I began to download this and changed my mind. I find I do not wish to listen to this man.
Politicians often use people for personal gain. Some give out “pie in the sky” Utopia ideals or promises, but do they draw men to themselves or to God?
Let’s listen to the morals of those who wish to be voted into office. I keep waiting to hear someone who will worship God, because it’s God that has kept America in his care. Without him a people can do nothing right or good. Without giving God the place he deserves we will always come out behind. No nation has ever survived for long without honoring God. Some nations have fallen to ruin because they turned away from God.
God is for justice, good sense, equity, fairness, righteousness, and for the self government of each of us under his mighty hand. When a people are ruled by God they find a common bond with heaven. It’s good for a nation to have heaven on it’s side. If heaven is pleased with the works and ways of a nation that is being ruled under God, then isn’t God happy? Doesn’t God rejoice when his people walk in the truth? (III John 3) Isn’t a good apostolic father in many ways like God? (Genesis 1:26)
Not only are good morals important but those who wish to be in public office must have knowledge. Yet, isn’t understanding better than knowledge? Knowledge puffs up but a man with understanding walks with God.
So, recently Barack Obama met with Billy and Franklin Graham, in N.C. at Billy’s place. Has our inductive logic now gone to extreme in taking something to mean something, perhaps out of context? Look at all his staff, mostly of another race, and his Mother. Come on; should I induce that because he has met with the Grahams, and they counseled past conservative presidents, therefore, Obama is conservative? There seem to be some missing links to the logic here, and conclusions being made. Men look to the outside, God looks at the heart.
PS I often waste my votes, because I have been a registered independent for many years.
Hi, I didn’t get to hear the program today but for the “bible update in Israel” part. Does that have to do with the New Testament they are coming out with in modern Hebrew?
His TV message is demographic, and targeted to voters he would like to reelect his dominant party congress. How is it different than identifying any other constituency? Why is this racism? Are we reaching deep in the subjective barrel just to have radio show controversy?
Eric,
No, it had to do with the annual Bible quiz.
Jabez,
It is racially divisive for the president to appeal to Latinos and African-Americans to vote in December, and it plays the race card to them. Identifying any particular constituency would be divisive. Just think of a Republican president encouraging older white males and Jews to get out and vote. There would be an uproar.
I take strong exception to your closing line. You are free to ask this question, but it is personally insulting and 100% contrary to my ethic and how we conduct the show. Every day of the week I could find a controversy to stir the waters on the show — especially in the political real — but the purpose of the show is not controversy but kingdom advancement.
Hello,
Were is the link for this show? I don’t see the play button.
Without hearing the show I don’t know what was said so if this is redundant my apologies. In my opinion president Obama has overstepped the boundaries of common sense and responsible government of these United States. The president should do all that is right and good to unify the diverse peoples that make up this one nation but he has done just the opposite he has used racial tensions for political advatage not just in this latest comment but through out his campaign and first year of presidency. Consider this statement he made during his campaign “They’ll try to scare you because I have a funny name or because I don’t look like those other presidents on our money” (That’s a paraphrase from memory so may not be verbatim). This was clearly a racialy driven statement. President Obama is not the only political figure to use racial tension to his advantage, Ted Kennedy comes to mind, but he has gone beyond using existing racial tension to actually stirring up racial tension. That, for a president of the United States, is reprehensible at worst and irresponsible at best.
As a christian I cringe when I hear people talk about races. I believe we are all descendents of Adam and Eve so we our one race–Human and more than that we are each created in the image of God! There are many people groups that make up this human race but each of us is inextricably related to everyone else. There are no superior races or inferior races, superior people groups or inferior people groups, all have sinned and our under judgment so that in Jesus the Christ God may have mercy on all! It is time for us who love Jesus to love others as ourselves no matter what the color of their skin, or the shape of their eyes, or the smell of their food, or the clothes that they wear, or the language that they speak, or the the place in God’s created world in which they live. The gospel is for them! Jesus is for them! God love’s them and so should we! Oh, for a kingdom of priests and kings with no people groups but just one people—The people of Jesus the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world.
Blessings to you all in Jesus our king!
Bob B
Bob B,
Thanks for pointing out that the link is not up yet; I’ll check to see what happened, but our main studio guy was out sick yesterday, so that could have caused the delay.
Thanks also for your comments!
Folks, the show is up now.
Thank you sir!
So while I’m waiting for the audio to download, I’m learning that if a politician draws to himself a certain segment of the people based on something other than political views or values, then it’s likely that it’s something outward in appearance such as race, skin color, height, age, or whatever, that would be what it is that they have in common, hence, something devisive for a nation, state, city, or whatever.
People can be funny sometimes. Sometimes people want to group together based on outward appearances, or common things about them that have no basis on values, or government matters on how things should be done, and if the group is large and it’s hyped up, it could draw even more of the same.
I would like to see a strong Christians run for offices if they are qualified, having knowledge and experience in the things they would be about, should they be elected.
They might draw a lot of Christians, but also, wouldn’t they draw a lot of all people because of the light they share concerning the things of God and Christ, whether the people are Christians or not?
Light tends to draw people, not just bugs.
From some notes I took while listening:
What was planted that it should produce a political strategy showing a moral deficiency?
Galatians 6:7, I Cor 3:13, I Tim 5:24
roots, location, nourishment
Psalm 1
In the last Presidential election there was much excitement to get out and vote because it was the first time that a mayor political party elected an African American man represented them in this previous slaveholding country. It would be very ignorant of us to ignore the fact that many people of color, and women too, voted because of the novelty of that election. President Obama was only trying to encourage those novelty voters to continue to vote that is why he called them out in a specific way. Diehard voters will always continue to vote, and we all know that President Obama could have never gotten elected without the White American people voting for him as well. Before President Obama’s election, there were specific campaigns targeting specific minorities in order to get them to register to vote. No one made a fuss about that then, so what is the big fuss about now?
