General
The Meaning of Change
“You will know them by their fruits” (Matthew 7:16.
The Senate’s latest Saturday night massacre to move forward the federal take-over of health care in the United States is the latest indication of change coming to America.
Barack Obama ran on the theme of “Change” in his 2008 election triumph. 53% of the American public agreed with the message and voted for him as the 45th president of the United States. It’s now been one year since the Obama administration took the reins of government. Many of us were fearful of what an Obama presidency might bring. Others were optimistic about the message of “Hope” that the young Illinois senator trumpeted around the nation.
None of us knew how Barack Obama would actually govern. He ran as a center-left moderate. Would he lead as a centrist politician as Bill Clinton did from 1992-2000 or would he choose a different script for guiding the US into the 21st century?
The verdict is in after the first 365 days. The meaning of change is now clear. Since the words of Jesus above are true–that a man is known by what he does, not what he says–then there are at least twelve changes that we can expect to see during the next three years.
1. More controls – less freedom
The Obama administration is committed to controlling more of life and industry in this nation. The take-over of financial institutions, General Motors, regulating corporate salaries, and now the desire to manage one-sixth of the government economy through a new bureaucracy of health care–complete with over 100 new federal regulatory agencies–is tangible proof that Barack Obama is about power– pure and simple. FDR pushed economic federal controls in the 1930s, Lyndon Johnson championed federal social controls in the 1960s, and Obama is gobbling up both as a new century dawns. More government control means less individual freedom. The bigger government becomes, the more liberty shrinks. The concept of a centralized government is a very anti-American idea. Bill Clinton, a Democrat, said in his 1996 State of the Union address that “the age of big government is over.” It’s now “born again” in the age of Obama.
2. Less prosperity – more dependence
To be fair, a decrease in American prosperity does not appear to be a conscious goal of the present administration, but it will be a necessary consequence of their present course of action. Prosperity is the result of two very American (and biblical) ideas. Free people who have a strong moral standards in their lives are most successful at invention, industry, creativity, generosity, and the production of wealth that has characterized America over the past two hundred years. The Obama administration is removing that freedom by increased taxation, greater federal control, and the blurring and destroying of the Christian moral foundations. Barack Obama is the first American president to have the audacity to say that “America is not a Christian nation” and that he “doesn’t want it to be a Christian nation.” By turning the nation away from Christian principles, he will create less prosperity in the nation and a society of victims that are increasingly dependent on governmental help.
3. No American exceptionalism – just mediocrity
One subject no longer taught in the American public schools is the uniqueness of America in the pantheon of history. Cleon Skousen’s 1981 masterpiece “The 5000 Year Leap” (a great Christmas read) chronicles how decidedly exceptional was the American beginning. As a nation founded “under God” and his wise rules for peoples and nations, America left millenniums of societal bondage behind and pioneered a free nation based on faith, morality, human rights, and limited government. The world had never seen such a model. America is exceptional on the current world stage because our foundations are decidedly Christian–like no other nation. We believe in “Manifest destiny” and that God has “shed his grace on thee.” Barack Obama does not share that view. In the twenty nations he has visited in his first year, he has apologized for America and down-played our Christian roots. He wants to change our exceptionalism. He wants us to be like other nations.
4. Elite leadership – not people power
Barack Obama has surrounded himself with intellectual and professional elites who seem to look down on regular folks. They were irritated by the tea parties and town halls that foretold a people revolution beginning in this nation. In the various bills passed thus far by an ultra-liberal Congress, the Saturday night votes, meetings behind closed doors, and flat-out rejection of the polls shows that this administration doesn’t care what the people think–they have an agenda and they’re going to ram in through no matter what. This is not democracy–it borders on tyranny. In Obama’s world, the government elites know best.
5. Environment first – people and jobs second
Cap and trade–what some call “Crap and Tax”–is a scary law that passed the House and is pending in the Senate. It would force massive changes in energy policy in the US by use of carbon credits and raising energy taxes on virtually every family in the nation ($1500 per household). It’s based on the propaganda of global warming, and a desire to control the energy future of America. It will kill any economic revival in the name of saving the trees and air. It will ham-string small business and sky-rocket the already disastrous 10% unemployment rate. But that’s no matter. The Obama administration and Congressional leaders put dirt air & water first–not individuals and families.
