment thinkers were also influenced by biblical ideals in this regard. It’s not as if the Bible’s authors were ignoramuses who didn’t understand reason or it in their writings.
Regardless, it wouldn’t matter to me one way or the other if it were demonstrable that America was not at all rooted in a biblical Christian worldview. I have no reason to wish it to be so if it isn’t. That isn’t my point in this discussion. My concern is that there are those who, for various reasons (not the least of which is a desire to establish their own authority over other), claim that it is always biblically wrong for people to overthrow their government (or at least that was the case with the American Revolution). It comes down to a matter of how the Bible is interpreted, not what it “clearly” says that no one who takes it seriously could possibly dispute.
Nice to have a civil discussion with you.
Lydia,
I believe that reason and morality are part of what the Creator endowed us with when he fashioned us in his own image.
But this is still not a proof that our Constitution is based on the Bible. It would be like saying that all corn for Taco Belle’s tortillas comes from Mexico.
“I believe that reason and morality are part of what the Creator endowed us with when he fashioned us in his own image.
But this is still not a proof that our Constitution is based on the Bible. It would be like saying that all corn for Taco Belle’s tortillas comes from Mexico.”
Muff, is there actually anything new under the sun? Did the Enlightenment thinkers come up with anything that is beyond God and pre-fall truth? They just wanted it to be secular and for very good reason! The church state surrounding them had been a bloody mess for centuries!
I spoke of the Enlightenment because you said the prinicples of our Constitution came from the Enlightenment. So, I went there to discuss where those principles came from.