Call to Renewal
Posted on January 19th, 2008 by catalyst into the Uncategorized categoryHere is a great speach on Faith from our next President:
And in its historical struggles for freedom and the rights of man, I was able to see faith as more than just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against death, but rather as an active, palpable agent in the world. As a source of hope.
And perhaps it was out of this intimate knowledge of hardship — the grounding of faith in struggle — that the church offered me a second insight, one that I think is important to emphasize today.
Faith doesn't mean that you don't have doubts.
You need to come to church in the first place precisely because you are first of this world, not apart from it. You need to embrace Christ precisely because you have sins to wash away - because you are human and need an ally in this difficult journey.
I'm pretty sure I have a man-crush on Obama.
RSS feed for posts
January 19th, 2008 at 9:10 am
Faith doesn’t mean that you don’t have doubts.
Sorry. The 21st Century Christ doesn’t allow for doubts. At least not in the public square. He’s just another weak-kneed liberal who thinks he knows Christ.
Fred Thompson will shred him in a debate.
/sarcasm
Seriously though, I wonder if Americans are ready for a thinking man’s president. I’m beginning to doubt. Here’s hoping my faith is restored later today in Nevada.
January 19th, 2008 at 9:18 am
How did he give this speech? I thought all the writers were still on strike.
January 19th, 2008 at 10:37 am
Well Mitt’s tearing up Nevada and I’m not so sure B. Hussein Obama is revealing a biblical perspective here. I think Christ was quite adamant that were not “of the world”. Furthermore, Christ is not our ally as much as he is our Lord and Savior, you know, the Almighty God. That perspective seemed missing in this speech.
January 19th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
i heard he was muslim?
January 19th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
No crush on Obama here, but it sounds like someone you know watches too much Faux News.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/
I love how “reporting” on someone else’s religion can be your “opinion”. My opinion is that Catalyst is Scientologist.
I’m still holding out for Ron Paul until the Washington primaries are over. Then I’ll face reality.
January 19th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
Uh, Hussein is his middle name kids. It’s not an opinion. Barrack Hussein Obama. That’s what his Muslim father named him. I’m not sure that’s gonna look too good on a national ballot either.
January 19th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
Obama is a member of the United Church of Christ.
It may surprise sola fide, but people don’t always stick to the same religion as their father.
And catalyst, I also have a serious man-crush on Obama. My poor mother’s going to cry if she ever finds out that I’m not going to vote Republican in my first presidential election though…
January 20th, 2008 at 6:43 am
Well, your other choice is having a “Clinton” on the ballot. So given that choice, I’ll take “Hussein”.
Well, I think you get a pass this election. The Republican nominees are ridiculous. When the Republican party goes back to actually being conservative, then I’ll start voting for them again. i.e. Ron Paul.
January 20th, 2008 at 7:28 am
I didn’t say he was Muslim. Also bear in mind this is the season Democrats pretend to love God and Country. If any of them get elected I’m sure they will go on mass baby killing tirades, begin try to alter our constitution, and re-write God out of American history. Our last Democrat president was impeached and found guilty of perjury and obstruction of justice if that tells you anything. The Democrat president before that (Carter) tanked the economy so bad home loan interest rates went to 16%. It took Regan and Bush Sr. over 8 years to pull us out of that. My how short you all’s memories are.
January 20th, 2008 at 9:07 am
Trudat, all of it.
Yes, it certainly does.
But let’s not start dissing that…ahem…gentleman, or we’ll offend all the dems/lefties on the blog. And we are, after all, supposed to be patient with the unenlightened, aren’t we?
I, for one, still remember those high interest rates during the administration of the
supposedlyChristian, Jimmy Carter.And the doubling of BOTH the inflation AND unemployment rates under his watch, to…what was it…up to something like 12% each?
Oh yeah, and not to mention the — if memory serves — 75% jump in car AND home prices under jimbo.
It was sooo much fun trying buy a home, as well as hold on to your job during his reign.
What he thinks he’s supposed to be accomplishing traipsing all over the globe these past few years is beyond me, lest it be for comic relief…“Here’s how NOT to do it, folks!”
Worst prez EVAR, IMO, economically speaking.
-joebib
January 20th, 2008 at 9:14 am
Fair enough. I don’t really want to get into a political argument. You can vote for whoever you want.
But as for me and my house, we will vote for Obama!
January 20th, 2008 at 9:30 am
Joe,
Regarding your comment attacking Jimmy Carter.
May I say something to you, brother?
I have followed what you have had to say in many different threads, and
have noticed that your comments are usually very scriptural.
