Post Election Thoughts

As I watched the election results come in Tuesday night I would describe my response as shocked, stunned, saddened. So many of us had been praying for a different result and I know some of you were mad at God. I did not find myself mad at God and I believe that is because even though I was cautiously optimistic I found myself wondering if all the prayers (mine and those of others) were more about achieving what was comfortable, what would make us happy and not what would make us HOLY. I truly believe that many were sincerely praying for revival, for a turn that would bring about a spiritual awakening as I have been, but God's ways are not always mine. So I was not mad at God (and I don't say that to make you think that I couldn't be, or that I was somehow "super spiritual" in all of this, but it was simply not an emotion I had). I have been struggling with anxiety (lack of trust) since the election and I'm repenting of that failure to rest completely in the hands of God. So what I witnessed on Tuesday was what I would describe as the "Secularist" triumph. As I wept in my office on Wednesday morning my tears were sourced in a deep sadness over the direction I see our country heading, over the abandonment of God, over the elevation of self-indulgence, over the celebration of decadence, arrogance, deception, and corruption on a scale that heretofore seemed impossible. We have just gone through one of the most difficult economic, political, international, and social upheavals in our history lead by a President whose policies have failed and whose promises have been broken. Yet 60 million people said, "Sign me up for four more years of this nonsense." I witnessed what I fear to be a defining moment in our country's history which will lead to a country more divided than since the civil war. America is comprised of people standing firmly in two diametrically opposed camps separated by a huge ideological and moral chasm. On the one side we have the "government as provider" secularists for whom larger government, more regulation, higher taxes, less personal responsibility, entitlement expansion, loose interpretation of the constitution, and moral relativism are essential. On the other side are the "government as protector" folks for whom smaller government, minimal regulation, lower taxes, increased personal responsibility, entitlement reduction, strict adherence to the constitution, and moral absolutism (abortion is wrong, homosexuality is sin, people should work to provide for their needs) are foundational. Both sides have their secularists, neither side is perfect, I'm merely pointing out that one side has become openly and patently secularist (removing God and His influence). As a Christian I think it stunned me to see just how far away from caring about the things God cares about the majority of our citizens have gone. So many celebrated the opportunity to take the lives of the unborn, to promote perversion, to perpetuate dependency upon the government, to limit religious freedom. So on Wednesday morning when I asked the Lord for some perspective He directed me to Amos chapters 4-5. As God delineated all of the tragedy He had brought upon His people He then stated, "Yet you have not returned to Me" (4:6,8,9,10,11). God's punishment rested upon His people because of their sin and He basically tells them...."DUH, I'm just trying to get your attention so you will turn from your sin and return to Me." America is not Israel, but a principle is still in play. 1Chronicles 7:14 is also about Israel with a similar principle. God punishes sin to turn people towards Him. As I see the degradation in America increase and the painful consequences of difficult times increase I think it is time for us to "Return to the Lord." We like to sing and say, "God Bless America" but God never blesses sin. I believe what we have been saying for many years is that we want God's blessing without our believing in Him or behaving like we believe. What we believe about God is reflected in our behavior and what happened on Tuesday indicates what most people in America believe about God based upon their convictions and conduct. Remember this is the party that took God out of their platform and adopted the sins of Romans 1 as their party platform. I believe Amos' words to God's people are what we need to hear and heed in America. After I spent time in Amos I went to Hebrews 11--that great chapter on faith. How fitting that I should be reminded of all the faithful men and women of God who "all died without receiving the promises, but having seen them welcomed them from a distance. All that God had spoken about that would be realized fully in the person and work of Christ, these