6. Redistribute – not create wealth
The 787 billion stimulus package has proven to stimulate very little–just bail out other poorly run state governments and keep many unions and ACORN agencies in business. President Obama said it was necessary to keep unemployment below 8%. Unemployment now stands at 10.2% and climbing. This and other government policies are classic socialist maneuvers to appear that you’re helping. Under Obama we have forgotten that governments don’t create wealth–only the private sector does. To increase wealth you must cut taxes and place more resources back in the hands of entrepreneurs and businesses to produce goods and services. You must increase the economic pie through private investment and good stewardship–not take it away from the productive to prop up the unproductive.
7. Radical policies – not moderate bi-partisanship
Barack Obama said he would change the tone in Washington and legislate by bi-partisan consensus. That promise has turned out to be a farce. And for one reason: When you’re a radical with radical ideas for changing the American nation, it’s impossible to forge a consensus with others who may have different ideas or nuances on a subject. Sean Hannity was right to warn us about Barack Obama’s past associations. Obama is a radical who has worsened the tone and unity in DC by his unbending, hardball politics. At this point, Hillary Clinton as president looks temptingly better–even to this conservative. Barack Obama may be the most strident ideologue to ever occupy the White House.
8. Increased deficits – with a weak dollar and slow economic growth
Everyone admits that the Obama administration inherited a bad economy only worsened by a Republican-led bailout of the financial institutions. But the current government has gone much further by massive spending, multiplying deficits into the trillions, and putting in jeopardy the soundness and world-acceptance of the dollar through the unsound printing of fiat money. Gold is now at record highs, China is backing away from paying for our debt, and either increased inflation or deflation looms. The present government is doing all the wrong things. “Sound as a dollar” is now a distant memory.
9. Indecision – not bold clarity
The present administration has not increased America’s stature in the world due to indecisiveness and “dithering” on Irag, Iran, Afghanistan, and North Korea. They don’t seem to understand that peace is gained through strength, and that to repel foreign enemies you need to fight to win. Barack Obama apparently doesn’t even want to win nor admit that we are at war with radical terrorists around the world. General Stanley McChrystal, head of military operations in Afghanistan, asked for a surge of troops four months ago. He’s still waiting–and increased numbers of our troops are dying. This is not “thoughtfulness.” It’s political cowardice and paralysis.
10. Incompetence, not skilled governance
The decision to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the confessed mastermind of 911 and other Gitmo detainees in New York City–just blocks from where 3000 Americans perished on September 11, 2001–is the most idiotic decision I have every witnessed by a US president in my lifetime (via his Attorney General Eric Holder). 1) It’s asinine to try enemy combatants in civil courts and give them the privileges of citizenship, 2) It will cost millions of dollars and give world-wide terrorism a “Reality Show” for years right off Broadway, and 3) It’s “stick it in your ear” to every New York family that lost a loved one on that fateful day.
11. Moral confusion – not godly character
So far most social and moral policies adopted by the Obama adminstration have been anti-biblical and anti-family. Perversion has been exalted and celebrated, abortion is being encouraged and promoted (the Senate Healthcare bill), the president wants to do away with the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and kill more potential-human-beings through the increased use of embryonic stem cells. This administration seems committed to tearing down the 200-year moral order of the United States and replace it with a secular future. This assault on American traditional values will have ominous affects for years to come.
12. Faith in man (government) – not faith in God
The true crux of the change that Barack Obama is bringing to American is increased trust in government, not God. This is the battle for the America soul: Will it be “In God We Trust” or in “Government We Trust?” Barack Obama has revealed himself to be a radical secular progressive. His view of “progress” is the eroding of the Judeo-Christian past, including morality and limited government, and replacing it with secular or socialistic norms. Do you know why the secular press disdains Sarah Palin? She powerfully represents traditional American Christian values. The progressives hate her because she is the antithesis of Barack Obama. They want “progress” in secularism–not Americanism. Their faith is in men. America’s past faith was in God.