I notice you have usually manifested a resistence to join in with what in
all honesty — and regardless of how often, and how vehemently, it is
denied — can only be described as bitterness, unbiblical responses and
attitudes, personal attacks against leadership, and oftentimes even cruel
mocking — commodities which are all too prevalent on this blog, in my
view.
May I humbly encourage you to continue to manifest those Christ-like
qualities I have seen up til now, and not join others in mocking or
attacking the quite understandable responses newbies/others have when they read the majority of what is posted here?
-Catalyst
January 20th, 2008 at 10:31 am
If you are going to blame Carter for the 70’s, then credit Clinton for the 90’s.
January 20th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
1. Credit Clinton for the 90s? Hmm. The trickle down immorality of the 90s or the economic boom? The “boom” was partially fake - remember the dot com era? It could also be said that the tax cuts by Reagan were finally coming to fruition. I suppose the jury is still out, but I will agree that Bill Clinton is a genius and I’m not arguing he didn’t do a better job as a president than our more recent Commander in Chief.
2. I would also defend Carter’s Christianity. Habitat for Humanity is a great program and his work for peace has to be applauded. I mean, at least he’s trying to bring peace right?
3. I’m sure Barak Obama will make a fine president. Or even VP to Hillary. Castro will be so happy.
4. Finally if Mitt Romney is the Republican Nominee, which is the way things are headed, and since City Bible is Republican, will CBC support a Mormon the way they did W. Bush? I remember some of the elders (Tim Nashif and Mike White) wearing W for pres T-shirts last time.
January 20th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
My point being that the sitting president usually gets at least partial credit or blame for the repurcussions of the outgoing administration’s policies and actions. So if Clinton gets credit for Reagan tax cuts, Carter gets blame for policies and actions of prior administrations (Nixon/Ford, speaking of “trickle down immorality”).
January 20th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
That’s a good point. I’ll have to e-mail that to Ann Coulter and see what she says.
January 20th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
I have read in at least a couple of different places that hussein’s affiliation with the United Church of Christ is a placating one… that his real loyalties lie to Islam/Muslim/Oslim.. one of those –im cults.
January 20th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Living Life: again, I’m no Obama fan. But with all due respect, you’re retarded. At least I’m assuming you’re talking about Obama with your lame Hussein reference. Cite your “couple of different places” or shut up.
(To the mods: I tend to appreciate the separation of church and state on this blog. Things are usually too heated around here just talking religion without adding politics
)
January 20th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
eh, that came out way hasher than I meant LL. sorry. peace.
(seriously tho, sources)
January 20th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
It’s hard to separate church and state on this blog when a certain brown spottily painted domed church near PDX is accepting 15 grand from the Republican Party.
January 21st, 2008 at 3:27 am
(note to self: “Don’t believe it…Cat DOES read my comments”)
Just as I suspected all along, Cat, you ol’ sandbagger!
Let me just clarify by saying, I knew the Lord’s Anointed, and Jimmy Carter certainly is no L.A.
-Joebibs
January 21st, 2008 at 7:44 am
Personally, I think religion should be a non-factor in a Presidential election. You might disagree, but I think the job of President of the United States of America has very little to do with one’s religious beliefs. Give me a President who has a clear plan and the leadership skills to make it happen. Global diplomacy, a strong national Defense, a balanced budget, a booming economy, plentiful jobs, low inflation, etc. - all these things can be accomplished without muddying the process with the travails of religious ideology.
I know this may offend some of you in your Christian sensibilities, but the Founding Fathers, who were predominantly Christian, bent over f***ing backwards to make sure that religion didn’t play a role in American Government and politics! Every time some right winger proclaims that we need to get back to early American beliefs, it just shows how little they understand about the true intent of the Constitution. Institutionalizing religion is a slippery slope and the bottom of the slide is Jihad. Anyone remember the Crusades? Am I exaggerating? Perhaps, but we’ll all be sorry if we again vote in another President based on religious criteria.
I’m not even going to touch the political debate in this blog post, because that’s just more than any one blog can handle. But I’d encourage you all to vote with your brain, and not with a checklist of how many ways a candidate fits your denominational statement of faith.
January 21st, 2008 at 7:55 am
Brian… I could stoop to your level and say GTH.
If I could remember the sources, I would have printed them. I said “I read”
Isn’t Hussein part of obama’s name??? So your slam on that has no basis.
Lighten up Brian
January 21st, 2008 at 8:11 am
FICM
Do you have any sources to support your very substantial claim. Your free use of the word “religion” could have many meanings.
January 21st, 2008 at 8:48 am
I’m assuming you are contesting my statement that the Founding Fathers worked to prevent the legislation of religion in American government.
Well, let’s start with the best evidence of Constitutional intent - the document itself!
Article VI:
Amendment I:
Here is a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists:
This letter has been used numerous times in the Supreme Court to provide the defining evidence for the meaning of the term “separation of church and state”.