faithful people looked ahead in faith to. They lived in hope on promises they never saw realized. I look back in faith on Christ like they looked ahead in regard to salvation. But all believers look ahead in faith for the fulfillment of the promises about fully experiencing our eternal inheritance and the blessings of heaven. A good reminder to be encouraged by their faithfulness so that I too will "fix my eyes on Jesus" (Heb.12:2) while I struggle here on earth. So I'm challenged to "Return to the Lord" and to encourage that returning throughout America. I'm hopeful that as God delivered Ninevah (see Jonah 3) He may be pleased to spare America. I'm also challenged to "Rely upon the Lord" who really is in charge and who will fulfill His promises. So I look at the election as an indication of America's spiritual problem. It's quite simple, "People need the Lord." Those submitted to the lordship of Christ will not pursue the sins of Romans 1 as their political agenda. That's why even though I'm shocked, stunned, and deeply saddened, I will NOT be silent. Of first priority for myself and the church of Jesus Christ is to share the Gospel of Christ with a lost and dying world. I will pray and ask the Lord to give me a desire to share Christ with those who disagree with me rather than despise them. I will ask the Lord to make me a merciful person who disagrees with sin, but who seeks to love the sinner. Believers must realize that we must speak about sin so that people will see the need to repent. We don't speak as those who are better than others, but as those who are forgiven who desire others to know God's mercy as well. I will seek to be salt and light to the world I live in and encourage others to do the same. I will speak out on behalf of the defenseless, the unborn, and those enslaved to entitlements. I will hope in what God wants to do in and through His body the church as we remain faithful even in turmoil. Bottom line is that for believers our citizenship is in heaven (Phil.3:20) from which we anxiously await a Savior. I don't see this as an excuse for abandoning my involvement in what is happening in the world, but it is a true source of comfort in the midst of chaos. "O taste and see that the Lord is good; How blessed is the man who takes refuge in Him" (Ps.34:8).

The Truth Matters

I wrote a few days ago about the importance of truthfulness as it relates to those who serve in public office. I'm not going to try and "wax eloquent" on the importance of truthfulness but will instead let a video that I was sent do the talking. I hope this video helps you see how important it is to vote for officials who tell the truth and then to hold elected officials accountable for telling the truth. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EH_Izul6J5M&feature=youtu.be

Should Christians vote for a Mormon?

As the 2012 election fast approaches I've been somewhat confused and somewhat disturbed by a question that I hear Christians debating--Should a Christian vote for a Mormon? I have read one Pastor's blog explaining why he is choosing not to vote at all in the upcoming election. He opposes the current administration's approach to social issues, but cannot reconcile voting for a Mormon. What follows is my interaction with some of the objections to voting for a Mormon that I have heard. It has been posited that since the current administration openly supports abortion and homosexuality that the goal should be to "Beat Obama!" To state such a goal then seems to imply that the ends justify the means. I would suggest that the real question for believers is, “What does it mean to live out my faith in a way that shines the light of Christ in the culture” (Mt.5:16)? For some, “Beating Obama” is the goal but why? I truly believe that for people of faith the issue is a desire to stand against the forces of evil pressing against us in a way that points people to the cross and Christ. Support for Abortion, promotion of homosexuality, runaway welfare, broken promises, blatant deception, corruption, dishonesty, and stealing from the rich to give to the poor (all hallmarks of the current Obama administration) are offensive to God. Christians are to expose sin so that people will repent and be saved. We are called to defend the helpless, defenseless, and abused (Isaiah 1:17). As believers in the U.S. we have a great privilege and responsibility to help shape the culture through our participation in the political process. Voting is part of being subject to the authorities God places over us (Romans 13:1-4). The goal is ultimately, “bring glory to God”. Since God is ultimately in charge our actions are simply to reflect submission to Him while trusting that God will