A side note – I was one of those people registering people to vote back then, and I do recall registering a black man who told me that this was the first time that he had register to vote. He was in his 70’s!!
In the last Presidential election there was much excitement to get out and vote because it was the first time that a mayor political party elected an African American man represented them in this previous slaveholding country. It would be very ignorant of us to ignore the fact that many people of color, and women too, voted because of the novelty of that election. President Obama was only trying to encourage those novelty voters to continue to vote that is why he called them out in a specific way. Diehard voters will always continue to vote, and we all know that President Obama could have never gotten elected without the White American people voting for him as well. Before President Obama’s election, there were specific campaigns targeting specific minorities in order to get them to register to vote just for that election. No one made a fuss about that then, so what is the big fuss about now?
A side note – I was one of those people registering people to vote back then, and I do recall registering a black man who told me that this was the first time that he had register to vote. He was in his 70’s!!
Our politicians use divide and conquer to win elections. Most of the domestic disputes we have are diversions from a terrible foreign policy that represents corporate interests, not the interests of the American people. Republicans run on conservatism, but are they really conservative? Nope. They spend as much as the democrats and take away just as many civil liberties. They push anti-gay amendments but end up being secretly gay in more circumstances than we realize, a few of these people have been caught in their hypocrisy. But above all they are corporatists who bend to the will of New York City’s financiers and the corporations. Corporate rights come before human rights in America.
Democrats run on behalf of the working person, but who passed NAFTA/GATT? Bill Clinton and company. They repealed Glass-Stegall too and look at what a mess our economy has become because of that. They profess social justice but they are carrying bush’s constitutional assault forward and created watch lists, as bush did, on people who disagree with them. Google Missouri MIAC report, DHS pushed for it. They too bend to the will of NYC, President Obama received 1 million dollars from Goldman Sachs in his presidential election.
Both major parties are two wings of the same dirty bird. They split issues in half to pit us against each other and reap the political benefits. We fight 99% of our conflicts for corporate interests. Carol Quigley said as much in “Tragedy and Hope”. He was bill clintons mentor and chris matthews raves about him and his book. If you read David Rockefeller’s “Memoirs”, you get a lot of the same. Smedley Butler who was the most decorated Marine of all time until the 1960’s wrote a book called, “War is a Racket”.
If we want to get rid of the race baiting and the like, normal people with good character need to put their perceived inferiority complexes behind them and run. the people in office now dont even write their own bills or even read them. how much better could the rest of us with a work ethic and a conscience be in politics?
I agree that a President should unify the country; after all, he/she is now everybody’s President. Obama didn’t need to explicitly mention race at all: he could have simply referred to his supporters as “supporters;” I agree, that would have been best.
However, it seems that all past Presidents in my memory have done basically the same thing. Since campaigns have been televised (excepting George Wallace) they haven’t mentioned race, but how can we forget that the dominant race needed no mention, it was simply “so.” Remember the early problems with voting following the Emancipation Proclamation? The “grandfather” clauses which stole votes away from blacks? Various election abuses eventually led to the need for secret ballots and other reforms. Also, other groups have been marginalized in campaigns by being belittled, such as environmentalists, etc. All past Presidents have sided with their parties and actively campaigned for their party to win congressional seats when elections would come up, even crisscrossing the country to do so. Obama is correct in that his victory was largely due to the voters mentioned: this is just factual. But I agree, he could have and should have left the description of race out of his speech; it would have been best.
It was a highly-divided Presidential race, with mud being slung in both directions. One reason I’ve backed away from politics is because of the divisiveness that keeps things stalemated. I believe we need many parties, with run-off elections to narrow our final choices down to two. And I believe every candidate must debate every other candidate. The fact that we have a two-party duopoly means it’s always going to be a toss between the same two; always going to be a tug-of-war, either/or scenario, leaving a lot of bitterness behind. SO — the system is sick, IMO.
Due to still-fresh past history ~ i.e., these groups being the “underdog,” it has often been considered noble to fight for the underdog, and that’s why this comment mostly slipped past the radar. It is NOT the same, however, as comparing a White President asking for White votes, if only due to the great imbalance of power which Whites have historically enjoyed.
Sorry– meant to refer to the “Fifteenth Amendment,” not “Emanc. Proclam.”
“Playing the race card?” It appeals to a demographic he is identifying, for sure. Ever look at a history of political cartoons, read what comes in the mail from various solicitors, or parties? Targeting for solicitation of votes, money, or opinion is part of the freedom of speech we have known to this point.
Dr. M.B., so how does this question relate to the Kingdom, if all this effort is about the Kingdom? As a Kingdom devotee you lost me?
Jabez,
Very simple. As you listened to the show, you heard me explain my surprise, when in 2008, I was accused of bringing up race when I took issue with one of (then) Senator Obama’s positions. Since then, I’ve been determined to highlight this issue whenever it comes up in a way that can divide believers or manipulate — certainly a kingdom issue of importance to the Lord, hence my addressing it.
Also, I am curious, having read of the Hebraic NT, and the Society’s history, as directed: if it is such a monumental accomplishment–as I am sure it is–why do other groups not join with the effort, instead of develop other alike monumental efforts? Aren’t former well off groups of finance for such project developments now in need of resource stewardship, with the rest of Western Civilization? What would it take, for example, for the Messianic Bible Society to join its efforts with this group? Or other Bible effort cadre’s to break down the barriers of organizational approach to approach the challenges with unity?