Our current national leaders want to change the idea and destiny of America. They do not want an America that is free, prosperous, exceptional, of the people, conservative-moderate, strong, decisive, morally sound, and one nation under God. They want a controlled society that is dependent, poorer, mediocre, far left, weak, cowardly, immoral, and focused on men.
If you voted for Barack Obama, this is the change you’ve ordered. Is that really what you want?
God also has a meaning for the word change. In the language of the New Testament, the word is metanoia or repentance. Repentance means to “re-think” or “change your mind and direction.”
I encourage those who voted for our 45th president to repent (re-think) your decision.
I call upon all Americans to repent before God and ask him to “hear from heaven, forgive our sins and heal our land (2 Chronicles 7:14). That includes voting for better leadership in 2010 and 2012.
The Equality Smokescreen in the Marriage Debate
smoke screen: noun 1. a mass of dense smoke produced to conceal an area, vessel, or plane from the enemy. 2. something intended to disguise, conceal, or deceive; camouflage.
In times past when armies wanted to disguise their tactics to gain an advantage over the enemy, they would often resort to producing a cloud of smoke to hide their true intentions.
The same tactic is being used today in the battle for marriage.
In the past forty years of Western civilization where secularism has gained some ground, many time-tested moral codes are now under attack. Secularism wants it to be “okay” i.e. moral to fornicate (remember the “free love” of the sixties?), to commit adultery, and engage in homosexual acts. If you’re a consistent secularist, you’re also okay with pedophilia (if its “consensual,”), and even bestiality. In a secularist utopia, sex is a high priority god–and ones’ worship of it can take any form he chooses. Makes sense only if you accept the faulty premise that man is his own master.
Which brings us to the issue at hand. In a few days, on November 3, the states of both Maine and Washington will vote on various bills related to the definition of marriage. In Washington, Referendum 71 is a bill by the state legislature that expands the definition of domestic partnerships to include all the rights of married folks–the “Everything but Marriage” bill. It’s a massive legislative monstrosity that contains scores of pages because every time marriage is mentioned in our state regulations, Referendum 71 changes the statute to include domestic partnerships. Though these domestic partnerships include some seniors living together, they were basically designed to create moral legitimacy for homosexual acts.
That’s the true intent of Referendum 71–to change the five thousand year historical, two thousand year civilizational, and two hundred and twenty year American definition of sexual morality.
It’s all being done under the smokescreen of a very American and hallowed word–equality. Listen to the words of the Seattle Times, the Emerald City’s only remaining newspaper and strong advocate for the passage of Referendum 71.
In an October 24, 2009 lead story in the “NW Saturday” section called “Religion No Litmus Test on Ref 71,” the writers acknowledge that though 2000 years of history should have Christians voting to reject Referendum 71, there are “many believers [that] support the domestic partnership partnership law saying that the referendum is not about marriage, but about equality–which the Bible calls them to work toward.”
Quoting a liberal Episcopal bishop–from a dying denomination that is losing many churches and thousands of Christians over their anti-Christian position on homosexuality, the article goes on to say, “All Referendum 71 is trying to do is to give them (gay and lesbian couples) some of the equal protections that help them function as a committed couple in society. I’m for that.” And quoting a leader in another diminishing church–the United Methodists–the case for equality is mentioned a third time: “Our faith community believes that all people deserve equal rights and protection under the law.”
Equality. Equal rights.
How can anybody be against such an apple pie American concept as equality?
But the argument of “equality” is a smokescreen that blurs our line of sight to the following piercing realities.
Let’s begin with the author of equality–God–whether your tradition is Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Deist or Nature’s God. All major religions (except secularism) and their subsequent moral codes believe that God designed marriage and that only a man and a woman can marry, i.e. “join together” and become one. The Judeo-Christian model was confirmed by none other than Jesus Christ himself who said in Mark 10:6-9:
“From the beginning of creation God made them male and female. This is why a man must leave father and mother, and the two become one body. They are no longer two, therefore, but one body. So then, what God has united, man must not divide.”