do what is best. It is argued that Christians should not just vote for a Mormon whose moral convictions are closer to their own because by doing so we are endorsing a cult. We are talking about electing the next President of the United States, not someone to the deacon board of our church. If the person’s policy perspectives are inconsistent with our personal convictions then we may find it impossible to support them, but when we find someone whose values reflect our own I think this is someone we want to see in public office rather than someone whose views are diametrically opposed to ours. Who do you want guiding policy on the life of the unborn, an avowed abortion supporter or someone who believes in the sanctity of life beginning at conception? Support for a Mormon for public office does NOT amount to approval of his/her religion. Christians should make the distinctives of Mormonism and Christianity clear with regard to the person and work of Christ, how a person is saved from sin, the supreme and ultimate authority of the Bible, etc. We are to speak the truth in love, share the Gospel of salvation by grace alone through faith alone, in Christ alone with everyone including Mormons. Christian support for Mitt Romney is not an endorsement of his religion, but of his leadership. I fail to see how a Christian supporting a Mormon for President equates with legitimizing their faith system. I thought under the constitution and under God’s gracious rule, people are free to worship as they please. The government of the United States is NOT a church. Obviously a person’s faith impacts his/her politics (that is if it is a genuinely held faith) and we should expect Mitt Romney’s faith to influence his leadership. A practicing Mormon is a very decent person. Mormon’s are responsible, fair, honest, caring, family centered, generous people whose values are very close to those of Evangelical Christians. Evangelicals would simply say that what we do by means of grace (live a holy lifestyle because of Christ’s work in us) the Mormons do as a means of grace (in order to attain a higher status). I don’t have to agree with their motivation to agree with their manner. Finally, I find it disturbing that a believer would suggest that Christians should draw a line of separation between themselves and unbelievers that is artificial and damaging. If we are to reach people for Christ then we might say more to a watching world about the reality of our Jesus by working with someone who is “not of our stripe” and with whom we disagree on some things. I’m just thinking about how Jesus hung out with the tax gatherers and sinners (Mt.9:11-13) in order to reach them. The religious types condemned Jesus for being “contaminated” by His interactions but those who condemned Him were the ones who missed the point. Jesus wants us hanging out with, spending time with, rubbing shoulders with, and I would say--supporting for public office--people who are not like us. I'm not talking about compromising our faith, or corrupting our practice. When it comes to supporting people for public office we should find those with whom we most agree and work for the common good. If we aren't willing to work with others then we will have no chance to positively impact their theology, and we will fail to work together on what the two of us agree on for the betterment of society. Will Christians be labelled hypocrites for voting for a Mormon one day and then warning others about the spiritual dangers of Mormonism the next day? I believe most people will have the common sense to realize that Christians aren't supporting Mormonism, but a man who happens to be a Mormon, a good person, and a capable leader. Those who don’t make that distinction may need a refresher in civics, or in theology. Seriously, I just don't think most people are so stupid that they will equate Christian support for a Mormon for public office as an endorsement of that person's faith. If I was convinced that Mitt Romney was bent on instituting Mormonism as the state religion of the U.S. or using his “bully pulpit” to convert people to Mormonism I certainly would not encourage people to support Him. I personally believe people can make the distinction that supporting a person to lead the country is not an endorsement of that person's religion. “So you don’t agree with Romney’s religious system, but you line up with him in the social, constitutional, and fiscal issues involved in governing the country?” I really think people "get it." Christians who won't vote for Mitt Romney because he is a Mormon should ask themselves if they would have voted for some of our founding fathers who weren't Christians despite the fact that they recognized the importance