This is the final installment in a series of articles dealing with the 20 minute interview by the NPR Fresh Air radio show of Rev. Richard Cizik, who is the now former VP of Governmental Affairs for the National Evangelical Association (NAE). This interview was the last straw, it brought down this ravenous wolf in sheep's clothing. Cizik resigned last week. That interview was so enlightening into the mind of a man who purported to be the key voices of American evangelicals. What was in that mind was deception and lies and much that is antithetical and repugnant to Jesus Christ and to His message, and to Biblical truth.
Today we will explore the final portion of the interview and provide commentary on the interview and a few overall conclusions about the man and his now former organization.
‘CREATION CARE,’ THE HIGHEST PRIORITY
Terry Gross attacks all conservative Christians and true Christ-followers, by asking, “Now let me just ask you a pointed question. Are you waiting for some of the evangelical leaders who have opposed you on issues like your concern about the environment and climate change—are you waiting for them to retire and leave the stage? And I guess I’m thinking most specifically, here, about James Dobson."
Cizik in the mode of a true compromiser and liberal appeaser answers, “I’m not waiting. I would want Jim Dobson to join us, because this is about creation care, it’s what the bible teaches, it is Godly, it is right. So I’m not waiting for him to leave the scene at all. I want him to join us. In other words, Terry, I’m always looking for allies not adversaries; always allies. This is important. It’s strategically important for Christians to care for this earth, just as it’s important for Christians to care for the family. These are equals; they’re both part of God’s concern, they’re both part of His heart. So no, I’m not waiting.”
Gross, agreeing with her interviewee queries, “I appreciate what you’re saying but at the same time I think the odds of you winning over James Dobson on this are probably slim, so do you think?”
Cizik, laughs in agreement mumbling unconvincingly and with little conviction, “With God all things are possible!”
Gross probes deeper, “…what’s going to change in the long run is that he and some of the other people who oppose your work putting environmental issues near the top of the agenda, do you think that what’s going to change is that they will retire and that there will be a new guard?”
Cizik brags a bit, “Well, sometimes I believe that occurs. Even some of the names back on the letter a couple years ago are gone. But that doesn’t change the fact that we all will pay a price for not changing. The earth is reaping the consequences of our actions when we don’t reexamine our habits of consumption, right? The poor around the world, well, they’re reaping the consequences of us failing to meet our obligations. This is not something that can wait for any of us to retire. (Some may be wanting me to, but...)
“The Gospel paints a vision of society that is relationally and environmentally sustainable. What do I mean by that? Relationally sustainable- it’s a message of hope that we all get along, not just get along but work together for a cause which is bigger than ourselves.”
BUSH NOT LIBERAL ENOUGH FOR CIZIK
Gross now asks Cizik about the Left’s favorite President, “Since we’re in the final weeks of the Bush administration, I’d like to ask you your thoughts as that administration comes to an end. What do you think were his achievements, what do you think were your greatest disappointments?”
Ignoring such stellar accomplishment as the fact that Bush disapproved funding for stem cell research, signed the partial birth abortion procedure ban, Cizik selects and cites, “Greatest achievements: surely the effort called the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS relief. This is felt in real ways in sub-Saharan Africa in ways that we in the West don’t even understand. They love us as Americans because of what George W. Bush did on that.
“I think, on the other hand, this man of faith failed to understand in my estimation, religion in the Middle East, and it led to a war that’s been unnecessarily long. It may have been right, as it were, to take out Saddam Hussein, but the way this war was waged in so many ways I think everyone would have to admit was ill-planned, ill-conceived and the rest. So, look, one has to have mixed emotions about the Bush administration.”
Gross continues to press Cizik about President Bush, “And what are the ways that you think he has helped, and/or hurt, the evangelical community?”
Bush didn’t please the rest of the world enough according to Cizik, who said, “I suppose George W. Bush’s faith was a mixed blessing. On the one hand, we evangelicals took pride in the fact that this man became president who openly said that he was a person of faith, for whom, even Jesus he said was his favorite philosopher. And yet, he didn’t in so many ways reflect that Jesus as we would have wanted him to have. With a humility and a fashion to the rest of the world that communicated just what kind of people we are. I don’t think that real picture ever came through.”
CREATOR OVER THE CREATED
I think the most damning thing Cizik said was “It’s strategically important for Christians to care for this earth, just as it’s important for Christians to care for the family. These are equals; they’re both part of God’s concern, they’re both part of His heart.” Wrong, people, souls, are much more important to the Creator than the lower creatures, such as insects, birds, and other animals. Man, Rev. Cizik is the highest and most important of all of God’s creatures. We reflect the image of God. Deer and buffaloes and barracudas do not.
THE FUTURE OF THE MAN
As I listened to this so-called conservative Christian pro-life Evangelical leader throughout the length of the NPR interview, I felt embarrassed, disgusted, and horrified that he would even name the name of Jesus and allege that he is a Christ-follower. From my perspective Mr. Cizik by his words and actions is neither what I consider to be (1) a conservative, (2) a Christian, nor is he truly (3) pro-life. Then what is he? The man is a (1) wolf in sheep’s clothing, (2) an apostate, and (3) an appeaser, and a (4) compromiser.
However, I am sure Cizik will resurface as a political advocate with the National Education Assoiciation (NEA), Green Peace or any of a number of other left-wing groups. Why? Because, philosophically, his ideology lines up more with the liberal elite than does he the conservative common man.. . .
THE FUTURE OF THE ORGANIZATION
As for the NAE, Bill Wilson in his 12/14/08 Daily Jot article, succinctly articulates the situation at the National Association of Evangelicals, “The damage done to the NAE and its image among those who take the Bible seriously (by letting Cizik run amok) will take a long time to repair. And it’s not just Cizik who was at fault. The mindset of the organization appears to have changed over the years to drift away from basic conservative Bible truths and to support the more seeker friendly Christianity without commitment, sin without consequences dogma that is permeating the Church. . .” That in a nutshell tells it like it is.
Based on the radio interview conducted with the NAE’s Cizik, the positions he espoused were nearly indistinguishable from the abjectly liberal, Marxist positions of the very liberal 'religious' National Council of Churches (NCC) or even the secular National Education Association (NEA). A few decades ago the NAE sprung into being to contest the growing apostasy found in the NCC, now the NAE finds itself in a state of denial of its own apostasy.
CAN THE NAE BE RENEWED?
Bill Wilson concludes that “It is now a perfect time for the governors of the NAE and Mr. (Leith) Anderson (President) to conduct a complete audit of the issue and policy positions taken by Cizik to ensure that the NAE not only espouses Biblical truth in its writings and positions to its members, but also practices them in their relationships in Washington, D.C. and other places.”
What is needed in America is a renewal of the heart, mind and spirit starting with the Church and organization representing the Church, and starting with individual Christians. What Cizik and his NAE seem to be following is deceptive Gore-bought doctrine instead of Jesus’ message. Cizik’s NAE is saying that we need to be worrying about renewing the earth. If the NAE is saying this they are either a foolish deceivers or a deceived fools, Rev. Cizik and the NAE, I do not know of a gentler, kinder way to say it. I suggest that you get back to the Biblical basics.
WHAT DOES THE NEA GOT TO DO WITH IT?
Throughout this series I have made allusions, at least in the title of this series, to a tie between the NAE and the National Education Association (NEA). What the NEA has done for our schools, which amounts to nothing or worse, is just about what the Cizik's NAE has done for the Christian community, nothing or worse. The NEA is working to deliberately weaken our schools and dumb down American children. They feel indoctrination into such things as homosexuality and social justice are more important than learning to read and write and do simple math. Why are our schools among the worst achievers of all industrial nations? One big reason is the death grip the NEA holds on our nations educational system.
Likewise the NAE is less and less representative of evangelicals or true Christianity as demonstrated by the leftward shifting of leaders like Richard Cizik. The NEA and the NAE have anti-God, anti-Biblical philosophies, which sometime are indistinguishable, that seem to be merging, the letters of their initials are the same - just a little different order . . .
To quote the President-elect it is time for real change. Do you hear that NAE? It is time to get back to basic Biblical truth once more. After Cizik, that would be a refreshing change.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Is the NAE Becoming Like the NEA? Part 7
This is part 7 of a series of articles which I have written based on the December 2 (exactly 2 weeks ago today) interview of former official of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) on the NPR Fresh Air radio show. Richard Cizik resigned last Thursday, but I want to complete this series probing his public pronouncements about faith and virtue or the lack same.
In today’s article I will cover the priorities which Cizik espoused on behalf of the NAE. It is still a question as to what degree the NAE, itself, comports to Cizik’s liberal and secular humanistic view toward the issues. By his responses during the interview, Cizik deeply conformed to the world’s view of what was important. He lost sight of the things important to God. I suspect the whole NAE organization, likewise, has been so molded by the world.
CIZIK's (NAE’S?) PRIORITIES
Anticipating Barack Obama’s reign, Terri Gross asks Cizik what his priorities and plans will be post inauguration, “So what else is on your list of priorities now as the chief lobbyist of the National Association of Evangelicals? What are you looking forward to after January 20th?"
NUCLEAR TERRORISM & CLIMATE CHANGE
Cizik waxes ‘eloquent’ as he misguidedly responds, “Let me say that one of the bigger war and peace issues that I’m struggling with and attempting to find a role on is the threat of nuclear terrorism. A new report that just came out this week that said it’s greater and realer than we ever thought before. But I’m actually going to Paris to be part of unveiling a new movement called Global Zero, which is an attempt to understand that whereas the threat of nuclear weapons was a deterrent, and now it no longer is. In a world in which you have non-state actors who can potentially wield weapons of mass destruction, the mere possessions of weapons of mass destruction becomes morally problematic in ways unheard of before if this makes any sense.
"And so, therefore, this movement called Global Zero, supported by both John McCain and Barack Obama, will come forward I think in the next week and months ahead to communicate a strategy to begin to address this threat of nuclear terrorism. That’s one thing I want to be a part that I think is very important for evangelicals; after all, most would not make any connection but I’ve been with the NAE so long that I was on staff back when I actually proposed a letter to then President Ronald Reagan which became the evil empire speech to the National Association back in 1983. And while few remember it, that speech known for challenging the Soviet Union, included a line from the President advocating the abolition of all nuclear weapons. Most would not remember that, and yet it was true. It became a reality at Reykjavik in conversations that President had with the President of the former Soviet Union.