There have been efforts over the past few years by Israel to dispell Messianics who have not intermarried with citizens, and thus can become citizens, or are not native born (in other words those who come in from outside Israel with the agenda to make Yeshua visible for Israeli consideration). In Dr. Brown’s treatise, on “Who is a Jew,” the inequities of such a position are clear enough. Yet, at a gut level, it is clear that this is the season for Israel’s growing remnant inclusion.
If this is the season for Israelis to recognize he who was pierced–and it is–what can the US Christian do to help?
Sorry, Dr. M. B., it still does not compute why his targeted message would “divide belivers, etc.” He holds an office in this world, not of the Kingdom, the church, or the world to come. I cannot think of any campaign message which does not manipulate. It comes with the nature of the turf. If we take on Obama or others messages on that basis the wheel will spin while the vehicle is stopped, running them by sure repetition into their own ruts eventually.
Just because some accused you of being a racist did not make it so, nor did it pursuade the discerning of such a label. Now James Dobson I can understand might have issues with many labels placed on him, because he has become the whipping boy for so called abortonists and gay rights advocates, but the label you mention placed by others on you has not stuck. You have come across–to this point–as a balanced voice of reason for the values of scripture and the heart of God. To some degree having a duck’s back goes with the territory of the hard rains when raising up tents of revival in new territory.
Persuasion seems to be open to Kingdom advocates and Politicians alike as a means of communication. I agree with Ruth Smith’s observations on what past politicians have done. I know of no one who envisions Michael Brown as a racist, nor a non lover of all human souls.
Sorry, Jabez, but it appears that you haven’t interacted with the many black Christians with whom I’ve interacted, quite a few of which would be quick to say that these kinds of comments from the president are tremendously divisive to believers. In any case, when I have a prayerful concern, I will raise it as I feel prompted to, but I certainly don’t expect everyone to agree with me, and so I respect your disagreement. My only reason for taking exception to your comments had to do with the question of motivation.
As for your last comment that you know of one who envisions me as a non-lover of human souls — by all means, check out some gay activist websites, where I am consistently labelled a hater. 🙂
Though I respect the Presidency, it has a strange and mixed history–along with the rest of our human race. I wish to write a book, or treatise, on how our loyalties, and resulting motivations seem to work, how these attach to the impressions lingering long on individual souls, and why a compulsion for contrast arises to uphold these often above most other realities encountered in our days. Perhaps that would address motivation, perhaps not. Of our Lord, it is written, “neither was any deceit in his mouth.” (Isaiah 53:9), which Peter, an Apostle to the Jews, rendered from real experience as “neither was guile in his mouth; Who, when reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not. But committed himself to Him that judges righteously.” (I Peter 2: 22, 23). I feel correcting Obamaisms or any personisms would be a full time occupation, not worthy of Kingdom effort, where so occupied. We have to recognize that he is a person, a persona, and a phenomena. When did we last pray for him? When with my 92 year old mother, at her home in Virginia, I realize how thick indelible cultural bonds and their reverberating impressions can be in a region among a resident people group. When here in Colorado, there seem to be few which would even bother to be touched as to cultural conscience by who Obama wishes to solicit to vote for Democrats for congress, and any bonding appeals subtly interwoven by cultural nuance or identification so engaged. Campaign speeches and Presidential citizen conscience appeals should not be confused as one and the same. Nor, I think, should Kingdom values and politics be confused. In Virginia and here, “For my love they are my adversaries: and I give myself unto prayer.” (Psalm 109:4).
PS to envision usually involves a prophetic element regarding a real future, and so requires a certain nobility such illconceived websites are unacquainted with.
As I think more of it, we should have a more direct form of democracy. Representational – isn’t. With the interconnectedness now possible through the Net, people could be voting on the issues as they arise, from their computers. People could then vote their consciences, instead of relegating and delegating that to the conscience of their “representative” in Congress. Congress, a millionaires’ club, is deeply disconnected from “the people” who are, in democratic theory, supposed to be the government.
If an individual could vote their conscience on each issue, we would see the real diversity of opinion among people which is largely untapped. Despite the official, and seemingly fixed positions of Republicans and Democrats on issues, among individuals, it is not so cut and dry. For example, an individual might support the greening of the planet through enforcing carbon caps, but not be pro-abortion. A person may side with so-called conservatives on one issue, but side with so-called liberals on another.
If people were able to vote their own consciences on issues as they surface, instead of lawmakers bundling disparate issues together in congressional bills or political parties vying to align people in one camp or another — if people were able to represent their own consciences, then — I think we as a nation could really get things done.
How about you, Ruth….yet, too, we would be flawed in complete orchestration of our ideals. This world offers blessings and challenges–yet tainted, as Michael Brown points out, with human deviciveness. Our vesting need be in the World to come, for the sake of those still in this one.
But Jabez, voting one’s conscience — as informed by God — is using the things of this world for His glory. Direct democracy as I described earlier could allow this to happen in a more undiluted stream. Working in the world to show His principles on earth while we wait for a more perfect world ~ here is where the hungry are, here is where the naked are, and we will be called into account, especially we who have been given much, for what we did, here on earth, for them. Decisions are being made which impact the worlds where the poorest poor are suffering daily. We should not abdicate our voices to representatives which do not represent our values. Democracy is an ever-expanding idea, and direct democracy a naturally-emerging growth. If I have one voice, I want to lift it up for the rights of the poor, and to protect my Father’s creation.
…in accordance with His Laws and will…
Democracy elected Hammas in Gaza, and in the so-called territories. Hitler too was first elected by Democracy. Netanyahu used to speak on it as a naturally correcting reality until the Gazan elections. One’s hopes and ideals are not sacrosanct, God and his government are.