of God, faith, and morality. I personally don’t see a contradiction between working to be salt and light, standing up for Biblical principles (remember, all truth is God’s truth even if a Mormon says it), fulfilling civic and spiritual responsibilities and supporting a Mormon for public office. If you think otherwise then you best not violate your conscience for whatever is not of faith is sin (Ro.14:23). Some argue that since the "Democrats have embraced sin (their platform consists of the sins of Romans 1) and the Republicans support false religion (i.e. Mormonism) we should support neither. So abdicate your God-given rights and privileges as a citizen of the U.S. and just stick your head in the sand? You are certainly free to do that, but I don’t think you can make a solid Biblical case for such dereliction of duty. Of course I'm not advocating supporting any party or candidate whose practices, whose morals, whose aim as a politician is known to be contrary to the scripture. I understand the Scripture to teach just the opposite--that we should confront evil to reach people with the Gospel. We should do what is in our power to stem the tide of wickedness as John the Baptist did. He spoke out against Herod's adulterous relationship and it cost him is head. Standing against evil certainly includes voting for someone whose morality and sense of responsibility most closely matches my own. Of course there is always the option of supporting a third party or a write in candidate. But if there is actually someone in office whose practices and policies are reprehensible and it is obvious that as a Christian this person should be confronted, then voting third party is often times a wasted vote since that person will never win and the one whom we most disagree with will certainly win. I would argue that when we have a person who most closely aligns with our perspectives among the two party candidates then any vote that is not given to that person is a wasted vote. Another argument put forth is that by refusing to vote for a Mormon (Mitt Romney) we are calling Christians and non-Christians to stop looking at politics and focus on our certain hope of heaven in Christ. Certainly believers need a greater realization that, “our citizenship is in heaven from which we anxiously await a savior” (Phil.3:20). To whatever degree we are unnecessarily fawning over or anxiously panicking about a candidate or an election is a testimony to our misplaced dependence (Mt. 6:25-34). So should we abstain from voting as a demonstration of faith? I simply do not see that refraining from voting is the only way to express our trust in the Lord. I discipline my children, but I still have to trust in the Lord, because I cannot “make” them into reproducing disciples of Jesus Christ no matter how hard I try. But I do not simply throw my hands in the air and say, it’s all up to the Lord so I’m going to leave everything to Him.” That is failure to fulfill my duty. I could stay home from work and tell others to stay home from work, arguing that if they had faith it would be okay based on the same logic. Throughout scripture we are told that it is our efforts and God’s work. We don’t decide, but God wants us involved in sharing our faith, serving others, submitting to authorities, loving our wives, and I would say voting. Does refusing to vote for a Mormon aid in pointing people to trust in Christ? We certainly want people to repent and come to Christ. Yet we are in this world and called to be salt and light, to let our light shine in the darkness which necessarily involves concerted efforts to confront evil and speak truth. I’m not completely convinced that unborn babies who are being aborted, people who are having their income stolen from them, those who are unemployed, and those whose health care costs are skyrocketing, will consider Christian's abstaining from voting as endearing when we could have voted and possibly changed their circumstances. Of course, it may be that God desires the difficult circumstances to persist in order to drive more people to himself. That is his choice, but ours should be one of obedience. I’m just not convinced that a failure to vote, a failure to do something to stand in the way of runaway evil, injustice, immorality, and incompetence is an expression of faith or an endearing testimony to the world. I would not want any believer to endorse Mormonism for political expediency, but again, it is hardly clear to me how voting for someone who is a Mormon to fill public office (not a church office) amounts to endorsing his/her faith. As for me, I’d rather have a practicing Mormon in the White House than someone who pretends to be a Christian.

Calling it Like it is.

