“When the righteous increase, the people rejoice, but when a wicked man rules, people groan” (Proverbs 29:2).
Many biblical Christians do not like the policies that our professing Christian president, Democrat Barack Obama, has implemented such as government-run health care and the expansion of abortion rights and the homosexual agenda, to name a few.
One year from now, biblical Christians will have the privilege of going to the polls to cast their vote for president. With his place near the top of the polls, large financial holdings, and lack of scandal, it is quite likely that the Republican nominee will be Mitt Romney. By most accounts, Romney is a family man and an intelligent and capable business and civic leader.
Mitt Romney is also a committed Mormon. And that is where the rub comes for many biblical Christians. The thought of voting for someone immersed in a false religion, that some call a cult, has divided biblical Christians. Some say they could never vote for a Mormon and will either vote for a 3rd party candidate or not at all. Others say they’d rather have a more conservative person be president, even if he is a Mormon, than a liberal professing Christian.
So what’s a biblical Christian to do when it comes to the possibility of voting for a Mormon? Tune in this weekend to The Christian Worldview as we discuss this topic and take your phone calls.
Program follow-up: Just to restate, in case you didn’t hear the whole program, neither David Wheaton nor The Christian Worldview are endorsing Mitt Romney for president nor saying he is the best Republican candidate nor even assuming he will be the Republican presidential nominee in 2012.
The point of today’s program is this: while it would be ideal to always have the option to vote for a viable born-again Christian candidate, based on our understanding of Scripture, a true Christian would not be sinning against God in voting for an unsaved candidate (Mormon or otherwise) but that a Christian also shouldn’t vote for any candidate if it causes him/her to violate their conscience (Romans 14).
Guest: Joel Rosenberg, author, The Twelfth Imam
“Then if anyone says to you, ‘Behold, here is the Christ,’ or ‘There He is,’ do not believe him. For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect. Behold, I have told you in advance” (Matthew 24:23-25).
Maybe you’ve heard Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, begin his speeches to the United Nations in New York calling for “al Mahdi”, the Muslim “messiah” known as the Twelfth Imam, to come to earth to save the world (if you haven’t, you’ll hear the audio of Ahmadinejad calling out to al Mahdi this Saturday).
So what’s the big deal, isn’t this guy just some freak from the Middle East? Well, considering Muslims like Ahmadinejad believe it is their duty to instigate events on earth to hasten the Twelfth Imam’s coming such as attacking the Great Satan, America, or the Little Satan, Israel, we would all do well to pay attention … especially President Barack Obama who gave an appeasing answer to a question he received in India this week about what he thought of “jihad” (you’ll hear that audio too).
Joel Rosenberg, author of seven New York Times Bestsellers and the new novel, The Twelfth Imam, joins us this weekend on The Christian Worldview to talk about the Islamic end-times beliefs of the “Twelvers” and how it is impacting world events in America and the Middle East, specifically Israel. Don’t miss this “straight from the headlines” program.
It was just another week of “change” in the Obama administration. As if the President signing the single largest piece of legislation ever with the health care bill wasn’t enough, the “don’t ask don’t tell” policy regarding homosexuals in the military was softened, the Social Security Administration announced it will pay out more than it takes in for the first time, and finally and most importantly, Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel, was basically humiliated in his visit with President Obama at the White House.
ObamaCare may be terrible for the country for reasons described on the program last weekend, but now the Obama administration’s pattern of spurning Israel is downright dangerous for America. The Bible is clear: God blesses those nations who bless Israel and curses those nations who reject her (i.e. Genesis 12:3).
Why do political and religious liberals always oppose Israel and sympathize with her enemies? We’ll answer that question this weekend on The Christian Worldview.
Arguably the most transformational piece of legislation ever put forth by the United States Congress is due to be voted upon this Sunday by the U.S. House of Representatives. Every single American will be impacted by the outcome of this vote on the future of health care because we all will need it during our lives.