So, I happen to think this is one of the premier issues along with climate change that will impact the rest of life here on earth.
FINDING COMMON GROUND OR COMPROMISE?
Gross, repeating a theme, asks, “I do not want to put words in your mouth, but I think I have heard you say that you want to find, and you want your groups, the National Association of Evangelicals, to find some common ground with Obama and work with him. Is that going to be hard to convince a lot of your members to do?"
Cizik shamelessly, compromising, rationalizing, “Well, for those to whom all compromise is simply submitting, you see, to political correctness or whatever for them, it is going to be very hard. But for most evangelicals I don’t think so. After all, we believe, you see, that God is alive and real and He lifts up some and puts down others. And ultimately we have to say God is put this man in this position and it is our responsibility to pray for him, and to support him, and to work with him in whatever ways we can. It may require for some ‘bridging outward,’ – bridging outward, that’s Robert Putnam’s term—bridging outward to collaborate with Barack Obama to do what is right by so many different people who need the kinds of policies he’s espousing.
"That will be hard, yes, but should we do it? Yes. And will we hold him accountable when he happens to run against what we happen to think is right and good and proper and all the rest? We will do that, but we’ll do it in a nice way. And we’re not going to be, I think objectionable, in the way that we have been in the past, as I said, that led one Republican leader to call one of our members a bully and a thug. That’s not who we are."
STRAYING FROM THE TRUTH
Ironically, Cizik didn’t resign until last Thursday, until he took one last trip into liberal cause land. In the email correspondence I received on Friday from the NAE apparently Cizik wasn’t confronted sooner about his intolerable display of unbiblical positions, which he represented during the interview, because he was in Europe taking part in the Global Zero conference. Leith Anderson mentions in the NAE email in which he informed of the Cizik resignation, “because Richard traveled to a previously scheduled international conference in Europe shortly after the airing of the broadcast it was not possible to meet with him until his return.” It seems ironic that Cizik’s last official action was being one of 100 participants and signatoriesto Global Zero, which he mention during his interview, as one of his burning present and future priorities. Among the 100 international participants and signatories to that Global Zero conference attending along with Cizik included fellow liberals or socialists Presidents Jimmy Carter and Mikhail Gorbachev, Sandy "stuffing secret documents in his pants to protect Bill Clinton" Berger, and Desmond Tutu. This was a part of Cizik’s problem, his priorities were messed up.
Another thing that stood out to me in the interview was the great compromises Cizik was willing to make. He did not point out any areas were he took issue with Obama. Nowhere did Cizik point out that Obama was wrong. It seems as though Cizik was an Obot, demonstrating a mindless machine-like devotion to the man who is one of the most radical supporters to abortion. Yet Cizik would seek to find common ground with a such man whose key principles and policies conflict with Biblical principles. Overall throughout the interview, Cizik’s positions were antithetical to Christianity. In order to get along and not be viewed as a fundamental nut-job I guess Cizik gave up any biblical convictions or principles he may have once held – most notably that of the sacredness and uniqueness of marriage and the God-given right to life that every human being has - even babies in the womb.
Journalist Bill Wilson said it best in his 12/14/08 Daily Jot article, where he provides an excellent, penetrating, and pointed assessment of Cizik, “He flirted with liberal causes considered by many to fly in the face of sound Christian doctrine , , , Global warming, homosexuality, illegal immigration, abortion and supporting candidates that were cross ways of Biblical standards marked the waning years of Cizik’s career with NAE.”
Tomorrow we will conclude our reporting and commentary on the Cizik-NPR affair.
In today’s article I will cover the priorities which Cizik espoused on behalf of the NAE. It is still a question as to what degree the NAE, itself, comports to Cizik’s liberal and secular humanistic view toward the issues. By his responses during the interview, Cizik deeply conformed to the world’s view of what was important. He lost sight of the things important to God. I suspect the whole NAE organization, likewise, has been so molded by the world.
CIZIK's (NAE’S?) PRIORITIES
Anticipating Barack Obama’s reign, Terri Gross asks Cizik what his priorities and plans will be post inauguration, “So what else is on your list of priorities now as the chief lobbyist of the National Association of Evangelicals? What are you looking forward to after January 20th?"
NUCLEAR TERRORISM & CLIMATE CHANGE
Cizik waxes ‘eloquent’ as he misguidedly responds, “Let me say that one of the bigger war and peace issues that I’m struggling with and attempting to find a role on is the threat of nuclear terrorism. A new report that just came out this week that said it’s greater and realer than we ever thought before. But I’m actually going to Paris to be part of unveiling a new movement called Global Zero, which is an attempt to understand that whereas the threat of nuclear weapons was a deterrent, and now it no longer is. In a world in which you have non-state actors who can potentially wield weapons of mass destruction, the mere possessions of weapons of mass destruction becomes morally problematic in ways unheard of before if this makes any sense.
"And so, therefore, this movement called Global Zero, supported by both John McCain and Barack Obama, will come forward I think in the next week and months ahead to communicate a strategy to begin to address this threat of nuclear terrorism. That’s one thing I want to be a part that I think is very important for evangelicals; after all, most would not make any connection but I’ve been with the NAE so long that I was on staff back when I actually proposed a letter to then President Ronald Reagan which became the evil empire speech to the National Association back in 1983. And while few remember it, that speech known for challenging the Soviet Union, included a line from the President advocating the abolition of all nuclear weapons. Most would not remember that, and yet it was true. It became a reality at Reykjavik in conversations that President had with the President of the former Soviet Union.
So, I happen to think this is one of the premier issues along with climate change that will impact the rest of life here on earth.
FINDING COMMON GROUND OR COMPROMISE?
Gross, repeating a theme, asks, “I do not want to put words in your mouth, but I think I have heard you say that you want to find, and you want your groups, the National Association of Evangelicals, to find some common ground with Obama and work with him. Is that going to be hard to convince a lot of your members to do?"
Cizik shamelessly, compromising, rationalizing, “Well, for those to whom all compromise is simply submitting, you see, to political correctness or whatever for them, it is going to be very hard. But for most evangelicals I don’t think so. After all, we believe, you see, that God is alive and real and He lifts up some and puts down others. And ultimately we have to say God is put this man in this position and it is our responsibility to pray for him, and to support him, and to work with him in whatever ways we can. It may require for some ‘bridging outward,’ – bridging outward, that’s Robert Putnam’s term—bridging outward to collaborate with Barack Obama to do what is right by so many different people who need the kinds of policies he’s espousing.
"That will be hard, yes, but should we do it? Yes. And will we hold him accountable when he happens to run against what we happen to think is right and good and proper and all the rest? We will do that, but we’ll do it in a nice way. And we’re not going to be, I think objectionable, in the way that we have been in the past, as I said, that led one Republican leader to call one of our members a bully and a thug. That’s not who we are."
STRAYING FROM THE TRUTH
Ironically, Cizik didn’t resign until last Thursday, until he took one last trip into liberal cause land. In the email correspondence I received on Friday from the NAE apparently Cizik wasn’t confronted sooner about his intolerable display of unbiblical positions, which he represented during the interview, because he was in Europe taking part in the Global Zero conference. Leith Anderson mentions in the NAE email in which he informed of the Cizik resignation, “because Richard traveled to a previously scheduled international conference in Europe shortly after the airing of the broadcast it was not possible to meet with him until his return.” It seems ironic that Cizik’s last official action was being one of 100 participants and signatoriesto Global Zero, which he mention during his interview, as one of his burning present and future priorities. Among the 100 international participants and signatories to that Global Zero conference attending along with Cizik included fellow liberals or socialists Presidents Jimmy Carter and Mikhail Gorbachev, Sandy "stuffing secret documents in his pants to protect Bill Clinton" Berger, and Desmond Tutu. This was a part of Cizik’s problem, his priorities were messed up.
Another thing that stood out to me in the interview was the great compromises Cizik was willing to make. He did not point out any areas were he took issue with Obama. Nowhere did Cizik point out that Obama was wrong. It seems as though Cizik was an Obot, demonstrating a mindless machine-like devotion to the man who is one of the most radical supporters to abortion. Yet Cizik would seek to find common ground with a such man whose key principles and policies conflict with Biblical principles. Overall throughout the interview, Cizik’s positions were antithetical to Christianity. In order to get along and not be viewed as a fundamental nut-job I guess Cizik gave up any biblical convictions or principles he may have once held – most notably that of the sacredness and uniqueness of marriage and the God-given right to life that every human being has - even babies in the womb.
Journalist Bill Wilson said it best in his 12/14/08 Daily Jot article, where he provides an excellent, penetrating, and pointed assessment of Cizik, “He flirted with liberal causes considered by many to fly in the face of sound Christian doctrine , , , Global warming, homosexuality, illegal immigration, abortion and supporting candidates that were cross ways of Biblical standards marked the waning years of Cizik’s career with NAE.”
Tomorrow we will conclude our reporting and commentary on the Cizik-NPR affair.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Magazine Maligns Bible's Marriage Message
Newsweek: Now Give the Truth Equal Time!The Family Research Council (FRC) sent out an alert regarding a false and misleading story in this week’s issue of Newsweek magazine. Riddled with errors and typical liberal bias toward advancing the godless, immoral homosexual agenda, both Newsweek and the article must be condemned by all Christ-followers.
Tony Perkins, FRC President, described the Newsweek article, “One of the worst piece of so-called journalism that I Have ever seen. In the cover page article entitled, “Our Mutual Joy,” Lisa Miller takes the Bible on a joy ride saying the Bible supports same-sex ‘marriage’ . . .” “It is an insult to Bible-believers.” Here is the content of FRC’s alert sent out last Friday.
Washington, D.C. “Newsweek magazine effectively declared war on marriage last week, running a long essay on "The Religious Case for (Same-Sex) ‘Marriage’" as their cover story. In the wake of the victory of California's marriage amendment (Proposition 8) on Election Day, homosexual ‘marriage’ advocates are realize that their opponents are not going to fade away or compromise their convictions. Not content any longer to make a "separation of church and state" argument for same-sex "marriage," they are instead mounting a direct attack on Christian opposition to homosexual conduct and to same-sex "marriage" on Biblical grounds.