Interestingly enough, both Jefferson and Madison fought hard to prevent religious involvement in Federal government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state_in_the_United_States
Yes, the Founding Fathers were religious and pious men. But they had first hand experience with their own foreign homelands, and the nations of their period of history that were frought with troubles over nationalized religions. They wanted to avoid this situation at all costs! You can’t have freedom of religion if you demand everyone worship the same God in the same way. They understood this because they knew what it meant to have that freedom denied to them.
I’m tired of modern Christian propaganda that states the opposite of the facts about early American History. Our country was founded on religious freedom, not an institutionalized form of post-modern evangelical beliefs!
January 21st, 2008 at 9:32 am
Yay! Mine too! Mine too!
It is interesting that the only things people seem to be able to cite as why they do not like Obama — for president or even just in general — are that his middle name is Hussein, and that they *think* they read or heard somewhere that he *might be* Muslim.
Cue the Obama-bashing.
Me first: He…uh, well, ummmm….arrrrgh! I can’t. I LURV him.
January 21st, 2008 at 9:35 am
Wow. I don’t think that anyone actually read the speech. Senator Obama offers some opinions on the separation of church and state that even my very conservative republican mother (who will never vote for him) appreciates and agrees with.
It really is good.
I think I’m in love.
January 21st, 2008 at 9:35 am
Woops…I forgot to add:
Cue the Just Thinking bashing.
January 21st, 2008 at 10:12 am
Hahaha… I skim them.
Actually, though, I think this is our primary disagreement. You think Frank and the gang are the Lord’s Annointed, and I don’t.
January 21st, 2008 at 10:18 am
>>Isn’t Hussein part of obama’s name??? So your slam on that has no basis.
There’s no valid reason to call Obama by his middle name unless you’re trying to imply some kind of negative association involving his middle name. You might as well point out that Obama is a Japanese last name.
Also I heard that Obama is a gay white pedophile. I just can’t remember where I heard it from.
January 21st, 2008 at 11:43 am
no one here likes Mike Huckabee?
January 21st, 2008 at 5:17 pm
FICM,
I completely agree with your comments from earlier today.
You about summed it up. I would only add that Jesus did not seek to merge Christianity and earthly government. When the pharisees tried to engage him in that type of discussion, he said “give to Ceasar that which is Ceasar’s” (my guess is that his tone was kind, but with a “this is a diversion from the truly important things I’m trying to impart to you” slant).
We made the mistake of discussing politics during the last Presidential election with an acquaintance of CBC stock. When my husband and I challenged her allegiance to GWB, she emotionally said “but he loves God and I want a president who loves God!” After asking her for evidence of this love for God that GWB allegedly had/has, and talking to her much along the lines of your comments above, FICM (my husband’s a big history buff), she accused us of being democrats (oh, the horror) and the evening came to a grinding halt. Theocracies have not fared well.
Our President doesn’t have to be a Christian in order for God to use him/her. God is sovereign and uses anyone He so chooses to accomplish His purposes. Anyway, in my increasingly cynical opinion, it’s near impossible to get to the level of Presidential candidacy without some level of corruption.
Thanks again, FICM.
January 21st, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Pony, your story made me laugh. Back in the 80’s we were part of a CBC life group (or whatever they were called back then). The topic was what could everybody do to help the republicans win. It was suggested that people could get involved in their precincts or other activities.
Naively, I asked “but what if I’m a democrat?” Silence.
(I’m still a registered democrat…)
January 21st, 2008 at 10:04 pm
I think I might have a crush on Obama too (: In a totally straight, admiring way.
January 22nd, 2008 at 5:07 am
Yes, I think that about covers it.
And for the record, the “you’re no JFK” thing came from the not-so-”recent” (as someone called it) rather cheapshot comment made by Mr. Bentsen to Mr. Quayle, and can be read about here.
Again, regarding the principle of “touching the Lord’s anointed,” let me just say this in light of the only biblical example we have (AFAIK) concerning the practical use of this term — by David in reference to Saul — it is used in reference to a man who, among other things:
- was trying to murder David
- tried to murder his own son
- caused the murder of 85 priests of the Lord
- stole David’s wife and gave her to be married to another man
- engaged in witchery
- the list of his sins goes on and on.
And yet we see David, the man “after My (God’s) own heart” (Acts 13:22), feeling terribly guilty over the mere cutting off of the corner of this man’s garment.
Now, then. We come to our day when we are freed from the constraints of the Mosaic Law, and are “in the love of Jesus” and “under Grace.”