We await a theocracy based on an indestructable life.
This does not mean that by inspiration there have not been those of the faith effecting equitable reality in this world. The notion of capital, representative government, and a just revolution were largely carried into the American Revolution by churchmen, where officers of the Republic’s army were mostly a certain breed of Protestants. This is remarkable, even stirring, however, we look for a Kingdom, and work toward a Kingdom which confronts a final trial of humanity in this present Age. It is our trial in the sense that we uphold that which is envisioned as most tenable in consequence. It is on our knees, not in voting booths, where the clarity of His government becomes inner fire.
Certainly, Jabez,
and I would never disagree that the real government rests on His shoulders, and we await its perfection after “that day.” Only that democracy as we’ve had it so far could be a purer, more representative form, reflecting more the will of the people. And the people, as you rightly stated, can [and I would say, must] act as God’s agent in the world, going to their knees first, beyond a doubt. All else comes after, including the voting booth [or the personal computer, someday].
And of course, we can only be God’s agents if our morality is totally based upon His morality, made perfect in Jesus [Yeshua].
What currently passes for “democracy” might one day be considered as passe as Pericles’ version now appears.
Ever look at the justice symbol, with her blindfold on? Ever read a history of your own county, where you live? Phases of cultural history are reflected in the faces, values, and churches of each 25 to 40 years or so. It has always been as Jesus said it would be with us: 1) the poor are with us, 2) uncertainty about personal safety is with us, 3) a need to surrender our control to embrace that of God is with us, 4) hearts which are both deceitful, and to be completed in desire under Christ are with us, 5) aging and illness are with us, 6) a need for community and promise of a personal plan under God are with us, and, 7) the provision of the Spirit is given to each generation.
I am not accusing you of this, Jabez,
but so often I have heard that quoted, whenever a discussion on the plight of the poor is raised — that ‘Jesus said the poor you will always have with you.’ If we read that in context, Mary was chastized by a disciple for using expensive unguent on His feet when the money for that could have been used to help the poor – granted. But Jesus viewed that specific act in light of His upcoming suffering upon the cross and Mary’s heart toward Him. When He said the poor would always be with us, He meant that we will always have the opportunity to do something for them, but He would only be here on earth for a short time. He still meant that we should be doing all we can for them and He doesn’t want us [I believe] to take that expression in a dismissive sense, as if our efforts would be wasted because ‘they’ll always be around’ and so fated to be. Yet this is often how that is interpreted. We are still called to end suffering as much as possible in this world, and moreover, we will be held accountable for not doing what we could when we had that opportunity.
The short experience I had with poverty in America is still nothing compared to the depth of poverty in the so-called “third world.” The short experience I had with hunger, very painful though it was, can’t compare in scope to those actually dying day by day of hunger right now. To simply say — and again, I’m not accusing you of this, Jabez — “Well, Jesus said we’d always have the poor with us, so…” is to take His commands to do good to the poor and turn that into an excuse for moral failure on the part of the wealthiest. Even the money we spend on a cup of gourmet coffee could be far more useful to a person in such a situation…especially if we have direct means to share.
I know this thread started on a precise topic and I wound up carrying it off to another whole topic, so I’ll leave off posting here now…My apologies — I know Dr. Brown likes us to stay on-topic in this forum.
Ruth, I believe that the answer Jesus gave to John’s disciples when John was imprisoned, as to how the Kingdom of God was currently evidenced by kind of His leadership in large part holds up your response, above. And Jesus statements in the Sermon on the Mount and on the Plain embrace that the poor are those who in a large measure respond to God. However, I feel it is a stretch, in the context of the passage of response that “the poor will always be with you” to assumed what he meant is what you stated above.
Yes, true religion serves widows and orphans, and has remembrance of the poor. Yes, we are to share and bless the poor, first in the household of God, in our own households, and then in the world. Yes, the wisdom of the Cross is for hearts who can receive it. Yes, all disciples of Jesus are to be servants by calling, decree, and new nature. Yes, the heart of our Father loves each equally and especially. Yes, what we do to the least of these, his brethren, we do also unto him. Yes, we are to offer personal lives as living sacrifices. Yet too, one is to honor the callings and gifts one is given. This could include, in certain situations, applying giftedness in acheiving wealth to needs of a household, a faith community, others, a nation, and all those Jesus told us to love, not primarily for any people of any social status.
Ruth, I believe that the answer Jesus gave to John’s disciples when John was imprisoned, as to how the Kingdom of God was currently evidenced by His kind of leadership, in large part holds up your response, above. And Jesus statements in the Sermon on the Mount and on the Plain embrace that the poor are those who in a large measure respond to God–more than the esteemed of this Age. However, I feel it is a stretch, in the context of the passage of response that “the poor will always be with you” to assume what he meant therein is what you stated above.
Yes, true religion serves widows and orphans, and has remembrance of the poor. Yes, we are to share and bless the poor, first in the household of God, in our own households, and then in the world. Budget planning to so help is encouraged in scripture for families and faith communities. Yes, the wisdom of the Cross is for hearts who can receive it. Yes, all disciples of Jesus are to be servants by calling, decree, and new nature. Yes, the heart of our Father loves each equally and especially. Yes, what we do to the least of these, his brethren, we do also unto him. Yes, we are to offer personal lives as living sacrifices. Yet too, one is to honor the callings and gifts one is given. This could include, in certain situations, applying giftedness in acheiving wealth to needs of a household, a faith community, others, a nation, and all those Jesus told us to love, not primarily to any people group of any social/economic status. What is clear in the passage may differ from what you have offered in fact and godly intention.