“There was little that was original about the essay. It strung together a lot of talking points that have wafted about the homosexual movement for years. What was astonishing was that the author (Newsweek's religion editor Lisa Miller) not only tried to explain away the Bible's condemnation of homosexual conduct, but actually claimed that "Scripture gives us no good reason why (homosexuals) and lesbians should not be (civilly and religiously) married-and a number of excellent reasons why they should."
“The article included blatant factual errors, such as the claim that Jesus never "explicitly defines marriage as between one man and one woman" (see, e.g., Mark 10:6-8-"But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE. FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH; so they are no longer two, but one flesh."), and the claim that "nowhere in the Bible do its authors refer to sex between women" (see Romans 1:26). It also had logical contradictions, arguing for the Bible's support of "(same-sex) marriage" while simultaneously dismissing the Bible as supportive of slavery and anti-Semitism.
“If homosexual activists want to simply ignore the Bible, they are free to do so. If they are going to blatantly distort its teachings, Newsweek should not help them do so.
"(The Family Research Council) urges you to email Newsweek today and demand that the magazine print an accurate article presenting the Bible's true teaching about homosexual conduct and same-sex "marriage"-one equal in length to the Miller piece (which was over 2,700 words) and also run as the cover story.”
TAKE ACTION
Please join me in send the following email to the magazine’s editor protesting this indecent assault on Christianity, God and the Bible. The email that I urge you to send is reproduced below. Click here to email Newsweek editor Jon Meacham.
Send To: Newsweek Editor Jon Meacham
Subject: Please present both sides of the marriage debate
Message:
Dear Mr. Meacham,
Newsweek's recent cover story by Lisa Miller on the "religious case for (homosexual) marriage" is a frontal assault on millennia of orthodox biblical teaching about marriage. It also fails to faithfully interact with any opposing viewpoints. A piece so clearly intended to cause controversy demands a faithful hearing of both sides of the argument.
In the spirit of fairness, I ask that you please print an accurate article which presents the orthodox understanding of the Bible's teaching about homosexual conduct and same-sex "marriage" -- one equal in length to the Miller piece (which was over 2,700 words) and also run as the cover story.
Electoral College Meets Today
A Message to Our Electors
Important message for our electors. For more information, please visit www.Democratic-Disaster.com.
The new video raises its own warnings.
"Electors have a right to request credentials of a candidate," it says. "Electors have a duty to the country over any pledge to the party to vote their consciences.
"You must have no doubt the candidate meets the natural born citizenship and age requirements," it continues.
It cites the "certification of live birth" that the Obama campaign posted on the Internet as documentation of his birth as inadequate because it includes no information about a hospital, a midwife, a doctor, a location and is not traceable."
Obama has the ability … to resolve this matter, [but hasn't,]" the video says.
"The only reasonable explanation is that he doesn't have a document that shows he was born in the U.S."
Important message for our electors. For more information, please visit www.Democratic-Disaster.com.
The new video raises its own warnings.
"Electors have a right to request credentials of a candidate," it says. "Electors have a duty to the country over any pledge to the party to vote their consciences.
"You must have no doubt the candidate meets the natural born citizenship and age requirements," it continues.
It cites the "certification of live birth" that the Obama campaign posted on the Internet as documentation of his birth as inadequate because it includes no information about a hospital, a midwife, a doctor, a location and is not traceable."
Obama has the ability … to resolve this matter, [but hasn't,]" the video says.
"The only reasonable explanation is that he doesn't have a document that shows he was born in the U.S."
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Shining God’s Light on the Koran – God Communicating with Man Part 1D
Sam continues his on-going series which contrasts the Judeo-Christian Bible with the Islamic Koran on a variety of topics. He aims the beam of the Biblical laser on the Koran to expose, to reveal what it really says. See his previous articles here.
God’s Verbal Interaction with Man, Part Four
God’s Verbal Interaction with Man, Part Four
Moses and Water from the Rock
According to the Koran, Allah is said to not directly communicate verbally with mankind. In the Holy Bible, however, God is said to have verbally communicated with men several times. I would like to consider in this current series of articles, one man in particular, Moses with the Children of Israel at Massah and Meribah.
THE KORANIC ACCOUNT
It is beneath the dignity of Allah to condescend to speak to a mortal with the exception of disclosing information or from behind a covering hidden from view or by dispatching a messenger who reveals with His permission what He pleases; certainly He is Exalted and exercises good judgment (Surah 42:51).
Allah made direct contact with Moses when speaking to him (Surah 4:164).
There is no comprehension of Allah’s character among those who say that Allah has never revealed anything to any mortal human ( Surah 6:91).
When Moses inquired about water for his people, We said: Hit the rock with your staff. Thereupon, out of the rock flowed twelve streams of water, and each one of the tribes knew their proper drinking place (Surah 2:60).
COMMENTARY ON THE KORANIC ACCOUNT
According to the Koran Allah does not lower himself to speak directly to mortals. He may reveal something of new significance to someone, but not usually. He will hide himself behind a sheet or send a messenger to deliver the message he wants to send to people. Such as when Gabriel was sent to speak to Muhammad in order to reveal Allah’s word to him.
The Koran contradicts itself when it says that Allah does not speak openly to mortals. Contradicting itself, the Koran says that Allah spoke directly to Moses. Moses was a mortal to whom Allah spoke without something being between them.
Revelation can take on many forms. Verbal revelation is only one form of revelation from God. The implication that someone may say or think that God does not reveal anything to anyone shows a lack of clear understanding of God on the part of that Individual. God revealed Himself to Pharaoh through the ten plagues on Egypt and the destruction of the Egyptian army. This was not verbal communication from God to Pharaoh. Instead, God made an example of Pharaoh, and in so doing displayed His power for the entire world to see. This is an example of non-verbal communication between God and man.
When Moses came to a place in the desert where there was no water; Moses beseeched the Lord for water: Allah and Gabriel told Moses what to do, which was to hit the rock with his shepherd’s staff. Moses did do this and twelve streams of water flowed out of the rock, one stream for each of the twelve tribes.
BIBLICAL ACCOUNT
All the congregation of the children of Israel journeyed from the wilderness of Sin, after their journeys, according to the commandment of the Lord, and pitched (their tents) in Rephidim, and there was no water for the people to drink (Exodus 17:1).
Wherefore the people did chide with Moses, and said, Give us water that we may drink. And Moses said unto them, “Why do you chide with me? Wherefore do you tempt the Lord?” And the people thirsted there for water; and the people murmured against Moses, and said, “Wherefore is this that you have brought us up out of Egypt, to kill us and our children and our cattle with thirst (Exodus 17:2,3)?”
And Moses cried unto the Lord, saying, “What shall I do unto this people? They are almost ready to stone me.” And the Lord said unto Moses, “Go on before the people, and take with you of the elders of Israel; and your rod, wherewith you smotest the river, take in your hand, and go. Behold, I will stand before you there upon the rock in Horeb; and you shalt smite the rock, and there shall come water out of it, that the people may drink.” And Moses did so in the sight of the elders of Israel (Exodus 17:4-6).
He called the name of the place Massah and Meribah, because of the chiding of the children of Israel, and because they temped the Lord, saying, “Is the Lord among us, or not (Exodus 17:7)?”
COMMENTARY ON THE BIBLICAL ACCOUNT
Scripture states that there were 603,550 men twenty years old and older capable of going to war (Numbers 1:45, 46). The tribe of Levi is excluded from the count. If these 603,550 men were all married and had an average of three children per family, this would calculate to 3,017,750 people that were with Moses, excluding the population of the tribe of Levi. Have you ever taken your family on a camping trip? Remember the logistics involved? Imagine camping out with a family of over three million people. They follow their leader, who is God, to a place where there is no water. Instead of trusting God to provide; they complain that Moses has taken them out of Egypt into the desert to kill them all with thirst. Moses has the good sense to realize that it is not with him, that they are complaining, but with God. Moses explains the situation to God as being very desperate.
God speaks directly to Moses and tells him to go to a rock on which God Himself will stand, and to hit it with his shepherd’s staff. This he did, in front of the elders of Israel, and out of the rock gushed forth water.
Notice that in complaining about Moses and questioning that God was with them the children of Israel were actually tempting God.
COMPARING & CONTRASTING THE KORAN WITH SCRIPTURE
The Koran and Scripture disagree on who it was that spoke to Moses and told him to hit the rock with his staff. In the Koran it was “We,” that is, Allah and Gabriel. In Scripture it was the Lord, who spoke to Moses, no angel was involved.
The Koran and the Scripture agree that water came forth from the rock. Enough water was supplied to provide amply for the whole congregation of Israel . The disagreement between the two is on the number of streams flowing from the rock. Scripture says water came out of the rock, which is one stream. The Koran, on the other hand, claims that there were twelve streams, which came forth from the rock.
It is interesting that Allah would have twelve streams gushing out of a rock, one stream for each one of the twelve tribes. In Scripture we learn that the High Priest was to wear a breastplate with twelve different stones and the name of each of twelve tribes of Israel on his chest (Exodus 28:2).
CONCLUSION
Which God would you prefer to serve. the one who will not humble himself to meet with mortal man, or the One, who is humble enough Himself to meet with mortal man.
It is possible that the Koran was written on hearsay by Muhammad and not by revelation from an angel. Inaccuracies within the Koran make it appear flummoxed. If the Koran were divinely inspired, then it would have no inaccuracies. In this series I have pointed out several inaccuracies, and expect to find numerous others.
REFERENCES
The Koran passages are a paraphrase of several English translations.
The Koran, translated by N.J. Dawood: A Penguin Classic
The Qur’an, translated by M.H. Shakir: Tahrike Tarsile Qur’an, Inc.
The Holy Qur’an, translated by Maulana Muhammad Ali: Ahmadiyya Anjuman Isha’at Lahore Inc. U.S.A.
The Koran, translated by Marmaduke Pickthall: Everyman’s Library
The Holy Bible is paraphrased from the King James Version
The Liberty Annotated Study Bible: Liberty University & Thomas Nelson, Inc.