I remember hearing about an umpire who used to brag that when a pitch came into home plate and he had to decide if it was a ball or a strike he would say, "They ain't nothing til I call em." He reserved the right to create his own reality. Unfortunately, the number of people in our society who create their own reality is increasing. With only two weeks to go until the 2012 General Election most of us have been bombarded with so much information that it is dizzying. I've watched some of the debates and the level of dishonesty that I've seen has been very disheartening. I have watched as certain candidates look at the camera and without blinking tell the American people the exact opposite of what is true--"It ain't nothin till they call it." Most recently the American people have been subjected to the grand deception which surrounds the attack of the U.S. embassy in Benghazi, Lybia. This is just one of many incidents in which the American people are not being told the truth. As others pass the rampant deception off as "politics" I'm appalled. In the short list of things God hates (Proverbs 6) a "lying tongue" is in the top two. I find myself getting very upset at 1)the telling of lies and 2) the seeming complacency or at least indifference of so many that a blatant lie has just been told that I'm sure I respond in anger rather than in sorrow. Reading in Ezekiel 33:1-11 about God's appointment of Ezekiel as a watchman for the house of Israel it struck me that his message was to warn them of impending doom that was coming upon them because of their wickedness. His duty was to warn the people and if he did so he was not responsible. If he failed to warn them then he would be held accountable. God's people have a message from God--the good news of salvation by grace through faith alone in Christ (Acts 1:8; 2Cor.5:17-21). It is a message of warning that if people don't turn from their sin they will suffer God's judgment. But I noticed in verse 11 that God declares that "I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that the wicked turn from his way and live." So the purpose of warning, of pointing out the wickedness was to bring about repentance. Notice in 33:11 Ezekiel is to declare, "turn back, turn back from your evil ways! Why then will you die, O house of Israel?" It's one thing to be on watch for other people's sin so that we can piously point it out because we do not sin in that way and we feel good about ourselves--that is Pharisaism. It is quite another thing to be a watchman of sorts and share the truth of the gospel with people, to point out their sin so that they will see that they need to turn from it, trust Christ and live. This second rationale is what God meant for Ezekiel to do. God's heart is always that people repent. God's people are to point out sin so that people will repent. If my approach to those in sin is a desire to see them turn from sin so that they will live--gain new life in Christ--then I will confront sin humbly and graciously. If all I want to do is let people know how much worse they are than me, then I best keep my mouth shut. Lord, as I look around and see so much deception, jealousy, greed, idolatry, and pride I ask that you search me and know me and reveal those sins in my life that I need to repent of. Then would you please give me your heart of mercy so that when I confront sin I do so only so that those confronted will repent and live. Let me take no pleasure in the death of the wicked Lord, but only that they would turn from their way and live.

V.P.'s Confusion on Abortion

As I sat and watched the Vice-Presidential debate last night several things went through my mind, but the one issue that was raised that I wanted to address today is how each man dealt with the issue of abortion. Paul Ryan was clear, concise, and cogent in his answer. He stated that his faith impacts everything he does. He articulated his position that life begins at conception which is the teaching of the Catholic church of which both he and Joe Biden are members. Ryan said that a Romney administration will seek to protect the life of the unborn and would allow for abortions in the cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother being in danger if the pregnancy continued. Joe Biden articulated his longstanding membership in the Catholic church and that he is a devout Catholic who is personally in agreement with the position of the Catholic church which teaches that life begins at conception. Then he qualified his statement by saying, "But I do not seek to impose my beliefs on others. I believe a woman should hae the right to choose what to do with her own body." Now I've heard this sort of double talk from others who seek to appease abortion advocates by saying essentially, "Personally I'm against it, but I don't push my views on others." The perspective espoused by V.P. Biden is terribly problematic. I would submit that for Joe Biden to say, "I'm personally against abortion but don't feel that I have a right to impose my views on others" is intellectually inconsistent and religiously hypocritical. Mr. Biden is saying that he will not impose his moral conviction that abortion is the taking of a life upon others, but through his personal efforts and those of the current administration he imposes the support for abortion on those who supposedly share his personal convictions against it. So Mr. Biden will not impose restrictions on abortion which he