I began to download this and changed my mind. I find I do not wish to listen to this man.
Politicians often use people for personal gain. Some give out “pie in the sky” Utopia ideals or promises, but do they draw men to themselves or to God?
Let’s listen to the morals of those who wish to be voted into office. I keep waiting to hear someone who will worship God, because it’s God that has kept America in his care. Without him a people can do nothing right or good. Without giving God the place he deserves we will always come out behind. No nation has ever survived for long without honoring God. Some nations have fallen to ruin because they turned away from God.
God is for justice, good sense, equity, fairness, righteousness,
and for the self government of each of us under his mighty hand.
When a people are ruled by God they find a common bond with heaven. It’s good for a nation to have heaven on it’s side. If heaven is pleased with the works and ways of a nation that is being ruled under God, then isn’t God happy? Doesn’t God rejoice when his people walk in the truth? (III John 3) Isn’t a good apostolic father in many ways like God? (Genesis 1:26)
Not only are good morals important but those who wish to be in public office must have knowledge. Yet, isn’t understanding better than knowledge? Knowledge puffs up but a man with understanding walks with God.
So, recently Barack Obama met with Billy and Franklin Graham, in N.C. at Billy’s place. Has our inductive logic now gone to extreme in taking something to mean something, perhaps out of context? Look at all his staff, mostly of another race, and his Mother. Come on; should I induce that because he has met with the Grahams, and they counseled past conservative presidents, therefore, Obama is conservative? There seem to be some missing links to the logic here, and conclusions being made. Men look to the outside, God looks at the heart.
PS I often waste my votes, because I have been a registered independent for many years.
Hi, I didn’t get to hear the program today but for the “bible update in Israel” part. Does that have to do with the New Testament they are coming out with in modern Hebrew?
http://www.biblesocietyinisrael.com/
His TV message is demographic, and targeted to voters he would like to reelect his dominant party congress. How is it different than identifying any other constituency? Why is this racism? Are we reaching deep in the subjective barrel just to have radio show controversy?
Eric,
No, it had to do with the annual Bible quiz.
Jabez,
It is racially divisive for the president to appeal to Latinos and African-Americans to vote in December, and it plays the race card to them. Identifying any particular constituency would be divisive. Just think of a Republican president encouraging older white males and Jews to get out and vote. There would be an uproar.
I take strong exception to your closing line. You are free to ask this question, but it is personally insulting and 100% contrary to my ethic and how we conduct the show. Every day of the week I could find a controversy to stir the waters on the show — especially in the political real — but the purpose of the show is not controversy but kingdom advancement.
Hello,
Were is the link for this show? I don’t see the play button.
Without hearing the show I don’t know what was said so if this is redundant my apologies. In my opinion president Obama has overstepped the boundaries of common sense and responsible government of these United States. The president should do all that is right and good to unify the diverse peoples that make up this one nation but he has done just the opposite he has used racial tensions for political advatage not just in this latest comment but through out his campaign and first year of presidency. Consider this statement he made during his campaign “They’ll try to scare you because I have a funny name or because I don’t look like those other presidents on our money” (That’s a paraphrase from memory so may not be verbatim). This was clearly a racialy driven statement. President Obama is not the only political figure to use racial tension to his advantage, Ted Kennedy comes to mind, but he has gone beyond using existing racial tension to actually stirring up racial tension. That, for a president of the United States, is reprehensible at worst and irresponsible at best.
As a christian I cringe when I hear people talk about races. I believe we are all descendents of Adam and Eve so we our one race–Human and more than that we are each created in the image of God! There are many people groups that make up this human race but each of us is inextricably related to everyone else. There are no superior races or inferior races, superior people groups or inferior people groups, all have sinned and our under judgment so that in Jesus the Christ God may have mercy on all! It is time for us who love Jesus to love others as ourselves no matter what the color of their skin, or the shape of their eyes, or the smell of their food, or the clothes that they wear, or the language that they speak, or the the place in God’s created world in which they live. The gospel is for them! Jesus is for them! God love’s them and so should we! Oh, for a kingdom of priests and kings with no people groups but just one people—The people of Jesus the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world.
Blessings to you all in Jesus our king!
Bob B
Bob B,
Thanks for pointing out that the link is not up yet; I’ll check to see what happened, but our main studio guy was out sick yesterday, so that could have caused the delay.
Thanks also for your comments!
Folks, the show is up now.
Thank you sir!
So while I’m waiting for the audio to download, I’m learning that if a politician draws to himself a certain segment of the people based on something other than political views or values, then
it’s likely that it’s something outward in appearance such as race, skin color, height, age, or whatever, that would be what it is that they have in common, hence, something devisive for a nation, state, city, or whatever.
People can be funny sometimes. Sometimes people want to group together based on outward appearances, or common things about them that have no basis on values, or government matters on how things should be done, and if the group is large
and it’s hyped up, it could draw even more of the same.
I would like to see a strong Christians run for offices if they are qualified, having knowledge and experience in the things they would be about, should they be elected.
They might draw a lot of Christians, but also, wouldn’t they draw a lot of all people because of the light they share concerning the things of God and Christ, whether the people are Christians or not?
Light tends to draw people, not just bugs.
From some notes I took while listening:
What was planted that it should produce a political strategy showing a moral deficiency?
Galatians 6:7, I Cor 3:13, I Tim 5:24
roots, location, nourishment
Psalm 1
In the last Presidential election there was much excitement to get out and vote because it was the first time that a mayor political party elected an African American man represented them in this previous slaveholding country. It would be very ignorant of us to ignore the fact that many people of color, and women too, voted because of the novelty of that election. President Obama was only trying to encourage those novelty voters to continue to vote that is why he called them out in a specific way. Diehard voters will always continue to vote, and we all know that President Obama could have never gotten elected without the White American people voting for him as well. Before President Obama’s election, there were specific campaigns targeting specific minorities in order to get them to register to vote. No one made a fuss about that then, so what is the big fuss about now?
