Obama & the "Christian Left" or "Right" or pseudo-Christianity: The Dilemma of 20 Centuries

There is a passage in Pilgrim's Progress regarding the main character "Christian" encountering a Mr. Worldly Wiseman. It goes as follows:

The gentleman's name that met him was Mr. Worldly Wiseman, he dwelt in the town of Carnal Policy, a very great town, and also hard by from whence Christian came. This man, then, meeting with Christian, and having some inkling of him,-- for Christian's setting forth from the City of Destruction was much noised abroad, not only in the town where he dwelt, but also it began to be the town talk in some other places,-- Mr. Worldly Wiseman, therefore, having some guess of him, by beholding his laborious going, by observing his sighs and groans, and the like, began thus to enter into some talk with Christian.

WORLD. How now, good fellow, whither away after this burdened manner?

CHR. A burdened manner, indeed, as ever, I think, poor creature had! And whereas you ask me, Whither away? I tell you, Sir, I am going to yonder wicket-gate before me; for there, as I am informed, I shall be put into a way to be rid of my heavy burden.

WORLD. Hast thou a wife and children?

CHR. Yes; but I am so laden with this burden that I cannot take that pleasure in them as formerly; methinks I am as if I had none. 1 Cor 7:29

WORLD. Wilt thou hearken unto me if I give thee counsel?

CHR. If it be good, I will; for I stand in need of good counsel.


(Mr. Worldly Wiseman's counsel to Christian)
WORLD. I would advise thee, then, that thou with all speed get thyself rid of thy burden; for thou wilt never be settled in thy mind till then; nor canst thou enjoy the benefits of the blessing which God hath bestowed upon thee till then.

CHR. That is that which I seek for, even to be rid of this heavy burden; but get it off myself, I cannot; nor is there any man in our country that can take it off my shoulders; therefore am I going this way, as I told you, that I may be rid of my burden.

WORLD. Who bid thee go this way to be rid of thy burden?

CHR. A man that appeared to me to be a very great and honourable person; his name, as I remember, is Evangelist.

(40)
(Mr. Worldly Wiseman condemned Evangelist's counsel)
WORLD. I beshrew him for his counsel! there is not a more dangerous and troublesome way in the world than is that unto which he hath directed thee; and that thou shalt find, if thou wilt be ruled by his counsel. Thou hast met with something, as I perceive, already; for I see the dirt of the Slough of Despond is upon thee; but that slough is the beginning of the sorrows that do attend those that go on in that way. Hear me, I am older than thou; thou art like to meet with, in the way which thou goest, wearisomeness, painfulness, hunger, perils, nakedness, sword, lions, dragons, darkness, and, in a word, death, and what not! These things are certainly true, having been confirmed by many testimonies. And why should a man so carelessly cast away himself, by giving heed to a stranger?

Now, before one thinks the above passage has no bearing on today's discussion, it must be noted that one of today's major headlines is that Obama is going after what he is describing as the "Christian Left" and some Evangelicals to get on board the 'Obama' bus, so to speak. That raw appeal, however, is just finally too much not to say something, and the quote above points to a critical and forefront problem in today's world in generally accepting all as 'Christian' whom choose to call themselves Christian, without any plumbline of doctrine or other position, and when it comes to 'courting' (it should be called 'date rape) the Christian vote, on either side, someone just finally has to lower the boom on poor Mr. Obama who has at times to appease those he's with worn Muslim garments, and accepted the presence of Muslim brotherhood 'protectors', and attending as so many others do a church which is more political than Christian.


"Neo-Christianity & "Pseudo-Christianity"

I was tempted to use the word 'neo-Christianity' in the title of this article because that is essentially where we are at in the new 'Christian Church World' today. Once you begin to discern between who is a Christian and who is not, and further whether they should vote for any particular candidate, all protest with 'who are you to say' and 'you don't know a person's heart' etc, but the truth is, and there is still truth, that the above objections come from a modern day relativism where everyone is anything they want to be just if one says so, the old 'I want to believe' syndrome with apologies to X-files.