says he personally opposes, but he will impose support for abortion on those who oppose it. By support for abortion I'm referring to Federal funding for international abortions (President Obama's very first executive order provided for such funding), the inclusion of abortion provisions in Obama Care, support for Roe vs. Wade and his concern that newly appointed Supreme Court Justices may overturn that decision if a Romney/Ryan ticket wins, his support for HHS Secretary's mandate that contraceptives be provided for in the health care plans of every business in America. Mr. Biden sanctimoniously declares that he will not "impose" abortion restrictions, but he has no qualms whatsoever imposing support for abortion on millions of Americans. His duplicity is revealing. Additionally, the V.P. has no reservation about imposing his moral convictions in other matters on others. For example, he is morally opposed (or seemingly so given the vast energy spent on opposing domestic energy exploration) to utilizing our vast domestic supply of coal, oil, and natural gas resources. He works tirelessly to prevent their use thus imposing his moral will on the rest of the country who believes we should be utilizing these resources to achieve energy independence. Secondly, the V.P. champions without apology a policy of stealing from the rich to give to the poor (euphemistically known as "income redistribution."). Mr. Biden sees income redistribution as a moral imperative. Funny thing that some moral issues are held to so strongly that they impact his policy, but the value of a human life is not one of them. Mr. Biden is not only logically inconsistent but he is a spiritual hypocrite. Paul Ryan stated that his faith impacted every aspect of his life. That is the only thing that a genuine faith can do. James tells us, "faith w/o works is dead"(James 2:20). We only really believe that which motivates us to action. It is a convenient way to frame the discussion to say that a person will not "impose" their views on another, but this is dishonest. Every law is the imposition of morality upon others. The only question is "what morality" will determine the law. The law of the land currently is a law that supports the murder of innocent unborn children. This is a morally reprehensible law, not based upon Scripture, but secular humanism. Mr. Biden cannot at the same time be a devout, practicing Catholic and avid supporter of abortion rights. These two positions are diametrically opposed. Any claim to the contrary creates an inevitable dichotomy that reveals hypocrisy. Mr. Biden says he is against abortion, but the action he has taken in public office does not bear this out. His professed faith is not practiced, thus impugning his profession. If a person believes that life begins at conception and that abortion is the taking of an innocent life, he/she cannot then support the taking of unborn life and require others to do so against their conscience unless he/she is deceived. It is no faith at all that fails to act in a manner consistent with that faith. In the case of Mr. Biden, it is not that he "fails to impose" his views on others that is the problem. No professing Christian imposes their views, but if they truly believe a matter they will of necessity advocate for their view, declare their view, and defend their view. More telling is that Mr. Biden not only fails to advocate for and defend the life of the unborn, but he deliberately advocates for the taking of human life and for coercing others to support this same grizzly business. That's all for now. Steve Smith

Religious Liberty in Jeopardy

I'm currently reading through Jeremiah during my devotions and came across chapter 12:1"..Why has the way of the wicked prospered? Why are Ll those who deal in treachery at ease?" I must admit that my first thought was of the horrible wickedness and treachery that seems to engulf me as I listen to the news and see those who traffic in these trades prospering. Then my thoughts went to the fact that usually when the question of Jeremiah 12:1 is asked, the answer usually has something to do with--"Look at yourself" I'm thinking Amos 1-2 and Habbakkuk. So I'm reminded to look again at my own heart and repent of sin that the Lord reveals. I'm also reminded to look at the heart of the country in which I live and the world in which I live and seek God' forgiveness for the overwhelming wickedness that surrounds us. I want to come humbly and not self-righteously to seek God's refining work in me and His redemptive work in others. One of the many manifestations of wickedness that saddens me deeply is the erosion of religious liberty in America. Over the past four years particularly disturbing developments have caught my attention and serve as the basis for my thoughts today. First of all, I'm concerned that preaching the truth of God's Word may soon be considered "Hate Speech" or "unprotected speech." Some background for my concern is necessary. When the Iowa Supreme Court declared the 1998 Defense of Marriage Act (that defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman) unconstitutional a few years ago it basically legislated from the bench a new law in Iowa. They legalized civil unions between same sex partners. But what about those of us who believe strongly that the Bible clearly forbids same sex marriage (Gen.2:24-25; Genesis 19:6-11; Romans 1:24-27; 1Cor.6:9)? Will our commitment to proclaim the truth