Democrat President Obama and Speaker Nancy Pelosi are leading the charge to pass this bill in what they understatedly call health care “reform”. Make no mistake, this bill is a transitional step to a future government takeover of our health care system — often called “universal health care” or “single-payer” or “socialized medicine” — where government holds the decision-making power over citizen’s health care, as in Canada.
The Democrats, Progressives, and Socialists in this country have done everything — bribes, lies, schemes — to get this bill passed and the question is “Why?” Why is passing “health care reform” so important to those with a humanistic worldview and how should Christians respond?
Further Reading: The ObamaCare Crossroads (Wall Street Journal)
Guest: Robert Knight, Coral Ridge Ministries
You might remember Part 1 of our interview back on September 26, 2009 with Robert Knight, senior writer for Coral Ridge Ministries, about the many and varied issues threatening traditional America that have been foisted upon us by the radical change-agents who occupy the political halls of power.
We talked about the growing attack on the life of the unborn child (“it’s a woman’s choice”) and the elderly Read more
Guest: Michele Bachmann, US Congresswoman (MN, 6th District)
Government-run health insurance. Just-signed hate crimes legislation. Enormous government spending. Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
President Obama proclaimed a fundamental transformation of the United States when he became president and he has certainly delivered on that promise, enacting socialistic, humanistic policies on the above issues and many others. Read more
This past Saturday, President Obama addressed the Human Rights Campaign, the most prominent homosexual rights group in America. Bill Clinton may have been the first to address the group back in 1997, but even he didn’t go “all-in” the way Obama did this week:
“My expectation is that when you look back on these years, you will see a time in which we put a stop to discrimination against gays and lesbians — whether in the office or on the battlefield. You will see a time in which we as a nation finally recognize Read more
On October 6, 1973, Israel was hit by a massive and devastating surprise attack on Yom Kippur, the holiest day in Judaism. The warning signs that Israel’s enemies were gearing up to deal the Jewish State a death blow were there. Her leaders simply didn’t properly assess, interpret and respond to them. By God’s grace, Israel was saved from the brink of utter ruination. But it was close, and painful.
Thirty-six years later, Israel is once again in grave danger. By Iran’s nuclear threat, to be sure. But Israel is actually in danger of being blindsided by two new threats.
The first threat is the real and growing possibility that the United Nations will shift the nuclear spotlight away from Iran and on to Israel in an effort to force Jerusalem to disclose and dismantle its alleged nuclear weapons and join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Israel does not openly acknowledge having atomic weapons. But the U.N. Security Council could pass a resolution forcing Israel to allow international inspectors in. If Israel refused to comply, she could be subject to diplomatic isolation, crippling economic sanctions, and even international enforcement (that is, a coalition of nations ready to go to war over the issue, just as the U.S. led a coalition in 2003 to force Iraq to comply with U.N. resolutions regarding weapons of mass destruction.)
This is a scenario I’ve been warning about for years, including in my 2005 political thriller, The Ezekiel Option. But this is no longer fiction. IAEA chief Mohammed ElBaradei publicly raised this as a serious possibility yesterday, saying, “Israel is the number one threat to the Middle East given the nuclear arms it possesses.” The Wall Street Journal columnist Bret Stephens also has a must-read column in today’s paper explaining how this scenario could come to pass in the not-too-distant future. Keep in mind: President Obama is making global nuclear disarmament his top foreign policy priority. He chaired a U.N. Security Council meeting last week to push this agenda. It is increasingly conceivable that he will try to force Israel to “play by the same rules” as everyone else and disarm unilaterally, even though Israel has never threatened to “annihilate” a neighbor. As I imagine in The Ezekiel Option, such a resolution against Israel could be introduced into the U.N. by Russia. The coalition against Israel could be led by Russia and Iran. Should this happen, we could begin to see the prophecies of Ezekiel 38-39 come to pass in fairly short order. While it is too early to conclude that is what is happening now, it is not too early to intensify our prayers for the peace of Jerusalem, according to Psalm 122:6.