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Is the NAE Becoming Like the NEA? Part 6
BREAKING NEWS: CIZIK RESIGNS
WASHINGTON, D.C. I first saw this good news in NewsBusters’ Tim Graham’s article, “Evangelical Spokesman Resigns After Telling NPR (Homosexual ‘Marriage’), Abortion are Negotiable.” In that news article, Graham wrote, The Washington Post reported Friday that Richard Cizik resigned his position as spokesman and vice president for governmental affairs for the National Association of Evangelicals after he declared he was "shifting" toward supporting civil unions for homosexual couples in a December 2 National Public Radio interview. Post reporter Jacqueline Salmon explained the remark was "anathema to most evangelical Christians, who believe that the Bible permits marriage only between a man and a woman."
I received word of the Cizik resignation when I as in the midst of writing this series of articles, which I began this past Sunday, which is based on the 20 minute Rev. Richard Cizik interview on the NPR Fresh Air radio show. The series is based primarily on the God-insulting, impertinent, insolent responses of Cizik, the (now former) VP of Governmental Affairs with the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), in an interview he gave to the NPR radio show (Fresh Air) hostess Terri Gross.
IS THE NAE MISLEADING AMERICA?
I will go ahead and post the article I had originally intended to post prior to the Cizik resignation. Today’s article contains more excerpts from the NPR Fresh Air interview of Rev. Richard Cizik. I have included extensive excerpts of the words of this false witness, because they build a case against him. His words incriminate him. This article deals with same-sex ‘marriage,’ misrepresenting the Bible, and Cizik’s controversial call for government supplied contraception. Any of these three insults to true Christianity would be grounds for purging this wolf from his position of leadership and authority.
My question is, “Did Cizik quit willingly, or was he forced to resign? More importantly, how deep into the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) has his malignant cancerous apostasy spread? Why was Cizik allowed to represent this so-called organization that is supposed to represent Christians? How compromised is the entire organization? How complicit is NAE's President, Leith Anderson, then and other leaders in their slide to apostasy and compromise with the world?
Going into the New Year it would be most advisable for the Board of Directors of the NAE to examine and evaluate itself and its leaders and either resign or repent of their evil ways in light of the need for effective and true Christian witness to an America and a world growing morally and spiritually darker by the day. This darkness is not due to global warming, but to global ignoring of God and repeatedly spitting in His glorious face.
Here are more examples of Cizik’s, and maybe the NAE’s, own misleading positions:
SAME-SEX ‘MARRIAGE’
The Left can never promote the perverse homosexual lifestyle enough. Terri Gross returns to the left’s favorite cause celeb with this inquiry of Cizik, “I wanted to ask you, you wanted to identify with the concerns and priorities of younger evangelical voters. And one of those priorities is more of an acceptance of homosexuality and (homosexual) ‘marriage’? A couple of years ago when you were on our show, I asked you if you were changing your mind on that and two years ago you said you were still opposed to (homosexual) ‘marriage,’ but now as you identify more with the younger voters and their priorities, have you changed on (homosexual) ‘marriage?’"
Astoundingly, for a person who claims that he is a follower of Jesus Christ, Cizik blindly boasts, “I am shifting, I would have to admit. In other words, I would willingly say I believe in civil unions. I don’t officially support redefining marriage from its traditional definition. I don’t think.
“We have this tension going on in the movement between what is church-building and what is nation-building. And I lean in this spectrum at times; maybe we should concentrate on building our values in our own movement. We have become so absorbed in the question of (homosexual) rights and the rest, that we fail to understand the challenges and threats to marriage itself, heterosexual marriage. Maybe we need to re-evaluate this, and look at it a little differently.”
TWISTING SCRIPTURE
Cizik continues, “I am always looking for ways to reframe issues, give the Biblical point of view a different slant, if you will. And would that we have to the whole world, literally, the planet is changing around us. If you don’t change the way you think and adapt, especially to things like climate change. scientists like Bob Doppelt, he says if you don’t adapt and change your thinking you may ultimately be a loser because climate change in his mind, and he is a systems analyst, says has the capacity to determine the winners and losers. Your life, ah, will never be the same – growing up during, I say, the great warming. Our grandparents grew up during the Great Depression, our parents, well they, ah, lived in the aftermath of that, and became probably the most, well, greediest generation ,and our generation, this young one, needs to be the greenest."
CiIZIK’S CONTROVERSIAL CALL FOR CONTRACEPTIVES
Gross interjected, “ . . . of BeliefNet raised the question, that I want to put to you, “Barack Obama supports the right to have an abortion, but he also advocates reducing the number of abortions, when possible. Will you support him in abortion reduction? Or do you see that as diversion from the work of banning or restriction abortion?"
Cizik amazingly unequivocally and without qualification or without addressing Obama's radical pro-abortion stance, said, “I will support him. I will support Barack Obama in finding ways to reduce abortions, absolutely.”
Gross pounces on the thought, “Is that controversial within the evangelical movement?”
Cizik quickly responds, “For some, yes, I have already been called one of the devil’s minions for taking this position.”
Gross clarifies, “Is it seen as compromising?”
Cizik responds, “Yes, it seems compromising. And, the fact again, the “winner take all” mentality, (which says) that you have to have it all. In politics I have learned that over many years that 'less is more.' I think finding those who are in trouble, in crisis, and helping them through this. And if need be, even supplying what government presently doesn’t do, namely, contraception is an answer to reducing, you see, unintended pregnancies.”
Gross not her ears, again giddily interrupts, “Wait, wait, I think I heard you say that that government supplying contraception? That has got to be controversial among evangelicals.”
“Among some it would be,” Cizik says, “But I don’t think so. We are not, as I have said previously; we are not Catholics who oppose contraception, per se. And let’s face it, what do you want? Do you want and 'unintended pregnancy' that results in abortion, or do you want to meet a woman’s need in crisis, who frankly would by better contraception would avoid that abortion, that we all recognize as mmmmmmorally (he had a hard time saying that word) repugnant, at least it is to me.”
(BUT WHY NOT ABSTINENCE, INSTEAD OF CONDOMS?)
Cizik equates the false and deliberately misleadingly environmentalism 'going green' foolishness with real sacred and biblical virtues such as giving or joy etc. Pure poppycock!
Cizik strikes me as a man who has a form of godliness, but who denies its power.
Where is the Biblical message and mandate of abstinence and purity and saving oneself for marriage? Cizik is supposed to be representing people who follow the teachings of Jesus. Where is natural birth control and self-control, which is also a Christian virtue? No mention. A great number of unintended pregnancies happen to promiscuous youth, even young evangelicals. No condemnation of a selfish, self-centered God-dishonoring promiscuous lifestyle. Apparently because it is not politically correct? You, Rev. Cizik, are an appeaser, a compromiser, a wolf in sheep’s clothing, a misleader.
Where is the spiritual guidance and admonition to be chaste and pure and virtuous, Rev. Cizik? It is not there in any of your remarks. Cizik’s words throughout the entire NPR interview reflect a spiritual and moral bankruptcy.
DOES THE NAE NEED A SPIRITUAL BAILOUT?
The NAE, itself, now may be in need of a bailout, a spiritual renewal and return to Biblical and moral basics. Cizik’s resignation will not be enough. Is he the cancer, or is he just the sore that has been exposed or has become visible on the surfaced of the body and more cancer exists in the patient?’
My advice to the NAE would be that going forward the NAE reexamine itself, its foundational beliefs thoroughly and reorder itself to be a God-honoring entity for Christ, which it is not today. Then, it needs to appoint a spokesperson who could battle on the side of God in the spiritual war, which will be protracted and will escalate in 2009 and beyond. The NAE needs to be light and salt and model that for all Christians, instead of being conformed to and being compromised by the world as Cizik most definitely was.
The NAE needs to either aggressively, lovingly, passionately and uncompromisingly stand for Christ as His and His Church’s representative, or it needs to disband as an organization. There is no common ground with Satan and evil. There is no compromise with the world.
It is obvious that Cizik viewed Christianity as merely in political terms, and not spiritual resulting exclusively from a relationship with God that unities a body of true believers or Christ-followers. True Christians, because they have a personal and intimate relationship with God through His Son Jesus Christ, are different. Cizik was indistinguishable from the world. I fear that the NAE is in danger of becoming, if it is not already there, more and more like the thoroughly wicked and worldly NEA.
WASHINGTON, D.C. I first saw this good news in NewsBusters’ Tim Graham’s article, “Evangelical Spokesman Resigns After Telling NPR (Homosexual ‘Marriage’), Abortion are Negotiable.” In that news article, Graham wrote, The Washington Post reported Friday that Richard Cizik resigned his position as spokesman and vice president for governmental affairs for the National Association of Evangelicals after he declared he was "shifting" toward supporting civil unions for homosexual couples in a December 2 National Public Radio interview. Post reporter Jacqueline Salmon explained the remark was "anathema to most evangelical Christians, who believe that the Bible permits marriage only between a man and a woman."
I received word of the Cizik resignation when I as in the midst of writing this series of articles, which I began this past Sunday, which is based on the 20 minute Rev. Richard Cizik interview on the NPR Fresh Air radio show. The series is based primarily on the God-insulting, impertinent, insolent responses of Cizik, the (now former) VP of Governmental Affairs with the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), in an interview he gave to the NPR radio show (Fresh Air) hostess Terri Gross.
IS THE NAE MISLEADING AMERICA?
I will go ahead and post the article I had originally intended to post prior to the Cizik resignation. Today’s article contains more excerpts from the NPR Fresh Air interview of Rev. Richard Cizik. I have included extensive excerpts of the words of this false witness, because they build a case against him. His words incriminate him. This article deals with same-sex ‘marriage,’ misrepresenting the Bible, and Cizik’s controversial call for government supplied contraception. Any of these three insults to true Christianity would be grounds for purging this wolf from his position of leadership and authority.
My question is, “Did Cizik quit willingly, or was he forced to resign? More importantly, how deep into the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) has his malignant cancerous apostasy spread? Why was Cizik allowed to represent this so-called organization that is supposed to represent Christians? How compromised is the entire organization? How complicit is NAE's President, Leith Anderson, then and other leaders in their slide to apostasy and compromise with the world?