A side note – I was one of those people registering people to vote back then, and I do recall registering a black man who told me that this was the first time that he had register to vote. He was in his 70’s!!
In the last Presidential election there was much excitement to get out and vote because it was the first time that a mayor political party elected an African American man represented them in this previous slaveholding country. It would be very ignorant of us to ignore the fact that many people of color, and women too, voted because of the novelty of that election. President Obama was only trying to encourage those novelty voters to continue to vote that is why he called them out in a specific way. Diehard voters will always continue to vote, and we all know that President Obama could have never gotten elected without the White American people voting for him as well. Before President Obama’s election, there were specific campaigns targeting specific minorities in order to get them to register to vote just for that election. No one made a fuss about that then, so what is the big fuss about now?
A side note – I was one of those people registering people to vote back then, and I do recall registering a black man who told me that this was the first time that he had register to vote. He was in his 70’s!!
Our politicians use divide and conquer to win elections. Most of the domestic disputes we have are diversions from a terrible foreign policy that represents corporate interests, not the interests of the American people.
Republicans run on conservatism, but are they really conservative? Nope. They spend as much as the democrats and take away just as many civil liberties. They push anti-gay amendments but end up being secretly gay in more circumstances than we realize, a few of these people have been caught in their hypocrisy. But above all they are corporatists who bend to the will of New York City’s financiers and the corporations. Corporate rights come before human rights in America.
Democrats run on behalf of the working person, but who passed NAFTA/GATT? Bill Clinton and company. They repealed Glass-Stegall too and look at what a mess our economy has become because of that. They profess social justice but they are carrying bush’s constitutional assault forward and created watch lists, as bush did, on people who disagree with them. Google Missouri MIAC report, DHS pushed for it. They too bend to the will of NYC, President Obama received 1 million dollars from Goldman Sachs in his presidential election.
Both major parties are two wings of the same dirty bird. They split issues in half to pit us against each other and reap the political benefits. We fight 99% of our conflicts for corporate interests. Carol Quigley said as much in “Tragedy and Hope”. He was bill clintons mentor and chris matthews raves about him and his book. If you read David Rockefeller’s “Memoirs”, you get a lot of the same. Smedley Butler who was the most decorated Marine of all time until the 1960’s wrote a book called, “War is a Racket”.
If we want to get rid of the race baiting and the like, normal people with good character need to put their perceived inferiority complexes behind them and run. the people in office now dont even write their own bills or even read them. how much better could the rest of us with a work ethic and a conscience be in politics?
I agree that a President should unify the country; after all, he/she is now everybody’s President. Obama didn’t need to explicitly mention race at all: he could have simply referred to his supporters as “supporters;” I agree, that would have been best.
However, it seems that all past Presidents in my memory have done basically the same thing. Since campaigns have been televised (excepting George Wallace) they haven’t mentioned race, but how can we forget that the dominant race needed no mention, it was simply “so.” Remember the early problems with voting following the Emancipation Proclamation? The “grandfather” clauses which stole votes away from blacks? Various election abuses eventually led to the need for secret ballots and other reforms. Also, other groups have been marginalized in campaigns by being belittled, such as environmentalists, etc. All past Presidents have sided with their parties and actively campaigned for their party to win congressional seats when elections would come up, even crisscrossing the country to do so. Obama is correct in that his victory was largely due to the voters mentioned: this is just factual. But I agree, he could have and should have left the description of race out of his speech; it would have been best.
It was a highly-divided Presidential race, with mud being slung in both directions. One reason I’ve backed away from politics is because of the divisiveness that keeps things stalemated. I believe we need many parties, with run-off elections to narrow our final choices down to two. And I believe every candidate must debate every other candidate. The fact that we have a two-party duopoly means it’s always going to be a toss between the same two; always going to be a tug-of-war, either/or scenario, leaving a lot of bitterness behind. SO — the system is sick, IMO.
Due to still-fresh past history ~ i.e., these groups being the “underdog,” it has often been considered noble to fight for the underdog, and that’s why this comment mostly slipped past the radar. It is NOT the same, however, as comparing a White President asking for White votes, if only due to the great imbalance of power which Whites have historically enjoyed.
Sorry– meant to refer to the “Fifteenth Amendment,” not “Emanc. Proclam.”
“Playing the race card?” It appeals to a demographic he is identifying, for sure. Ever look at a history of political cartoons, read what comes in the mail from various solicitors, or parties? Targeting for solicitation of votes, money, or opinion is part of the freedom of speech we have known to this point.
Dr. M.B., so how does this question relate to the Kingdom, if all this effort is about the Kingdom? As a Kingdom devotee you lost me?
Jabez,
Very simple. As you listened to the show, you heard me explain my surprise, when in 2008, I was accused of bringing up race when I took issue with one of (then) Senator Obama’s positions. Since then, I’ve been determined to highlight this issue whenever it comes up in a way that can divide believers or manipulate — certainly a kingdom issue of importance to the Lord, hence my addressing it.
Also, I am curious, having read of the Hebraic NT, and the Society’s history, as directed: if it is such a monumental accomplishment–as I am sure it is–why do other groups not join with the effort, instead of develop other alike monumental efforts?
Aren’t former well off groups of finance for such project developments now in need of resource stewardship, with the rest of Western Civilization? What would it take, for example, for the Messianic Bible Society to join its efforts with this group? Or other Bible effort cadre’s to break down the barriers of organizational approach to approach the challenges with unity?