The second threat is the real and growing possibility that the world will unilaterally create and recognize a Palestinian State, not through negotiations with Israel but by fiat. World leaders have been trying to engineer a “comprehensive” final peace agreement for decades. The Palestinians rejected a generous final peace offer by then-Israeli PM Ehud Barak in 2000 at Camp David (too generous, in my view). Then, Yasser Arafat unleashed the “Second Intifada” and a horrific wave of suicide bombings throughout Israel. The Palestinians then rejected repeated peace offers by then-Israeli PM Ehud Olmert (also too generous). Then, Hamas fired thousands of rockets and mortars at southern Israel until Operation Cast Lead crushed most of the Hamas activities in January of 2009.
Rather than be impatient with the Palestinian leadership, however, for consistently rejecting sweeping Israeli peace proposals, the world increasingly wants to force Israel to make deeper and deeper concessions. With his Cairo and U.N. General Assembly speeches, President Obama has taken the lead on this effort. He is demanding Israel return to its pre-1967 borders, divide Jerusalem and allow the Palestinians to have a state with contiguous borders (thus cutting Israel proper in two).
Now come a growing number of signs that world leaders are preparing to impose a final solution to the Israeli-Palestinian impasse, perhaps based on Palestinian Prime Minister Fayyad’s new two-year plan to create a viable Palestinian state. “During July, the EU’s Javier Solana lectured in London and said that if the peace process was going nowhere, the international community should consider recognizing a Palestinian state under a UN resolution even without Israel’s consent,” reports Dr. Dore Gold, the former Israeli Ambassador to the U.N. “[Solana] called for a fixed deadline for future negotiations. The Fayyad Plan could prepare the groundwork for such international action by providing the Palestinians with the main legal preconditions for recognition: the exercise of effective governmental control, the capacity to engage in foreign relations, and a defined territory. The last criteria for statehood is the most problematic. According to Solana, after the UN Security Council proclaims the adoption of a two-state solution, it will also adopt further follow-up resolutions regarding the highly contentious issues of refugees, Jerusalem and borders. In short, the Solana plan is an imposed solution, using the UN Security Council as its main instrument, which will decide the issue of Israel’s future borders and those of the Palestinian state.”
- Amb. Dore Gold in the Jerusalem Post: The Quartet’s disturbing shift and America’s new direction
- Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs analysis: Prime Minister Salam Fayyad’s Two-Year Path To Palestinian Statehood: Implications for the Palestinian Authority and Israel
These are dangerous developments. And let’s be clear: trying to force Israel to comply with such unfair and misguided initiatives won’t lead to peace. Rather, they will put millions of innocent Israeli and Palestinian lives in grave danger. May God have mercy on us all.
HEADLINES TO TRACK:
- ABC News: Is the U.S. Stepping Up Preparations for a Possible Attack on Iran’s Nuclear Facilities?
- Obama Says US Making “Progress” Against Terrorists, Warns Extremists are “Still Plotting”
- Anger as Iran holds up IAEA inspectors’ visit: “Britain on Monday expressed irritation that the International Atomic Energy Agency was being forced to wait three weeks before being given access to Iran’s hitherto secret enrichment plant, amid fears that the delay could allow Tehran to cover up possible evidence of military links to its nuclear programme.”
* GIVE: Would you like to help The Joshua Fund bless Israel and her neighbors with food, clothing, medical supplies and other relief aid, especially as we pray for peace and prepare for the growing possibility of a war with Iran? A gift of $50, $100, $250 or more would make an enormous difference, as would becoming a monthly financial partner. Learn more at www.joshuafund.net.
“This was a historic night when we felt the full embrace and commitment of the President of the United States. It’s simply unprecedented.” Those words were spoken by Joe Salmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, just after President Barack Obama spoke to the group’s 13th annual national dinner.
The Human Rights Campaign is one of the leading organizations promoting what it describes as “lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) civil rights.” The group’s annual dinner, held Saturday night, featured well-known politicians and entertainers popular in the LGBT community, as well as an appearance by the President of the United States. President Obama’s speech was a matter of controversy long before he arrived. Though pledging soon after his election to be what he called a “fierce advocate” for gay rights, the President has frustrated the gay rights community with what they see as inaction and hesitation in dealing with their agenda.