Going into the New Year it would be most advisable for the Board of Directors of the NAE to examine and evaluate itself and its leaders and either resign or repent of their evil ways in light of the need for effective and true Christian witness to an America and a world growing morally and spiritually darker by the day. This darkness is not due to global warming, but to global ignoring of God and repeatedly spitting in His glorious face.
Here are more examples of Cizik’s, and maybe the NAE’s, own misleading positions:
SAME-SEX ‘MARRIAGE’
The Left can never promote the perverse homosexual lifestyle enough. Terri Gross returns to the left’s favorite cause celeb with this inquiry of Cizik, “I wanted to ask you, you wanted to identify with the concerns and priorities of younger evangelical voters. And one of those priorities is more of an acceptance of homosexuality and (homosexual) ‘marriage’? A couple of years ago when you were on our show, I asked you if you were changing your mind on that and two years ago you said you were still opposed to (homosexual) ‘marriage,’ but now as you identify more with the younger voters and their priorities, have you changed on (homosexual) ‘marriage?’"
Astoundingly, for a person who claims that he is a follower of Jesus Christ, Cizik blindly boasts, “I am shifting, I would have to admit. In other words, I would willingly say I believe in civil unions. I don’t officially support redefining marriage from its traditional definition. I don’t think.
“We have this tension going on in the movement between what is church-building and what is nation-building. And I lean in this spectrum at times; maybe we should concentrate on building our values in our own movement. We have become so absorbed in the question of (homosexual) rights and the rest, that we fail to understand the challenges and threats to marriage itself, heterosexual marriage. Maybe we need to re-evaluate this, and look at it a little differently.”
TWISTING SCRIPTURE
Cizik continues, “I am always looking for ways to reframe issues, give the Biblical point of view a different slant, if you will. And would that we have to the whole world, literally, the planet is changing around us. If you don’t change the way you think and adapt, especially to things like climate change. scientists like Bob Doppelt, he says if you don’t adapt and change your thinking you may ultimately be a loser because climate change in his mind, and he is a systems analyst, says has the capacity to determine the winners and losers. Your life, ah, will never be the same – growing up during, I say, the great warming. Our grandparents grew up during the Great Depression, our parents, well they, ah, lived in the aftermath of that, and became probably the most, well, greediest generation ,and our generation, this young one, needs to be the greenest."
CiIZIK’S CONTROVERSIAL CALL FOR CONTRACEPTIVES
Gross interjected, “ . . . of BeliefNet raised the question, that I want to put to you, “Barack Obama supports the right to have an abortion, but he also advocates reducing the number of abortions, when possible. Will you support him in abortion reduction? Or do you see that as diversion from the work of banning or restriction abortion?"
Cizik amazingly unequivocally and without qualification or without addressing Obama's radical pro-abortion stance, said, “I will support him. I will support Barack Obama in finding ways to reduce abortions, absolutely.”
Gross pounces on the thought, “Is that controversial within the evangelical movement?”
Cizik quickly responds, “For some, yes, I have already been called one of the devil’s minions for taking this position.”
Gross clarifies, “Is it seen as compromising?”
Cizik responds, “Yes, it seems compromising. And, the fact again, the “winner take all” mentality, (which says) that you have to have it all. In politics I have learned that over many years that 'less is more.' I think finding those who are in trouble, in crisis, and helping them through this. And if need be, even supplying what government presently doesn’t do, namely, contraception is an answer to reducing, you see, unintended pregnancies.”
Gross not her ears, again giddily interrupts, “Wait, wait, I think I heard you say that that government supplying contraception? That has got to be controversial among evangelicals.”
“Among some it would be,” Cizik says, “But I don’t think so. We are not, as I have said previously; we are not Catholics who oppose contraception, per se. And let’s face it, what do you want? Do you want and 'unintended pregnancy' that results in abortion, or do you want to meet a woman’s need in crisis, who frankly would by better contraception would avoid that abortion, that we all recognize as mmmmmmorally (he had a hard time saying that word) repugnant, at least it is to me.”
(BUT WHY NOT ABSTINENCE, INSTEAD OF CONDOMS?)
Cizik equates the false and deliberately misleadingly environmentalism 'going green' foolishness with real sacred and biblical virtues such as giving or joy etc. Pure poppycock!
Cizik strikes me as a man who has a form of godliness, but who denies its power.
Where is the Biblical message and mandate of abstinence and purity and saving oneself for marriage? Cizik is supposed to be representing people who follow the teachings of Jesus. Where is natural birth control and self-control, which is also a Christian virtue? No mention. A great number of unintended pregnancies happen to promiscuous youth, even young evangelicals. No condemnation of a selfish, self-centered God-dishonoring promiscuous lifestyle. Apparently because it is not politically correct? You, Rev. Cizik, are an appeaser, a compromiser, a wolf in sheep’s clothing, a misleader.
Where is the spiritual guidance and admonition to be chaste and pure and virtuous, Rev. Cizik? It is not there in any of your remarks. Cizik’s words throughout the entire NPR interview reflect a spiritual and moral bankruptcy.
DOES THE NAE NEED A SPIRITUAL BAILOUT?
The NAE, itself, now may be in need of a bailout, a spiritual renewal and return to Biblical and moral basics. Cizik’s resignation will not be enough. Is he the cancer, or is he just the sore that has been exposed or has become visible on the surfaced of the body and more cancer exists in the patient?’
My advice to the NAE would be that going forward the NAE reexamine itself, its foundational beliefs thoroughly and reorder itself to be a God-honoring entity for Christ, which it is not today. Then, it needs to appoint a spokesperson who could battle on the side of God in the spiritual war, which will be protracted and will escalate in 2009 and beyond. The NAE needs to be light and salt and model that for all Christians, instead of being conformed to and being compromised by the world as Cizik most definitely was.
The NAE needs to either aggressively, lovingly, passionately and uncompromisingly stand for Christ as His and His Church’s representative, or it needs to disband as an organization. There is no common ground with Satan and evil. There is no compromise with the world.
It is obvious that Cizik viewed Christianity as merely in political terms, and not spiritual resulting exclusively from a relationship with God that unities a body of true believers or Christ-followers. True Christians, because they have a personal and intimate relationship with God through His Son Jesus Christ, are different. Cizik was indistinguishable from the world. I fear that the NAE is in danger of becoming, if it is not already there, more and more like the thoroughly wicked and worldly NEA.
Al Qaeda Sought Government Bailout?
Cartoon by Glenn McCoy found at Townhall.com on 12/12/08 “The FBI recently announced that it thwarted a major attack on New York City.
“Apparently the Feds discovered the plan had failed when Al Qaeda had applied for a government bailout .”
- - - NewsBusted, Episode 12/12/08
Why not? Everyone else is in line with their hand out. Our foolish government is the prime cause for most of the reason or need for the bailouts, in the first place. Yet they accept no responsibility. They blame Bush, the Republicans, the economy . . . but, in actuality it is government interference with pushing poor credit risk loans and putting unreasonable restrictions on businesses and industries such as the automobile business. For example, unrealistic CAFE standards instead of trying to secure foreign countries such as Japan to open their markets to American cars . . . Barney Frank and his fiscally irresponsible liberal ilk in Congress are the chief villains in these criminal caused bailouts.
NewsBusters is a conservative news and comedy website. Their newest NewBusted episode includes the excerpt above.
See side of this blog and click on the picture to watch this 2 minute comedy YouTube video.
Is the NAE Becoming Like the NEA? Part 5
NAE’s Response to My Concern Regarding NAE Priorities
I have been writing a series of articles about the recent interview which Richard Cizik gave to a National Public Radio (NPR) radio program. Cizik was the chief spokesperson and VP of Governmental Affairs for the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE). Below is the content of an email that I sent last week to Cizik and the key officials in NAE. This email sums up the reasons that Cizik's remarks during the interview are so abhorrent.
Here is the content of an email which I received today from the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE). I will have more to say about this overdue resignation as well as to what true Christians must demand of this now suspect and now incredulous organization. This resignation is only the first necessary step . . .
To be continued
I have been writing a series of articles about the recent interview which Richard Cizik gave to a National Public Radio (NPR) radio program. Cizik was the chief spokesperson and VP of Governmental Affairs for the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE). Below is the content of an email that I sent last week to Cizik and the key officials in NAE. This email sums up the reasons that Cizik's remarks during the interview are so abhorrent.
Rev. Richard Cizik, VP of Governmental Affairs –
I listened to your interview on the NPR radio show, Fresh Air. I was dismayed at how you represented Jesus Christ and true Biblical Christianity in your responses on that nationally broadcast show. You claim to be a conservative, a Christian and pro-life. What I heard from you was the opposite.
I agree that we must pray for President-elect Barack Obama, but support him, help him succeed? ." I wonder, Rev. Cizik, what do you mean by success? Do you mean passage of the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), granting amnesty to illegals, higher taxes, taking guns away from the people, increasing the national debt, surrendering our sovereignty to the United Nations through treaties such as Kyoto and LOST, surrendering victory in Iraq, permitting openly homosexual behavior in the military, keeping our borders unsecured, creating a Hitler-style youth brigade to "protect" our neighborhoods, or buying into the global warming craze? That, sir, would not be success. Obama must be fought on these social and fiscal issues that matter to true conservatives and Christians.Are the positions you championed on the radio your own positions, or are they the official positions of the NAE? If they are the official position of the NAE, then organization has compromised and failed to live up to its motto, "cooperation without compromise." I heard a lot of compromise.
Young evangelicals who place the opposition to the immoral homosexual lifestyle and behavior; opposition to any abortion; and who place faith in Jesus Christ and Scripture as of secondary import to such things as the global warming hoax and the animist respect for "Mother Earth" have been poorly prepared by our churches. Our failed governmental schools and lax churches have helped to indoctrinate our children to consider faith, life and morality to be less important than those things that drive the secular humanistic worldview.The NAE should be helping churches to educate our young people in taking Biblical positions on the issues and not helping them to conform to the world's standards.
I am very disappointed in you and the NAE. I am ashamed to be a member of a church and a denomination that belongs to the NAE.
Here is the content of an email which I received today from the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE). I will have more to say about this overdue resignation as well as to what true Christians must demand of this now suspect and now incredulous organization. This resignation is only the first necessary step . . .