There have been efforts over the past few years by Israel to dispell Messianics who have not intermarried with citizens, and thus can become citizens, or are not native born (in other words those who come in from outside Israel with the agenda to make Yeshua visible for Israeli consideration). In Dr. Brown’s treatise, on “Who is a Jew,” the inequities of such a position are clear enough. Yet, at a gut level, it is clear that this is the season for Israel’s growing remnant inclusion.
If this is the season for Israelis to recognize he who was pierced–and it is–what can the US Christian do to help?
Sorry, Dr. M. B., it still does not compute why his targeted message would “divide belivers, etc.” He holds an office in this world, not of the Kingdom, the church, or the world to come. I cannot think of any campaign message which does not manipulate. It comes with the nature of the turf. If we take on Obama or others messages on that basis the wheel will spin while the vehicle is stopped, running them by sure repetition into their own ruts eventually.
Just because some accused you of being a racist did not make it so, nor did it pursuade the discerning of such a label. Now James Dobson I can understand might have issues with many labels placed on him, because he has become the whipping boy for so called abortonists and gay rights advocates, but the label you mention placed by others on you has not stuck. You have come across–to this point–as a balanced voice of reason for the values of scripture and the heart of God. To some degree having a duck’s back goes with the territory of the hard rains when raising up tents of revival in new territory.
Persuasion seems to be open to Kingdom advocates and Politicians alike as a means of communication. I agree with Ruth Smith’s observations on what past politicians have done. I know of no one who envisions Michael Brown as a racist, nor a non lover of all human souls.
Sorry, Jabez, but it appears that you haven’t interacted with the many black Christians with whom I’ve interacted, quite a few of which would be quick to say that these kinds of comments from the president are tremendously divisive to believers. In any case, when I have a prayerful concern, I will raise it as I feel prompted to, but I certainly don’t expect everyone to agree with me, and so I respect your disagreement. My only reason for taking exception to your comments had to do with the question of motivation.
As for your last comment that you know of one who envisions me as a non-lover of human souls — by all means, check out some gay activist websites, where I am consistently labelled a hater. 🙂
Though I respect the Presidency, it has a strange and mixed history–along with the rest of our human race. I wish to write a book, or treatise, on how our loyalties, and resulting motivations seem to work, how these attach to the impressions lingering long on individual souls, and why a compulsion for contrast arises to uphold these often above most other realities encountered in our days. Perhaps that would address motivation, perhaps not. Of our Lord, it is written, “neither was any deceit in his mouth.” (Isaiah 53:9), which Peter, an Apostle to the Jews, rendered from real experience as “neither was guile in his mouth; Who, when reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not. But committed himself to Him that judges righteously.” (I Peter 2: 22, 23). I feel correcting Obamaisms or any personisms would be a full time occupation, not worthy of Kingdom effort, where so occupied. We have to recognize that he is a person, a persona, and a phenomena. When did we last pray for him?
When with my 92 year old mother, at her home in Virginia, I realize how thick indelible cultural bonds and their reverberating impressions can be in a region among a resident people group. When here in Colorado, there seem to be few which would even bother to be touched as to cultural conscience by who Obama wishes to solicit to vote for Democrats for congress, and any bonding appeals subtly interwoven by cultural nuance or identification so engaged. Campaign speeches and Presidential citizen conscience appeals should not be confused as one and the same. Nor, I think, should Kingdom values and politics be confused. In Virginia and here, “For my love they are my adversaries: and I give myself unto prayer.” (Psalm 109:4).
PS to envision usually involves a prophetic element regarding a real future, and so requires a certain nobility such illconceived websites are unacquainted with.
As I think more of it, we should have a more direct form of democracy. Representational – isn’t. With the interconnectedness now possible through the Net, people could be voting on the issues as they arise, from their computers. People could then vote their consciences, instead of relegating and delegating that to the conscience of their “representative” in Congress. Congress, a millionaires’ club, is deeply disconnected from “the people” who are, in democratic theory, supposed to be the government.
If an individual could vote their conscience on each issue, we would see the real diversity of opinion among people which is largely untapped. Despite the official, and seemingly fixed positions of Republicans and Democrats on issues, among individuals, it is not so cut and dry. For example, an individual might support the greening of the planet through enforcing carbon caps, but not be pro-abortion. A person may side with so-called conservatives on one issue, but side with so-called liberals on another.
If people were able to vote their own consciences on issues as they surface, instead of lawmakers bundling disparate issues together in congressional bills or political parties vying to align people in one camp or another — if people were able to represent their own consciences, then — I think we as a nation could really get things done.
How about you, Ruth….yet, too, we would be flawed in complete orchestration of our ideals. This world offers blessings and challenges–yet tainted, as Michael Brown points out, with human deviciveness. Our vesting need be in the World to come, for the sake of those still in this one.
But Jabez, voting one’s conscience — as informed by God — is using the things of this world for His glory. Direct democracy as I described earlier could allow this to happen in a more undiluted stream. Working in the world to show His principles on earth while we wait for a more perfect world ~ here is where the hungry are, here is where the naked are, and we will be called into account, especially we who have been given much, for what we did, here on earth, for them. Decisions are being made which impact the worlds where the poorest poor are suffering daily. We should not abdicate our voices to representatives which do not represent our values. Democracy is an ever-expanding idea, and direct democracy a naturally-emerging growth. If I have one voice, I want to lift it up for the rights of the poor, and to protect my Father’s creation.
…in accordance with His Laws and will…
Democracy elected Hammas in Gaza, and in the so-called territories. Hitler too was first elected by Democracy. Netanyahu used to speak on it as a naturally correcting reality until the Gazan elections. One’s hopes and ideals are not sacrosanct, God and his government are.