We now feel free to defend the
attacking, bashing, ridiculing, calling of names, making fun of, profaning, disrespecting and generally slandering“touching” of brothers in the Lord. Brothers whom, regardless of how one may argue against it, God has nevertheless allowed — or at the very least not prevented — to become the Senior Pastors of large churches.Brothers who may have moved into certain areas of doctrinal “excesses” and practices, and who may in fact be teaching some of what could be called “unbiblical” doctrines — but whom are nevertheless, NOT guilty of falling into blatant heresy (AFAIK, and if not, kindly provide proof of this) in regard to fundamental Christian doctrine, i.e., the non-negotiables of the Christian Faith, such as the Inspiration of the Scriptures, the Trinity, the Deity, Virgin Birth, and Resurrection of Christ, His Substitutionary Death for sin, and the literal Second Coming, etc.
We feel it is totally OK to
blast“touch” them.Isn’t it interesting when, out of the one side of our mouths, we defend the
bashing“touching” of these brothers — based upon the biblical teaching of holding “leadership” accountable — and yet, out of the other side of our mouths, after we have proceeded to go beyond the pale of the biblical mandate, we defend these actions on the premise that these brothers are not really “the Lord’s anointed” anyway?Now that’s funny.
However, be that as it may, let me get this straight, Cat…..you’re saying it’s OK when you wish to “touch” brother Frank, but it’s not OK if I wish to “touch” Jimmy?
Just wondering.
-joe
January 22nd, 2008 at 10:43 pm
Anna, good for you being a D in the 80’s! It took me until the mid-90’s. It’s crazy how many American Christians think that all Christians are Republican. I remember many sermons and prayers from the BT/CBC pulpit advocating for Republican candidates and agendas.
Another funny/sad story: a very conservative Christian friend of mine (not from CBC, but another MFI church) was talking to an unbeliever friend of mine at a Christmas party I had awhile back, and when the latter brought up George W, the former said “he’s not conservative enough for me because I’m a born-again Christian.” I was so shocked I couldn’t even say anything…although later I definitely did my best to school my friend about the existence of Democratic Christians, yes, of the born-again variety, yes, in America…
February 29th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
Why are u guys so against City Bible? My life has been radically changed through that church,and Pastor Franks preaching. Their notall about the money just about Jesus!, although kingdom giving does need to be taught on, not so the pastors can get paid more money, but so the kingdom of God can be fully established. We need to give to God, so we can learn to trust him with our finances. CBC maynot be your “traditional” church, but it’s reaching so many people with the power of God. I konw of many many young people, who’s lives have been changed through CBC. And like me once there lifes got changed by God through CBC and the leaders there they have never gone back to their old ways. We’ve stayed on fire for God. CBC is trading the rules of christian religon, for a real relationship with Jesus Christ.
JUST KNOW THAT GOD LOVES YOU, AND WANTS RELATIONSHIP WITH YOU NO MATTER WHAT!!
March 1st, 2008 at 8:05 am
That Frank is busy sewing and planting, there is no doubt. But what of the seed he uses?
I’m reminded of Hosea 8:7, Galatians 6:8 and Matthew 13:24-29 (also Matthew 13:36-43).
He will “reap the whirlwind.”
March 1st, 2008 at 9:39 am
Hmmm…so he’s into crocheting now?
-joe
March 1st, 2008 at 8:01 pm
One of them words I always has trouble wit’, Joe.
Sewing.
Sowing.
So-ing.
Sew - a needle and a thread …
Sow - a female hog …
So - my teenagers favorite word
So hard to keep them all straight / strait …
But if Frank is crocheting now, you can bet it’s an offering-plate cozy, or maybe a doily. Can’t you hear it, Joe: Knit 1, pearl 2 … that’s 2 for me and 1 for you.
March 1st, 2008 at 8:51 pm
That’s Knit 1, purl 2.
March 3rd, 2008 at 10:58 am
ksdgh.slh said ~ my life has been changed by this church and the pastor’s preaching and it’s not all about the money; it’s all about Jesus…
ksdgh.slh, I’m very happy for your spiritual growth through this church and that of your friends; that’s wonderful; nevertheless, if all of this attention to money and giving is all about the kingdom of God rather than the kingdom of Man - which is the impression I think that I was supposed to get when I read Wendell Smith’s book, Prosperity with a Purpose - then please answer a few questions for me:
(1) why don’t the senior pastors post their annual salaries and benefit packages in the annual financial reports?
(2) why don’t they allow the people to vote on whether or not they deserve a raise in salary?
(3) why is there such a disparity in salary levels between the senior pastors and everyone else on church staff?
(4) why are there still members in these local churches who are financially poor when the senior pastors are able to afford vacation and investment properties?
(5) why do so many of the independent, charismatic senior-pastor driven churches not join the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability? see: www.ecfa.org