To be continued
Dear gregjaye:
This response comes to you as follow-up of your recent email to the National Association of Evangelicals regarding Richard Cizik . . . .
An announcement of the resignation of Richard Cizik from the staff of NAE has been released. Here it is for you to read:
Richard Cizik resigns from NAE
Richard Cizik resigned as Vice President of Governmental Affairs for the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE). His resignation, which takes effect today, concludes 28 years of service and leadership in the Washington, DC office of NAE.
Over the past three decades he has been a tireless advocate for a broad variety of issues important to the evangelical community including freedom of religion, laws against human trafficking, nurture of family life, protection of children, justice and compassion for the poor and vulnerable, sanctity of human life, opposition to abortion on demand, peace and the restraint of violence in our world, creation care and others. He gave leadership to the writing and implementation to the landmark document, For the Health of the Nation: An Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility.
Leith Anderson, President of the National Association of Evangelicals, explained in a letter to the members of the board of directors of NAE that “in a December 2, 2008 broadcast interview
on National Public Radio Richard responded to questions and made statements that did not appropriately represent the values and convictions of NAE and our constituents. Although he has subsequently expressed regret, apologized and affirmed our values there is a loss of trust in his credibility as a spokesperson among leaders and constituents.”
Anderson also wrote that “because Richard traveled to a previously scheduled international conference in Europe shortly after the airing of the broadcast it was not possible to meet with him until his return. He and I have recently met together and mutually concluded that his resignation is a difficult but appropriate decision.”
A December 5, 2008 letter to the board had already reaffirmed that “our NAE stand on marriage, abortion and other biblical values is long, clear and unchanged.”
The National Association of Evangelicals began in 1942 and today is composed of more than 50 denominations representing about 45, 000 churches. The association membership also includes parachurch organizations, colleges, associations and individuals.
Sincerely,
Leith Anderson
President, National Association of Evangelicals
Friday, December 12, 2008
Obama’s Natural-Born Citizenship Suspect – More Evidence
This past Tuesday Janet Porter in a WorldNetDaily (WND) article provided another bit of evidence that President-elite Barack Obama is not a natural-born American citizen and thereby is disqualified to serve as the President of the United States.
Porter writes, “Don't believe Barack Obama's grandmother? Don't believe the ambassador to Kenya? How about Barack Obama's own Cabinet member?
'That's right – former presidential candidate and Obama's choice for secretary of commerce, Gov. Bill Richardson, slipped up. In an effort to reach out to the Hispanic community, he admitted what has been trying to hide all these months: "Barack Obama is an “immigrant"
'See it for yourself:"
Richardson Revelation - "Obama is an immigrant"
You can read Porter’s complete article, “Obama's own Cabinet member: 'He's 'an immigrant'” on WND.
.
.
Porter writes, “Don't believe Barack Obama's grandmother? Don't believe the ambassador to Kenya? How about Barack Obama's own Cabinet member?
'That's right – former presidential candidate and Obama's choice for secretary of commerce, Gov. Bill Richardson, slipped up. In an effort to reach out to the Hispanic community, he admitted what has been trying to hide all these months: "Barack Obama is an “immigrant"
'See it for yourself:"
Richardson Revelation - "Obama is an immigrant"
You can read Porter’s complete article, “Obama's own Cabinet member: 'He's 'an immigrant'” on WND.
.
.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Bush Regrets
"The biggest regret of all the presidency has to have been the intelligence failure in Iraq,...I wish the intelligence had been different, I guess."
(You guess???!!!)
"It wasn't just people in my administration; a lot of members in Congress, prior to my arrival in Washington DC, during the debate on Iraq, a lot of leaders of nations around the world, were all looking at the same intelligence."
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Is the NAE Becoming Like the NEA? Part 4
I began a series of articles this past Sunday. The series is based primarily on the God-insulting, impertinent, insolent responses of Rev. Richard Cizik, the VP of Governmental Affairs with the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), in an interview he gave to the NPR radio show (Fresh Air) hostess Terri Gross. Today’s post contains more excerpts from the NPR Fresh Air interview of the so-called Rev. Richard Cizik. This article will explore some of the thoughts of Rev. Cizik on the future of the evangelical movement, Sarah Palin and I will offer a few more comments as to what I heard Cizik say.
EVANGELICALS, THE 2008 ELECTION & BEYOND
The laid back erudite Terri Gross, the hostess of the NPR radio show, Fresh Air, began her December 2, 2008 show with these words, “The evangelical base was pivotal in the election and reelection of George W. Bush. But it wasn’t enough to get a McCain Palin victory. So in this post election period, what influence does the evangelical community have in the Republican Party? In other words, what will its goals be during the Obama administration?”
Gross inquired of Cizik, “Do you think that the evangelical base has lost any clout within the Republican Party because the Republicans lost the Presidential election?”
Cizik's answer was unequivocal, "Oh, it is inescapable, that loss of clout. You hear it in the Party’s leaders who are questioning this. They know, that is the leaders of the GOP, that they cannot win without these votes, but they can’t win the rest of the voters they need at times because of the way evangelicals have behaved within the political parties.”
Gross anxiously asked, “What do you mean by that?”
Cizik boldly declared, “Well, I remember Dick Armey once referred to one of our leaders as a bully and a thug, well those are harsh words. But that was a leader Republican Party referred to as to how he was getting pressure. Well, the tactics that have been employed have altogether backfired, it seems to me. Everyone knows that. And so, look, you have to have vision. And you have to have a strategy, a strategy that works. And if your strategy is not working then rethink it. And so to make its way forward the Republican Party is going to have to, I think, come up with a vision that appeals to people. A strategy that, in fact, works, and its adherence to those who claim it as their own, have to employee tactics that don’t destroy it in the meanwhile."
SARAH PALIN
Gross mockingly theorized, “I’m imaging you didn’t agree with Sarah Palin on environmental issues, for example, her emphasis on “drill, baby, drill.” And also the fact that she wasn’t sure if human behavior contributed to climate change. Now, climate change and the environment issues you are trying to put much more toward the top of the evangelical agenda.”
Cizik, treasonous to the cause of Christ and to conservatism, replies, “I could not have disagreed with her more. Just a year ago, we found out from climate scientists that
the melt in the Arctic had turned into a rout. It was happening so fast that it was like your hair turning gray overnight . . . Well, that is what happened to the environment, an area the size of Colorado disappearing every week. And the Northwest Passage was staying open all September for the first time in history. To look at this and not see what is happening, I think is, well it is sort of ignorance is strength idea. Well, NOT. (laughing) It is not strength. Look, strength is knowing what is happening to the world around us. And moreover, as a Christian we can’t claim to love the Creator and abuse the world in which we live. To do so is like claiming to be a fan of Shakespeare and then burn his plays."
GROSS: “Is there a big debate in evangelical circles now about what the future of Sarah Palin should be in the Republican Party? Whether she is the future or whether she is a problem?”
CIZIK: “Oh I think there is a certain amount of that debate going on, but I think people are sort of content to let Alaskans decide that before she becomes a national candidate, and she has to run for re-election, right?
Gross leading, even longingly asks, “So you are thinking that Alaskans will vote her out of Office and thus ending her political career?
Cizik responded, “Maybe, I don’t know. I don’t think that you can humbly walk into the future and not understand that we don’t know all the answers. And if you don’t have a little bit of self-awareness about that, well I don’t think you can embody the Christian values as humility and justice and walking humbly with your Lord. There was something missing there, that I just didn’t see and you are sensing it here. In other words, a certain humility about her that’s all. (Gross uh ha) I like that, I like, look forward in seeing that demonstrated in Barack Obama policies."
Cizik continued, “The younger evangelicals have a different attitude, in fact, even toward the use of the military. I happen to be among (nearly giggling) these evangelical young people, even though, by age, I might be qualified, right? And the idea that, well you can have sort of an anti-science, anti-intellectual and walk into the world with a stick and hope to be able to win these wars, you can’t win these kinds of wars we are fighting with a big stick, we know that.”
COMMENTARY
In discussing the loss of clout among evangelicals, Cizik deliberately failed to mention the fact that conservatives and Christian where provided by the GOP a less than satisfactory top-of-the-ticket candidate. He was a candidate favored and acclaimed in the primaries over the somewhat pro-life Huckabee, for example. Actually until Sarah Palin breathed life into the GOP campaign it was floundering, dead. I for one, even with Palin on the ticket would not vote for the compromiser, the RINO McCain. I voted for someone other than the two major party candidates. So I believe many Christians and conservatives sat out the election rather than endorse the past liberal schizophrenic gyrations of moderate-to-liberal McCain.
Speaking of suspicious and virulent tactics, I would like to ask Cizik about the tactics used by his friends on the left like the homosexual activists, the environmental activists who use violence, slander, intimidation in pursuing their political goals. He does not mention or condemn them. Or what about the Obama campaign and Democrats using ACORN to check in registering voters illegal?
Cizik strikes me as caring more about the future of the earth than he is about the future of America as a Democratic Republic or of the Judeo-Christian value system. And this man represents evangelicals in the halls of congress? What a waste of Christian resources. He should be supporting the causes promoting pro-life and pro-marriage issues rather than the heavily Marxist influenced extreme environmentalism that he seems so passionate about and which he articulate so well and convincingly. Cizik may be an effective spokesman for Green Peace or Save the Whales than he is supposedly representing the name of the Savior of the World, at that he is failing miserably if this interview is any indication as to how he goes about his job.
I detect a shared and fundamental loathing of Sarah Palin and all she represents, both conservatively and as a true Christian in values and principles, by both the liberal journalist Gross her apostate false Christian bedfellow Cizik. Cizik so much as called Governor Palin ignorant, unjust, and proud. To me those adjectives befit Barack Obama more than they do Palin.
Conversely, from what I gather from Cizik’s words throughout the interview, he has more in common and that pro-death, pro-homosexual, pro-global warming, tree hugging believer in black liberation theology Obama than he does with Palin. This to me is a strong indication that Cizik is an impostor, an interloper, a false-prophet and a wolf in sheep’s clothing. I detested Palin’s running mate, John McCain, but saw Palin as an otherwise ray of sunshine among the darkness exuded by McCain, Biden and Obama. Furthermore, her executive experience in running a business, a town and a state exceeded that of the three men in the race, combined. Actually the only thing Mr. Obama ran successfully his whole life was his mouth.