The first and foremost issue though is that even the idea of 'truth' is dissolving beyond belief, and there are few plumblines as everyone wishes to as the Holy Scriptures says, 'do what is right in their own eyes'. Before there can be a discussion though of whether a Christian should vote for Obama, or the other fellow, or even vote when the choices are not perfect, it is past time for the discourse on what we mean when we say 'Christian'. Here's a little controversy: even in Evangelical, fundamental and pentecostal circles, the modern American Church is so far from the commands and teachings and even organization of Scriptures, as to constitute 'something else'. Perhaps they could be called 'neo-Christianity' for it is a new form and concept of following Christ which automatically makes it 'something else'. For example instead of bishops and deacons and a servant-pastor, we have boards of directors, 5013c non-profit corporations, and what we call deacons, bishops etc, only occasionally take on biblical roles. Further, our churches are open-forums, because they are corporations , anyone may attend, even unbelievers, and in today's atmosphere if one even suggested an unbeliever should not attend, or even take communion, one would be called 'intolerant' or mean-spirited, but the actual assembling of the brethren was meant for believers to be fitly joined as a body, and unbelievers were won first and then added in the Book of Acts. So the very 'church' we think is most since, is actually askance from the true ikklesia of Jesus Christ, and true biblical teaching and living is not found in either the more 'liberal' or legalistic churches.

There are several types of Churches referred to today as 'Christian' but most are farther away than that:

1. The Catholic Church- the catholic church does not bear at all the organization nor basic teaching of Scriptures except in a few parts. They appoint an infallible head, though God declares no man infallible. They call their priests 'father' yet the scriptures declare no man is to be called father. Sacraments and ritual have taken the place of faith and grace, and salvation is tied to membership in the 'mother church' which is not a biblical requirement. Idolatry and icons condemned in scripture are frequent. Church policy and rules claim the same authority as scripture, a practice warned against in Revelation. They declare their descendence from St. Peter, but the RCC 's history really began with Constantine in 313 a.d.They have given a deified position to Mary and even claimed her as a co-redemtrix with a direct ascension, not taught in scriptures. Because they use christian 'language' though, often meaning different things than are meant, and they allow widespread sexual sin to continue in their pulpits. Yet they are grouped with 'christians' and may be consided the 'christian' left, though Catholics are very diverse in voting patterns.

2. Protestantism

More than most, most 'Protestant' churches stemming from Luther's Reformation including Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Episcopals, Congregationalists and other 'mainline' denominations consider themselves Christians, and today, mostly reflect in their platforms a liberal flavor, and certainly in their seminaries. Yet most are fairly far from the teachings of the New Testament, much lest the Old. They allow homosexuals as members which the Bible openly condemns and describes as a death knell to the Spirit [reprobation]; they are 'pro-choice' or favor a mother's right to kill a child before birth, a practice condemned in scripture. They are quick to open soup kitchens and homeless shelters as 'church projects' but rarely do so in more than perfunctory manner as though one should, and they do not ascribe to the gifts of the Holy Spirit. In a poll not long ago, most of their seminarians did not believe in the Virgin Birth and most want a 'blood less' Christianity which is not Christianity, for the Covenant is blood-bought. Jesus is seen more as a martyr who died to show us love, but what he died for is seldom addressed, and salvation is seriously redefined. Jesus is sort of the all-time 'role model' for human behavior, but not really LORD and Savior. Politics abound in these churches, which also rely heavily on ritual, and one is more likely to hear a sermon on Green Peace or the Peace Corp than on a Biblical topic, especially in more metropolitan areas of the country. There is rarely church discipline or a strict adherence to the Word of God, and theological writings have a strong air of political correctness as opposed teaching the Word straight.

3. 'Wanna be Called Christians' are groups such as the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and other cultic groups. Their doctrine though differs so greatly, that most shun working with them save for some liberal churches which will participate in community projects with them. They have strict codes and policies, but both teach the divinity of Christ in a very distorted manner, including teaching that Jesus and Satan were brothers, or that Jesus had the nature of an angel, which were dismissed as heresies early in church history. They range in voting patterns from conservative to liberal.