about what constitutes sin (i.e. same sex marriage) be deemed "hate speech"? There is no desire to single out one offense against God over against other sins. Our desire is to lovingly call all sinners to repent of their sins, but that necessitates identifying their sin. Christ died to pay the price for sin so that we could be forgiven and be restored into right relationship with God. The rising tide of political correctness may just lead to a point at which it is deemed necessary to silence all who speak against what the "elite" determine to be acceptable. You think I'm over-reacting? Well consider events from recent history--the recent uprisings across the globe targeting U.S. embassies, their personnel and American Citizens. Think Lybia, Egypt, Pakistan for starters. The President, his Press Secretary Jay Carney, the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. recently set about on a planned public relations mission to deliberately deceive the American people regarding the reason for, the nature of, and the implications of the recent embassy attacks. The "talking point" was that some obscure movie trailer from YouTube had incited these attacks and that they were not coordinated, planned; that the perpetrators weren't angry with America or Americans, neither were the attacks reflective on the current U.S. foreign policy. Now we all know that these "talking points" were all blatantly untrue. Yet, the mantra about "the movie" that stirred the uprising ( a movie by the way that many of the people interviewed that were involved in the uprising have never seen or heard about) continues to the point that high level discussions are being held to the end that any comment made that could incite others to anger would be considered "unprotected speech" like yelling "fire" and inciting panic when there is no fire. I'm not making this up. Listen to what Mike Huckabee said, "But some of our intelligentsia have a solution. In an L.A. Times op-ed, Sarah Chayes of the Carnegie Endowment suggests we should declare insulting Muslims to be unprotected speech, like yelling “fire” in a crowded theater. She argues speech should be illegal if you know it will spark a violent reaction." This would mean that any information about another religion whether factual or not could be considered illegal if it would incite someone. That's pretty scary stuff. I find it more than ironic that the current administration has been in "full court press" mode to make sure that those supposedly offended or who could potentially be offended by what was in this movie understand that everything is being done to create a climate of tolerance. This basically amounts to apologizing for Freedom of Speech. I'm not saying that I agree with crude, rude, vulgar, or untrue statements that are made by others about what matters most to them. I am a champion of civility. But the same people preaching tolerance of Islam are the same people who want the name of God removed from their party platfrom, references to God and Jesus banned from graduation ceremonies, and prayer forbidden in school. They are first to defend placing a cross in a bottle full of urine as "Art" and a freedom of expression protected by the 1st Amendment. Religious liberties are also threatened by the current Health Care legislation as Secretary of HHS requires people of faith to violate their conscience and religious convictions by providing health care coverage for employees which covers birth control pills including those that cause abortions. Recently the owners of "Hobby Lobby" were reluctantly driven to file a suit against the federal government in order to seek exemption from this mandate. The owners are believers and feel it unbiblical to provide for abortion causing contraceptives for their employees. So it is time to wake up and see what is happening and to pray for wisdom guidance and courage in the days ahead. Of course I encourage every person of faith to support those candidates who truly support what God teaches and to oppose those who don't. I also encourage us to oppose anyone who is party to removing our Religious Liberties.

It's Definitely Time to Pray

As I sat in my office earlier last week after listening to clips from speeches that were aired covering the latest political convention I was stunned, sobered, and set back. I realized in a fresh way that it is truly time to pray...to pray for our leaders, to repent of our national sins, to pray for truth to be seen, for justice to prevail, for wickedness to be revealed, for people in this country to turn back to God, not merely invoke His name as a secret code in hopes that by doing so He will bless us. “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness...” (Is.5:20). Did I actually hear people publicly promoting, advocating, and championing the taking of the unborn under the guise of “women’s rights?” YES. There are 1.2 million abortions a year in America. President Obama has proven not merely to lend passive acceptance but active promotion to this scourge on our country. His record proves that he favors the taking of unborn life and he voted two times to block legislation that would provide for the care of infants born after a botched abortion. He also disregards our religious liberties and requires persons of faith to violate their conscience and abandon their principles through their support of abortion in His signature legislation--"Obama Care." Each year Planned Parenthood