EVANGELICALS, THE 2008 ELECTION & BEYOND
The laid back erudite Terri Gross, the hostess of the NPR radio show, Fresh Air, began her December 2, 2008 show with these words, “The evangelical base was pivotal in the election and reelection of George W. Bush. But it wasn’t enough to get a McCain Palin victory. So in this post election period, what influence does the evangelical community have in the Republican Party? In other words, what will its goals be during the Obama administration?”
Gross inquired of Cizik, “Do you think that the evangelical base has lost any clout within the Republican Party because the Republicans lost the Presidential election?”
Cizik's answer was unequivocal, "Oh, it is inescapable, that loss of clout. You hear it in the Party’s leaders who are questioning this. They know, that is the leaders of the GOP, that they cannot win without these votes, but they can’t win the rest of the voters they need at times because of the way evangelicals have behaved within the political parties.”
Gross anxiously asked, “What do you mean by that?”
Cizik boldly declared, “Well, I remember Dick Armey once referred to one of our leaders as a bully and a thug, well those are harsh words. But that was a leader Republican Party referred to as to how he was getting pressure. Well, the tactics that have been employed have altogether backfired, it seems to me. Everyone knows that. And so, look, you have to have vision. And you have to have a strategy, a strategy that works. And if your strategy is not working then rethink it. And so to make its way forward the Republican Party is going to have to, I think, come up with a vision that appeals to people. A strategy that, in fact, works, and its adherence to those who claim it as their own, have to employee tactics that don’t destroy it in the meanwhile."
SARAH PALIN
Gross mockingly theorized, “I’m imaging you didn’t agree with Sarah Palin on environmental issues, for example, her emphasis on “drill, baby, drill.” And also the fact that she wasn’t sure if human behavior contributed to climate change. Now, climate change and the environment issues you are trying to put much more toward the top of the evangelical agenda.”
Cizik, treasonous to the cause of Christ and to conservatism, replies, “I could not have disagreed with her more. Just a year ago, we found out from climate scientists that
the melt in the Arctic had turned into a rout. It was happening so fast that it was like your hair turning gray overnight . . . Well, that is what happened to the environment, an area the size of Colorado disappearing every week. And the Northwest Passage was staying open all September for the first time in history. To look at this and not see what is happening, I think is, well it is sort of ignorance is strength idea. Well, NOT. (laughing) It is not strength. Look, strength is knowing what is happening to the world around us. And moreover, as a Christian we can’t claim to love the Creator and abuse the world in which we live. To do so is like claiming to be a fan of Shakespeare and then burn his plays."GROSS: “Is there a big debate in evangelical circles now about what the future of Sarah Palin should be in the Republican Party? Whether she is the future or whether she is a problem?”
CIZIK: “Oh I think there is a certain amount of that debate going on, but I think people are sort of content to let Alaskans decide that before she becomes a national candidate, and she has to run for re-election, right?
Gross leading, even longingly asks, “So you are thinking that Alaskans will vote her out of Office and thus ending her political career?
Cizik responded, “Maybe, I don’t know. I don’t think that you can humbly walk into the future and not understand that we don’t know all the answers. And if you don’t have a little bit of self-awareness about that, well I don’t think you can embody the Christian values as humility and justice and walking humbly with your Lord. There was something missing there, that I just didn’t see and you are sensing it here. In other words, a certain humility about her that’s all. (Gross uh ha) I like that, I like, look forward in seeing that demonstrated in Barack Obama policies."
Cizik continued, “The younger evangelicals have a different attitude, in fact, even toward the use of the military. I happen to be among (nearly giggling) these evangelical young people, even though, by age, I might be qualified, right? And the idea that, well you can have sort of an anti-science, anti-intellectual and walk into the world with a stick and hope to be able to win these wars, you can’t win these kinds of wars we are fighting with a big stick, we know that.”
COMMENTARY
In discussing the loss of clout among evangelicals, Cizik deliberately failed to mention the fact that conservatives and Christian where provided by the GOP a less than satisfactory top-of-the-ticket candidate. He was a candidate favored and acclaimed in the primaries over the somewhat pro-life Huckabee, for example. Actually until Sarah Palin breathed life into the GOP campaign it was floundering, dead. I for one, even with Palin on the ticket would not vote for the compromiser, the RINO McCain. I voted for someone other than the two major party candidates. So I believe many Christians and conservatives sat out the election rather than endorse the past liberal schizophrenic gyrations of moderate-to-liberal McCain.
Speaking of suspicious and virulent tactics, I would like to ask Cizik about the tactics used by his friends on the left like the homosexual activists, the environmental activists who use violence, slander, intimidation in pursuing their political goals. He does not mention or condemn them. Or what about the Obama campaign and Democrats using ACORN to check in registering voters illegal?
Cizik strikes me as caring more about the future of the earth than he is about the future of America as a Democratic Republic or of the Judeo-Christian value system. And this man represents evangelicals in the halls of congress? What a waste of Christian resources. He should be supporting the causes promoting pro-life and pro-marriage issues rather than the heavily Marxist influenced extreme environmentalism that he seems so passionate about and which he articulate so well and convincingly. Cizik may be an effective spokesman for Green Peace or Save the Whales than he is supposedly representing the name of the Savior of the World, at that he is failing miserably if this interview is any indication as to how he goes about his job.
I detect a shared and fundamental loathing of Sarah Palin and all she represents, both conservatively and as a true Christian in values and principles, by both the liberal journalist Gross her apostate false Christian bedfellow Cizik. Cizik so much as called Governor Palin ignorant, unjust, and proud. To me those adjectives befit Barack Obama more than they do Palin.
Conversely, from what I gather from Cizik’s words throughout the interview, he has more in common and that pro-death, pro-homosexual, pro-global warming, tree hugging believer in black liberation theology Obama than he does with Palin. This to me is a strong indication that Cizik is an impostor, an interloper, a false-prophet and a wolf in sheep’s clothing. I detested Palin’s running mate, John McCain, but saw Palin as an otherwise ray of sunshine among the darkness exuded by McCain, Biden and Obama. Furthermore, her executive experience in running a business, a town and a state exceeded that of the three men in the race, combined. Actually the only thing Mr. Obama ran successfully his whole life was his mouth.
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
Is the NAE Becoming Like the NEA? Part 3
I began a series of articles this past Sunday. The series is based primarily on the God-insulting, impertinent, insolent responses of Rev. Richard Cizik, the VP of Governmental Affairs with the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), in an interview he gave to the NPR radio show (Fresh Air) hostess Terri Gross. Today’s post contains reactions of one Christian radio host to that interview, who heard the NPR Fresh Air radio show last Tuesday morning. This post also contains more transcribed excerpts from the NPR radio interview. I end this article with a few of my personal reactions to Cizik’s comments.
ONE CHRISTIAN’S REACTION TO THE CIZIK INTERVIEW
Ingrid Schlueter, Christian radio show hostess of CrossTalkAmerica.com was outraged, and justifiably so, by the comments of a man and an organization which claims to represent evangelicals, but which hypocritically spoke the opposite. She was particular incensed that a person calling themselves a Christian could ever vote for a person known to be vehemently and outrageously pro-abortion to such an extent of even supported the wicked partial birth abortion and being against the Illinois’ Born Alive Bill, which the then state senator Obama supported.
She commented on the well warn phrase, “God bless America.” She said, “You know I don’t even want to hear that anymore because God will not bless America. He will not bless America, first and foremost, because those who bear the name of His Son (Jesus), go out and DEFEND PURE EVIL on national radio . . . “ She went on to suggest that her listeners tune into the online archived version of the NPR show in question and hear for themselves why God will no longer bless America.
“You can lay it (the reason God may no longer bless this nation) at the door of men like Richard Cizik who have SOLD OUT for a smile from the American Left, a pat on the head. 'Slavering sycophancy' is what it is called . . . drooling, mewling after the approval of the hard core left, who are absolutely opposition to everything God has decreed in His Word. (They are) wanting the approval of Terri Gross and National Public Radio (NPR) listeners, wanting to appear thoughtful, above the polemic, above the sort of repugnance tendencies of the fundamentalist crowd. Oh, so erudite. Oh, so reasonable. Oh, so willing to find common ground. . ”
Another of her comments was that if Cizik represents evangelicals than the terms “evangelical” and true “Christianity” are now, more and more, actually becoming mutually exclusive terms.
Like I said she was livid.
THE EVANGELICAL MOVEMENT
On the NPR Fresh Air radio show which aired on 12/2/08, hostess Gross questioned Cizik about the affect of the election on the Evangelical Movement. “Over what direction the movement should head in, what issues should be emphasized? Cizik responded, “It was hard to know, Terri, even the young Evangelicals those that went for Obama. They clearly are pro-life. They are conservatives, but they also, well 32% of evangelicals voted for Obama, younger evangelicals that is. That is twice the number that voted for John Kerry four years ago. And this is a big increase in states like Colorado , Indiana and North Carolina. So, younger Evangelicals are probably the future, with that broader pallet. And they will determine the future of this huge movement that by some surveys estimate if you include children and the rest, a hundred million people, a third of all Americans.”
THE SOCIAL ISSUES
Gross pursued the thought asking Cizik, “So in that younger group that you are describing is (same-sex) ‘marriage’ not a priority issue?” Cizik claims, “It is not as high now. In fact if you look at some figures these younger Evangelicals, they disagree quite strongly with their elders on that subject.” Gross continued, “Do you think that that is because younger people are growing up in an environment where they know (homosexuals and lesbians) who so many (homosexual) people who are “out” and once you know (homosexuals and lesbians) who are “out” maybe it is not so frightening . Cizik agreed and asserted, “Absolutely, the generational peers in clear,. four in ten young evangelicals say they have a close friend or family member who is (homosexual) or lesbian. And so much different than their elders, younger evangelicals they, well, 52% favor either same-sex marriage or civil unions. But it is not just on this issue, Terri. . . For example, fully 2/3s of young evangelicals say we would still vote for a candidate even if that candidate disagreed with them on the issue of abortion, and that is in spite of the fact that younger evangelical, they are decidedly pro-life. But they also rank other issues, economic issues, the environment – these other issue are very important to them. In fact, health care is just as important to the younger evangelicals as is abortion. And so they have a more PLURALISTIC outlook than do older, WHITE evangelicals. And they have a decidedly different posture with respect to the role of government here and abroad.”