4. Fundamentalists vs Evangelicals vs Pentecostals

These terms are often used interchangeable but are far from interchangeble. 'Fundamentalist' in the strictest sense refers to an adherence to the fundamentals of doctrines, but it is a cover term to the other two in the press. Fundamentalist use the Bible as final inerrant authority, accepting its claim of infallibility and supposedly life follows suit, although in this day and time it is hard to say that actually happens. Fundamentalists though, mostly vote in a very conservative manner, and rarely vote democrat, although they may vote independently. Evangelicals are often more liberal than fundamentalists per se, allowing for example, divorced pastors, and other liberalities in style of worship and may even allow some extremes like 'Christian yoga' [most disdain], or youth rock concerts etc. Many of these groups have given themselves over to what some refer to as 'lifestyle' Christianity and a new 'admixture' of pop psychology, pop Christian music, t-shirts, events, conferences and cruises over-ride a lived faith. Christian radio stations, tv stations basically afford the ability not to have to ever give anything up at all for Christ and along with certain of the 'prosperity' movement teach that if you are right with God you are headed towards worldly wealth. There is a real mix of folks who refer to themselves as Evangelical, and hence a broad spectrum of voting perspectives, although they are usually pro-Life, opposed to homosexuality, family oriented, and fascinated with the latest books on cults, Christian meditations, and personal testimonies. This is the Dr. Dobson crowd, more into Christian psychology than Christ.

Pentecostals and Charismatics are those who usually adhere to the Holy scriptures as authoritative and also practice the gifts of the Holy Spirit such as speaking in tongues, prophesying, word of knowledge, discernment etc. Some Pentecostals are from a 'Jesus Only' movement which teach against the trinity, which most consider a serious error in doctrine. Pentecostals tend to accept biblical dress styles such as uncut hair for women, long and modest clothes etc, but that is not particular to only Pentecostals and is seen across the varieties of Christianity. They are always morally conservative if they vote. Charismatics are more akin to the TV preaching on certain channels, and have varying doctrine, some willing to go 'beyond scripture' in prophecies etc, although that is a direct defiance of biblical commands. They also involved themselves in a form of 'lifestyle' Christianity, large meetings, etc and have travelled rather far beyond their azuza street history.

Baptists, while fundamentalists, are a group unto themselves. They range from 'Baptist Briders' who believe that only baptist Briders are heaven-bound, to "Independent Fundamental Baptists"- who teach the word as infallible and inerrant, with frequent church attendance, almost all are ultra-conservative and many are involved in fringe groups (not so fringe anymore) such as the Patriot movement, militia, or US Taxpayers party. They vary on Bible versions, but many KJV only persons are of that variety although with increasing research, that is changing across the board. They are a split off from the Southern Baptists who ar ea diverse group ranging from conservative to liberal with even some slightly charismatic churches, who vote any which way but loose, though mostly conservative.

Some black churches such as the one Obama was in for many years in Chicago are a mix of politics, service, good works, a lot of Jesus, though not necessarily biblically defined. African issues currently abound in many black churches of all denominations. Other churches considered 'cult like' including Mennonite vary from ultra conservative, some who will not vote, to liberal , 'high church' congregations and many others abound.

All of this is a somewhat lengthy explanation of why it is not really a comprehensible headline to say 'Obama courts' Christian voters or the 'Christian left. 'Church goers' is probably a more accurate term, for some particularly in high church protestantism hardly even believe in God but have more of a 'God concept' which is hardly true belief.

Should a Christian Vote for Obama?

Ultimately, given the policies espoused, a true Christian could not even entertain voting for Obama. Now, that will rankle especially young people who see him as a family man with ideals galore, hope for the future, and 'Strawberry Fields forever' playing in the background, but if a Christian should vote at all, Obama would have to be out on several counts.

The bible clearly teaches a few fundamentals which are definitional to being a Christian. First and foremost, one must believe in the Blood Covenant of Salvation, in which Jesus is Lord and Savior, dying for the purpose of putting away sin and enmity with God, forgiveness of sin, and a healing of man back to God, a doing away with the curse of the Fall. If you do not believe that, however much you like the stories, or however calming scripture is, you would not be in covenant with him, and you would not be one of His. Absolutely. All else is something else.