receives millions of tax dollars to fund their abortion mills. HHS Secretary Kathleen Sabelius recently ordered (her prerogative under the new Health Care Bill) that every business provide for contraceptives including abortion inducing contraceptives as part of the health care coverage for employees. To fuel the fire even further Sandra Fluke--law student dubbed poster child for the Administration’s “support for women” campaign--gave a speech heralding the necessity of government funded contraception as if supporting her promiscuity is now our collective responsibility. Of course the grizzly business of abortion is an evil we call good under the guise of promoting women's rights. It seems that when the President’s support for women is praised it refers only to his support for women who agree with his pro-abortion agenda and has nothing to do with pro-life women and those millions of unborn females who have been aborted. God’s word is clear that we are created in His image (Gen.1:26-27), life begins at conception (Ps.139:13-17); taking a life is a horrible sin (Gen.9:6). Did I get this right that a reference to God was expunged from a Party Platform? YES! Nobody is told that they have to put God in their platform. Since the majority of Americans would say that they believe in God to include His name in a party platform seems logical. But to Remove God from the platform must necessarily have been a reflection of conviction. The party must predominantly see itself as godless in world-view. Only amidst an uproar from people in the country was God put back in the platform. This happened in a most embarrassing and hostile display as rarely seen before on the national scene. For a vast number of those attending their worldview is godless. This should be very disturbing for those of us who realize that the viability of our republican form of government depends upon a “religious people” (meaning a Judeo-Christian people who believe in God). What a testimony to the secularization of our country that a major political party would be so adamant about eliminating mention of God. Reinstating God’s name with such contention seems clearly to reveal that doing so was not a matter of overwhelming conviction but one of political pandering and appeasement. And to think that the same folks who were so cantankerous, obnoxious, and upset over reinstating the name of God have been virtually silent in condemning the recent attacks on our U.S. embassies and personnel overseas including the death of at least four Americans by people who are doing so in the name of their god. This seems obviously duplicitous and hypocritical to me. Did I hear the President say, “Divine Providence is on our side”? YES I did. What a bold statement when so many of the President’s policies are in direct violation of God’s will and way. To invoke Divine approval and consent on the direction of a political party and His presidency is dangerous at best and deceptive at worst. The speeches and the party platform and the practices of the current administration reveal that they not only accept, but advocate abortion--the taking of unborn life. They not only condone, but celebrate homosexuality. They not only proclaim, but practice robbery euphemistically labelled “redistribution of income.” God does not champion but condemns the taking of human life (Gen.9:6). God does not champion but condemns perversion (Romans 1:24-27; 1Cor.6:9). God does not champion but condemns stealing (Ex.20:15). Mandatory income redistribution is actually a form EXTORTION and TYRANNY. God DOES CHAMPION VOLUNTARY INCOME REDISTRIBUTION (2Cor.8-9) but NOT MANDATORY REDISTRIBUTION by the government. Did I hear numerous people say that we are better off than we were four years ago and that the economy is turning around? YES, that is what I heard and NO that is not the case. By every economic measure the vast majority of people in the United States are worse off than we were four years ago. Gas prices are double, food prices up 15 % GDP has dropped, fewer people are working, unemployment is over 8%, national debt rose 5 trillion, our Stock rating was reduced, median income fell to 1995 levels, and I could go on. My point is not to argue about what is the best plan for the economy, but to highlight the level of blatant deception that characterizes our country. It is extremely disturbing to hear the "spin" coming from the White House and the media in regard to the latest attacks on U.S. personnel. We have four people dead in Lybia and the White House Press secretary has the audacity to tell us that this has nothing to do with Anti-American Sentiment or U.S. Foreign policy. We have the President of Lybia telling us that the attack was a coordinated assault by terrorists while the White House line completely different. Evidence is overwhelming that this was a premeditated retaliation deliberately done on 9/11/12. The protestors in every case are burning the American Flag and shouting "Death to America." And we are to believe that their hostilities are not directed at America or Americans? The LIES we are told either indicate Ignorance that bespeaks incompetence or Intentional deception that insults our intelligence. There is a way to turn our moral degeneracy around. “...and My people who are called by My name humble themselves and pray and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, will forgive their sin and will heal their land” (2Chronicles 7:14).