WHAT?
My comments here are in response to Cizik’s statement above. The reason more and more young evangelicals are weakening on the positions regarding abortion and acceptance of same-sex behavior and are elevating the lesser issues is because you, my friend, and your organization and the churches are failing to hold up the Biblical standard.
Cizik seems content with this situation. He seems resigned to the current situation among young evangelicals, rather than being concerned. It is just the way it is. It is inevitable and acceptable to him.
I believe that it is the combination of many factors: government schools and its educational bureaucracy; the anti-American Marxist teachers union leadership; the leftist media including taxpayer funded public radio; the entertainment industry; all incessantly and egregiously promoting, defending, and actually propagandizing this perverse lifestyle almost force feeding the homosexual-lesbian lifestyle on our young people. Likewise on the issue of abortion the young evangelicals are being brainwashed into accepting a a woman’s “right to kill her baby.”
Many young evangelicals have been successfully brainwashed by godless, secular humanistic government schools. That, Mr. Cizik is why more and more young Evangelicals are rejecting Biblical truth and exchange that truth for the liberal LIE. Your job and the job of the NAE, bud, should be getting THAT message out rather than your seemingly condescending and even promulgating the LIE yourself. You Mr. Cizik are a co-conspirator as to why sinful homosexual behavior and abortion is being accepted by the church. You seem to be being swept along instead of putting your finger in the dyke and trying to warn and ward off continued degradation. Not only that you should be speaking out against it and lobbying on behave of pro-iife, abstinence education and anti-homosexual indoctrination. You seem to have bought into LIE, believing it and even telling it yourself.
What we need are pastors, churches, organizations and individuals who will proactively work to persevere and maintain godly scriptural-based principles rather than to compromise and cooperate with evil and the wicked world system, which you and the NAE appear to be doing.
DEDICATED SERVICE
Romans 12: 1, 2 (NASB) says:
ONE CHRISTIAN’S REACTION TO THE CIZIK INTERVIEW
Ingrid Schlueter, Christian radio show hostess of CrossTalkAmerica.com was outraged, and justifiably so, by the comments of a man and an organization which claims to represent evangelicals, but which hypocritically spoke the opposite. She was particular incensed that a person calling themselves a Christian could ever vote for a person known to be vehemently and outrageously pro-abortion to such an extent of even supported the wicked partial birth abortion and being against the Illinois’ Born Alive Bill, which the then state senator Obama supported.She commented on the well warn phrase, “God bless America.” She said, “You know I don’t even want to hear that anymore because God will not bless America. He will not bless America, first and foremost, because those who bear the name of His Son (Jesus), go out and DEFEND PURE EVIL on national radio . . . “ She went on to suggest that her listeners tune into the online archived version of the NPR show in question and hear for themselves why God will no longer bless America.
“You can lay it (the reason God may no longer bless this nation) at the door of men like Richard Cizik who have SOLD OUT for a smile from the American Left, a pat on the head. 'Slavering sycophancy' is what it is called . . . drooling, mewling after the approval of the hard core left, who are absolutely opposition to everything God has decreed in His Word. (They are) wanting the approval of Terri Gross and National Public Radio (NPR) listeners, wanting to appear thoughtful, above the polemic, above the sort of repugnance tendencies of the fundamentalist crowd. Oh, so erudite. Oh, so reasonable. Oh, so willing to find common ground. . ”
Another of her comments was that if Cizik represents evangelicals than the terms “evangelical” and true “Christianity” are now, more and more, actually becoming mutually exclusive terms.
Like I said she was livid.
THE EVANGELICAL MOVEMENT
On the NPR Fresh Air radio show which aired on 12/2/08, hostess Gross questioned Cizik about the affect of the election on the Evangelical Movement. “Over what direction the movement should head in, what issues should be emphasized? Cizik responded, “It was hard to know, Terri, even the young Evangelicals those that went for Obama. They clearly are pro-life. They are conservatives, but they also, well 32% of evangelicals voted for Obama, younger evangelicals that is. That is twice the number that voted for John Kerry four years ago. And this is a big increase in states like Colorado , Indiana and North Carolina. So, younger Evangelicals are probably the future, with that broader pallet. And they will determine the future of this huge movement that by some surveys estimate if you include children and the rest, a hundred million people, a third of all Americans.”
THE SOCIAL ISSUES
Gross pursued the thought asking Cizik, “So in that younger group that you are describing is (same-sex) ‘marriage’ not a priority issue?” Cizik claims, “It is not as high now. In fact if you look at some figures these younger Evangelicals, they disagree quite strongly with their elders on that subject.” Gross continued, “Do you think that that is because younger people are growing up in an environment where they know (homosexuals and lesbians) who so many (homosexual) people who are “out” and once you know (homosexuals and lesbians) who are “out” maybe it is not so frightening . Cizik agreed and asserted, “Absolutely, the generational peers in clear,. four in ten young evangelicals say they have a close friend or family member who is (homosexual) or lesbian. And so much different than their elders, younger evangelicals they, well, 52% favor either same-sex marriage or civil unions. But it is not just on this issue, Terri. . . For example, fully 2/3s of young evangelicals say we would still vote for a candidate even if that candidate disagreed with them on the issue of abortion, and that is in spite of the fact that younger evangelical, they are decidedly pro-life. But they also rank other issues, economic issues, the environment – these other issue are very important to them. In fact, health care is just as important to the younger evangelicals as is abortion. And so they have a more PLURALISTIC outlook than do older, WHITE evangelicals. And they have a decidedly different posture with respect to the role of government here and abroad.”
WHAT?
My comments here are in response to Cizik’s statement above. The reason more and more young evangelicals are weakening on the positions regarding abortion and acceptance of same-sex behavior and are elevating the lesser issues is because you, my friend, and your organization and the churches are failing to hold up the Biblical standard.
Cizik seems content with this situation. He seems resigned to the current situation among young evangelicals, rather than being concerned. It is just the way it is. It is inevitable and acceptable to him.
I believe that it is the combination of many factors: government schools and its educational bureaucracy; the anti-American Marxist teachers union leadership; the leftist media including taxpayer funded public radio; the entertainment industry; all incessantly and egregiously promoting, defending, and actually propagandizing this perverse lifestyle almost force feeding the homosexual-lesbian lifestyle on our young people. Likewise on the issue of abortion the young evangelicals are being brainwashed into accepting a a woman’s “right to kill her baby.”
Many young evangelicals have been successfully brainwashed by godless, secular humanistic government schools. That, Mr. Cizik is why more and more young Evangelicals are rejecting Biblical truth and exchange that truth for the liberal LIE. Your job and the job of the NAE, bud, should be getting THAT message out rather than your seemingly condescending and even promulgating the LIE yourself. You Mr. Cizik are a co-conspirator as to why sinful homosexual behavior and abortion is being accepted by the church. You seem to be being swept along instead of putting your finger in the dyke and trying to warn and ward off continued degradation. Not only that you should be speaking out against it and lobbying on behave of pro-iife, abstinence education and anti-homosexual indoctrination. You seem to have bought into LIE, believing it and even telling it yourself.
What we need are pastors, churches, organizations and individuals who will proactively work to persevere and maintain godly scriptural-based principles rather than to compromise and cooperate with evil and the wicked world system, which you and the NAE appear to be doing.
DEDICATED SERVICE
Romans 12: 1, 2 (NASB) says:
“Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship.
.
“And do not be conformed to this world (global warming nonsense, perversion of the definition of marriage, going along with the abortion atrocity), but be transformed by the renewing of your mind (not mother earth!), so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good (abortion is not good, homosexuality is not good, civil unions are not good, worshiping the creation instead of the Creator is not good) and acceptable and perfect."
Massive Media Bias for Obama & Democrats
Obama, Has Media's Stamp of Approval
“On the CBS Evening News, Katie Couric asked, ‘If Barack Obama’s pick of Hillary Clinton and Robert Gates inoculates him fro any criticism.'
“No, Katie, it is the fact that Obama is a Democrat that inoculates him from any criticism.”
- - - NewsBusted, Episode 12/9/08
NewsBusters is a conservative news and comedy website. Their newest NewBusted episode includes the excerpt above.
See the right side of this blog and click on the picture to watch this 2 minute comedy YouTube video.
Obama Zombie Boys and Girls
On the Lighter Side
I found this gem on the NewsBusters.org website Saturday night. It is a YouTube video titled, “Best Bob Hope movie line.” The movie clip is from The Ghost Breakers (1940). This is really funny, yet as true in 2008 as it was in 60 years ago, if not more so.
Partial Transcript:
Larry Lawrence (Played by Bob Hope): “. . .Maybe you know what a Zombie is?”
Geoff Montgomer (Played by Richard Carlson): “. . . A zombie has no will of his own. You see them sometimes walking around blindly with dead eyes, following orders, not knowing what they do, not caring.”
Larry Lawrence: “You mean like Democrats?”
I found this gem on the NewsBusters.org website Saturday night. It is a YouTube video titled, “Best Bob Hope movie line.” The movie clip is from The Ghost Breakers (1940). This is really funny, yet as true in 2008 as it was in 60 years ago, if not more so.
Partial Transcript:
Larry Lawrence (Played by Bob Hope): “. . .Maybe you know what a Zombie is?”
Geoff Montgomer (Played by Richard Carlson): “. . . A zombie has no will of his own. You see them sometimes walking around blindly with dead eyes, following orders, not knowing what they do, not caring.”
Larry Lawrence: “You mean like Democrats?”
Monday, December 08, 2008
Planned Parenthood Cashes in on Makin' Babies Dead
Hear Their Cry
Cartoon by Lisa Benson found on Townhall.com 12/8/08
We the taxpayers are giving the heinous Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) a third of a billion dollars a year. They are a billion dollar extermination execution business. They are making a killing literally and figuratively. With Barack Obama in the White House it is a dark day for unborn babies. More babies will be slaughtered. PPFA will make more money and will receive more taxpayer handouts. . . And La La La Life Goes On (For Some.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