We await a theocracy based on an indestructable life.
This does not mean that by inspiration there have not been those of the faith effecting equitable reality in this world. The notion of capital, representative government, and a just revolution were largely carried into the American Revolution by churchmen, where officers of the Republic’s army were mostly a certain breed of Protestants. This is remarkable, even stirring, however, we look for a Kingdom, and work toward a Kingdom which confronts a final trial of humanity in this present Age. It is our trial in the sense that we uphold that which is envisioned as most tenable in consequence. It is on our knees, not in voting booths, where the clarity of His government becomes inner fire.
Certainly, Jabez,
and I would never disagree that the real government rests on His shoulders, and we await its perfection after “that day.” Only that democracy as we’ve had it so far could be a purer, more representative form, reflecting more the will of the people. And the people, as you rightly stated, can [and I would say, must] act as God’s agent in the world, going to their knees first, beyond a doubt. All else comes after, including the voting booth [or the personal computer, someday].
And of course, we can only be God’s agents if our morality is totally based upon His morality, made perfect in Jesus [Yeshua].
What currently passes for “democracy” might one day be considered as passe as Pericles’ version now appears.
Ever look at the justice symbol, with her blindfold on? Ever read a history of your own county, where you live? Phases of cultural history are reflected in the faces, values, and churches of each 25 to 40 years or so. It has always been as Jesus said it would be with us:
1) the poor are with us, 2) uncertainty about personal safety is with us, 3) a need to surrender our control to embrace that of God is with us, 4) hearts which are both deceitful, and to be completed in desire under Christ are with us, 5) aging and illness are with us, 6) a need for community and promise of a personal plan under God are with us, and, 7) the provision of the Spirit is given to each generation.
I am not accusing you of this, Jabez,
but so often I have heard that quoted, whenever a discussion on the plight of the poor is raised — that ‘Jesus said the poor you will always have with you.’ If we read that in context, Mary was chastized by a disciple for using expensive unguent on His feet when the money for that could have been used to help the poor – granted. But Jesus viewed that specific act in light of His upcoming suffering upon the cross and Mary’s heart toward Him. When He said the poor would always be with us, He meant that we will always have the opportunity to do something for them, but He would only be here on earth for a short time. He still meant that we should be doing all we can for them and He doesn’t want us [I believe] to take that expression in a dismissive sense, as if our efforts would be wasted because ‘they’ll always be around’ and so fated to be. Yet this is often how that is interpreted. We are still called to end suffering as much as possible in this world, and moreover, we will be held accountable for not doing what we could when we had that opportunity.
The short experience I had with poverty in America is still nothing compared to the depth of poverty in the so-called “third world.” The short experience I had with hunger, very painful though it was, can’t compare in scope to those actually dying day by day of hunger right now. To simply say — and again, I’m not accusing you of this, Jabez — “Well, Jesus said we’d always have the poor with us, so…” is to take His commands to do good to the poor and turn that into an excuse for moral failure on the part of the wealthiest. Even the money we spend on a cup of gourmet coffee could be far more useful to a person in such a situation…especially if we have direct means to share.
I know this thread started on a precise topic and I wound up carrying it off to another whole topic, so I’ll leave off posting here now…My apologies — I know Dr. Brown likes us to stay on-topic in this forum.
Ruth, I believe that the answer Jesus gave to John’s disciples when John was imprisoned, as to how the Kingdom of God was currently evidenced by kind of His leadership in large part holds up your response, above. And Jesus statements in the Sermon on the Mount and on the Plain embrace that the poor are those who in a large measure respond to God. However, I feel it is a stretch, in the context of the passage of response that “the poor will always be with you” to assumed what he meant is what you stated above.
Yes, true religion serves widows and orphans, and has remembrance of the poor. Yes, we are to share and bless the poor, first in the household of God, in our own households, and then in the world. Yes, the wisdom of the Cross is for hearts who can receive it. Yes, all disciples of Jesus are to be servants by calling, decree, and new nature. Yes, the heart of our Father loves each equally and especially. Yes, what we do to the least of these, his brethren, we do also unto him. Yes, we are to offer personal lives as living sacrifices. Yet too, one is to honor the callings and gifts one is given. This could include, in certain situations, applying giftedness in acheiving wealth to needs of a household, a faith community, others, a nation, and all those Jesus told us to love, not primarily for any people of any social status.
Ruth, I believe that the answer Jesus gave to John’s disciples when John was imprisoned, as to how the Kingdom of God was currently evidenced by His kind of leadership, in large part holds up your response, above. And Jesus statements in the Sermon on the Mount and on the Plain embrace that the poor are those who in a large measure respond to God–more than the esteemed of this Age. However, I feel it is a stretch, in the context of the passage of response that “the poor will always be with you” to assume what he meant therein is what you stated above.
Yes, true religion serves widows and orphans, and has remembrance of the poor. Yes, we are to share and bless the poor, first in the household of God, in our own households, and then in the world. Budget planning to so help is encouraged in scripture for families and faith communities. Yes, the wisdom of the Cross is for hearts who can receive it. Yes, all disciples of Jesus are to be servants by calling, decree, and new nature. Yes, the heart of our Father loves each equally and especially. Yes, what we do to the least of these, his brethren, we do also unto him. Yes, we are to offer personal lives as living sacrifices. Yet too, one is to honor the callings and gifts one is given. This could include, in certain situations, applying giftedness in acheiving wealth to needs of a household, a faith community, others, a nation, and all those Jesus told us to love, not primarily to any people group of any social/economic status. What is clear in the passage may differ from what you have offered in fact and godly intention.