There are a few other mainstays though, no matter which way your church wind blows. He is the Way, and the way is exclusive, so one cannot be a broad ecumenist. He is the Truth, and and lie will not stand before Him. He is the Life, and the Resurrection, and until you get a hold of that, eternal life is not yours yet, and you only have a deceased hero. Being life, you can not be opposed to life, and must respect and care for it. You cannot support legislation to slaughter innocent life upon preference. You also cannot 'decide' life began after birth, for he says that before he formed you in the womb, he knew you, and each person is a part of his plan, not to be destroyed by another. A candidate who does not support cradle to grave life, is not to be supported. Better not to vote at all, than to put your hand, which is Christ's hand, to that bloody ballot.

You cannot, if you love Christ and keep his commandments, support homosexuality or homosexual unions. You can support civil rights for all, for we are all sinners, some saved by grace, and some still to be saved, but you cannot condone what the Bible, the Word of God, calls reprobation, which is a serious separation from God, and an abomination in His sight. (rms 1)

You cannot believe in rendering to Ceasar more than belongs to Ceasar, and church-state separation is a Biblical mandate, as the Church can have only one head, Christ. While it sounds good on the surface, just as Bush's points of life and 'faith based initiatives', Obama has a government run coordination plan for religious organizations that is the segue to a State Church as seen in a blurb on his website:

As president, Barack Obama will establish a new President's Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships within the White House. The Council will work to engage faith-based organizations and help them abide by the principles that federal funds cannot be used to proselytize, that they should not discriminate in providing their services, and they should be held to the same standards of accountability as other federal grant recipients. The Council will:

# Train the Trainers to enable local faith-based organizations to learn best practices, grant-making procedures and service delivery so that they can better apply for and use federal dollars.
# Partner with State and Local Offices so that federal efforts build on successes made at the state and local level.
# Hold Recipients Responsible by conducting rigorous performance evaluation, researching what works well and disseminating best practices.
# Close the Summer Learning Gap by focusing faith-based and community-based efforts on summer learning programs for 1 million children.

So can one support Obama and be 'right with Christ'? The answer has to be no. Is McCain the answer? He at least leans toward pro-life, though it does not seem to be an issue of comfort to him. This column is actually not to promote McCain over Obama, for that is not the issue at hand. The issue is how preposterous it has become for anyone to use the Christian label who does not have openly Christian views, or the audacity of a candidate to court people whom he will do in in office.
It is unconscionable. Do I like some of his policies? Yes, in fact some of the things he promises, although a little naive, would be good for the nation if accomplishes them, for he is a trained Civil Libertarian, a serious need in this day and time, and that is not inconsistent with the Gospel at all. But when Civil Liberties is only for the politically correct, then , no. I am a 'christian environmentalist': I believe God from the beginning gave us the care of the earth to treat with love and concern and we have ransacked it, but I cannot sacrifice that belief for the love of the unborn, who Mr. Obama, are the true hope of this generation with Christ as the greatest hope.

I know the changes which occur in a person when one accepts and receives Christ as Savior, and as one grows in Christ, as I have done with others (for 23 years), one begins to take on the Mind of Christ and the heart of Christ, and it is not ever again 'politics as usual'. Charles Colson once coined the term 'kingdoms in conflict', and one would have to point to our King as being one not of this world, but sovereign to the ones of this world. I study the shoah or holocaust and do not want a stronghold of Fascism or Organized Crime, or Communism in its modern form, either, I also hold to Christian and political freedom. So I am not advising people how to vote, but I am saying, that one cannot 'court' groups of voters, as though they were stupid, promise the sun moon and stars, and then immediately turn on them when the office is obtained. Belief and life in Christ is not a toy for desperate politicians seeking votes. At some point integrity has to come to play.

When Worldly Wiseman responds to Christian in Pilgrim's Progress, he urges Christian to turn back to the kind of Christianity which does not meet with fire, trials, pain and discomfort or even death. I say, with our vote as with our other decisions, we should respond as Polycarp as he faced death:

Eighty and six years have I served Him, and he never did me any injury; how then can I blaspheme my King and my Savior. --Polycarp, disciple of the Apostle John, and Bishop of Smyrna