Indeed, the Obama administration has been under sustained pressure from the gay rights community — a crucial sector of its political support — and the HRC dinner was seen as an opportunity for the President to reassert his identification with gay supporters. Mr. Obama was the second sitting president to appear at an HRC dinner. President Bill Clinton appeared before the group in 1997.
Addressing the group, President Obama spoke of the obstacles in the way of the agenda hoped for by gay activists. The President told the group that they faced a continuing fight, adding: “I’m here with you in that fight.”
In the course of his address the President took credit for a federal hate crimes bill that was passed last week by a Democratic majority in the House of Representatives. He also pledged to push for an employee non-discrimination bill and fully-inclusive hate crimes legislation.
But the greatest attention was directed at the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy that bars openly-homosexual individuals from serving in the U.S. Armed Forces. “I will end don’t ask don’t tell,” the president pledged. “That’s my commitment to you.” Nevertheless, the President did not stipulate any timetable for this action — a fact noted by his audience.
The President’s perceived lack of action — and his refusal to hold his administration to a timetable for action — meant that many in the crowd were disappointed. Though his speech was repeatedly interrupted by eager applause, a good many activists complained that his speech was politically expedient. At TIME.com, John Cloud summarized the President’s message with these words: “I’m with you. But I can’t do much for you.”
Nevertheless, in contrast to that reading of the President’s comments, others understood Mr. Obama to make a sweeping series of promises. In addition to pledging a repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, the President also pledged to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.
The President said:
And that is why — that’s why I support ensuring that committed gay couples have the same rights and responsibilities afforded to any married couple in this country. I believe strongly in stopping laws designed to take rights away and passing laws that extend equal rights to gay couples. I’ve required all agencies in the federal government to extend as many federal benefits as possible to LGBT families as the current law allows. And I’ve called on Congress to repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act and to pass the Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act.
The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), passed in 1996, stipulates a federal definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman and protects any state from being forced to recognize a same-sex marriage legal in another state. The law was passed by huge majorities in both houses of Congress and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. The opposition of the homosexual community to the law has multiplied since the advent of legalized same-sex marriage in a handful of states.
In a significant portion of his address, President Obama spoke of the fact that gay and lesbian concerns “raise a great deal of emotion in this country.” He did not counsel the homosexual community to be patient, but he did ask for understanding. He spoke of advances made over the last three decades, but then reflected that “there’s still laws to change and there’s still hearts to open.” Furthermore, “There are still fellow citizens, perhaps neighbors, even loved ones — good and decent people — who hold fast to outworn arguments and old attitudes; who fail to see your families like their families; who would deny you the rights most Americans take for granted. And that’s painful and it’s heartbreaking.”
The President’s promises were sweeping. Nevertheless, the most remarkable section of his address included a truly unprecedented promise. The President told the group that his expectation is that when they look back over the years of his administration, they would “see a time in which we put a stop to discrimination against gays and lesbians.”
Then he spoke these words:
You will see a time in which we as a nation finally recognize relationships between two men or two women as just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman.
Those words represent a moral revolution that goes far beyond what any other President has ever promised or articulated. In the span of a single sentence, President Obama put his administration publicly on the line to press, not only for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, but for the recognition that same-sex relationships are “just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman.”
It is virtually impossible to imagine a promise more breathtaking in its revolutionary character than this — to normalize same-sex relationships to the extent that they are recognized as being as admirable as heterosexual marriage.
The attendees at the Human Rights Campaign’s annual dinner heard the President of the United States make that breathtaking pledge. Was the rest of America listening?
I’m always glad to hear from readers. Write me at firstname.lastname@example.org. Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler.
Official White House photo by Pete Souza.
This past week, former President Jimmy Carter exemplified where America has come in its level of discourse by saying, “I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he’s African American,”
So, according to Jimmy Carter’s worldview, the majority of people who oppose President Obama’s policies are racists.
The accusations don’t stop at racism. If you oppose same-sex marriage, you are a “bigot” and a “hater” and want to return America to its pre-civil rights days. Read more