Albert Mohler writes honestly about how he was *not* excited about the event before hand but his opinion changed to a good degree afterward … (more and my thoughts after the jump)
With the press pushing the event as a "new face" for American evangelicals, I was not overly hopeful. Given the hype, I was positively unhopeful. But . . . the event turned to be quite worthwhile after all. I still have deep reservations about identifying the event so closely with a church, but the conversations really did get to urgently important and controversial issues, and Pastor Rick Warren handled the conversations with aplomb, demonstrating both civility and candor.
Then, Mr. Mohler breaks down a lot of what happened on stage and takes on DeWayne Wickham's condemnation of the event. Mohler writes …
… not everyone is pleased. Writing in the editorial pages of USA Today, columnist DeWayne Wickham complained that the event was too overtly Christian. "What we need in the White House is a devout believer in this nation's democratic principles, not the vicar of Saddleback," he asserted.
The "vicar of Saddleback?" Neither of these candidates is running for that office. That comment reveals more about DeWayne Wickham's commitment to a secularist vision of politics than about the Saddleback event.
[From Backtrack to Saddleback -- Secularists Not Pleased]
I don't share Mohler's concern about this being tied closely to the church. I believe the church should be a safe place for *any* topic to be discussed in the light of Biblical truth and to educate churchgoers. As long as it is the church's idea and not forced by the government. I am not saying Mohler is wrong. I just don't share that concern.
Plus, after reading the excerpts from Wickham, it would seem he is doing his level best to stigmatize people of faith who don't shy away from public policy. Mr. Wickham, it's called "public" because it includes all of us … not just the concerns of secular humanists.
Christians have always been a very dominate presence in US politics and government on every level. They/we haven't created a theocracy and don't plan on creating one. It's ridiculous to accuse otherwise which leads me to think that the article was written only to stigmatize.
{ 12 comments… read them below or add one }
“… answering that question with specificity is above my pay grade” is Obama's response to the question: “When does a baby [fetus] becomes a human being”? So my question is at what “pay grade” will it take for him to be able to give an honest transparent answer, when teenage girls daily make a personal statement on a much lower “pay grade” and choose not to about the life inside them!
…”and choose not to abort the life inside them”
sorry!
very good point. Laura Ingraham said that the President makes something over 400k a year and the Supreme Court Justices make somewhere over 200k. If the Supreme Court is expected to make these kinds of decisions why wouldn't the man seeking to be President have at least an idea of the answer to that question.
He made a big mistake and they are starting to add up.
Did he actually say that?! tell me you are being snarky.
Actually, according to the Wall Street Journal, he voted yes on a bill (in the Illinois senate?) that okayed abortions just after birth, so that if an abortion caused a premature live birth, the 'doctor' could go ahead and kill the baby.
Unfortunately yes. Here is a clip from CBN.com.
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/429873.aspx
The statement is made almost half way through.
Well, not that there was a chance of his getting it before, but I'm definitely not voting for Obama. Naive does not even begin to cover him!
“… answering that question with specificity is above my pay grade” is Obama's response to the question: “When does a baby [fetus] becomes a human being”? So my question is at what “pay grade” will it take for him to be able to give an honest transparent answer, when teenage girls daily make a personal statement on a much lower “pay grade” and choose not to about the life inside them!
…”and choose not to abort the life inside them”
sorry!
very good point. Laura Ingraham said that the President makes something over 400k a year and the Supreme Court Justices make somewhere over 200k. If the Supreme Court is expected to make these kinds of decisions why wouldn't the man seeking to be President have at least an idea of the answer to that question.
He made a big mistake and they are starting to add up.
Did he actually say that?! tell me you are being snarky.
Actually, according to the Wall Street Journal, he voted yes on a bill (in the Illinois senate?) that okayed abortions just after birth, so that if an abortion caused a premature live birth, the 'doctor' could go ahead and kill the baby.
Unfortunately yes. Here is a clip from CBN.com.
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/429873.aspx
The statement is made almost half way through.
Well, not that there was a chance of his getting it before, but I'm definitely not voting for Obama. Naive does not even begin to cover him!