God made them male and female. Sounds like wise, specific, intelligent design. Marriage is not about equal rights or equality. It’s about God’s design for human relationships, their nurture and their multiplication. God made men with a certain physical/emotional construct. He made women with a complimentary make-up (including plumbing). According to divine design and purpose, he wants them to join together in love and matrimony, produce and nurture children, and raise them up to perpetuate the human race.
That doesn’t sound narrow or complicated does it? It’s common sense. Noah Webster’s original 1828 Dictionary, written during a time of far greater intellectual achievement and moral sanity than today gives the following logical definition of God’s design for marriage:
“The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God Himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity, and for securing the maintenance and education of children.”
There it is. That’s the entire definition–God joining a man and woman together by design, for life, to curb immoral behavior, to promote family happiness, and produce and take care of the kids.
For thousands of years we accepted that common sense explanation. In light of the truth about marriage’s design and social contract, we believed that:
- Fornication (sex before wedlock) was hurtful. It’s sex without life commitment.
- Adultery was scandalous. It’s sex without faithfulness.
- Homosexuality was perverted. It’s unnatural sex outside of God’s natural design.
- Pedophilia was destructive. It doesn’t protect children.
- Bestiality was vile. It’s demeans man who is “made in God’s image.”
We believed those truths until a powerful and vocal minority of homosexual activists formed a plan to change the accepted definition of holy matrimony. They said “We want equal rights!”
But marriage was never about equality or equal rights. It’s exclusively concerned with God’s concept of social order and human happiness. God designed men to marry women–for many obvious reasons. Yet, even in the wonderful enterprise of marriage, which I’ve personally enjoyed for thirty-three years, there are some qualifications that limit equal access:
1. We are not to marry close relatives. (E.g. Leviticus 20:17-21). Even a man or woman can’t demand to marry anyone. God is smart enough to know that marrying close relatives and having children by them weakens rather than strengthens the gene pool. Every nation on earth has smart laws against incest and marrying close-of-kin.
2. Marriage is between one man and one woman. Polygamy was tolerated in ancient civilizations as an accommodation to the harsh realities of life. Due to extensive warfare when men died and there were more women than men, coupled with the inability of a woman to provide for themselves, polygamy was sometimes permitted. But it was never the ideal. Mark 10:6-9 is the pattern.
So marriage can never be argued from the standpoint of equality. If Referendum 71 is approved by the voters of the state of Washington on the basis of a false demand for “equality” from homosexuals, then here’s what will happen. If homosexuals have equal access to marriage, then so do adults and children, adults and animals, relatives with relatives, and any number of partners (two or three people saying they love each other and want to “marry”–or why not eight or ten?).
If this is a matter of equal access by all human beings, then lawsuits and alternative arrangements will fly in every direction–and true marriage and family life will eventually collapse. If we allow that to happen, we will have been stupid enough to throw away five thousand years of wisdom and social order to bow to sexual perversion and experimentation.
So when you hear that equality argument made by someone promoting homosexual liaison or any other living arrangement demanding a right to the marriage table, take a moment to peer deeply into the smoke and darkness to the true reality lurking in the background.
It’s really the hideous form of sexual confusion that you’re really looking at.
It’s looking for moral approval.
It wants to destroy you and your children.
Don’t be deceived.
Commit your own marriage plans to God’s wonderful design and vote to REJECT Referendum 71 and every other scheme to alter the God-given institution of marriage.
Rightly Framing The Issue of Homosexuality
Abortion was the paramount social issue of the late 20th century. What was the consequence of getting it wrong? Forty-five million innocent human beings (so far) were killed in the United States and eight hundred million world-wide. It’s the world’s greatest holocaust, wrapped in the language of freedom and choice.
What is the greatest social issue of the early 21st century? Homosexual marriage. 
We looked at its consequences last week which include a flight from the public schools, moral confusion for millions of children, the disintegration of marriage and family life–and the stability it gives prudent societies–and millions of people separated from God for eternity because of their wrong moral choices. Homosexual marriage is also being promoted through the language of freedom and choice.
In the past twenty years, the secularists have been very successful at re-framing the issue of homosexuality with words and concepts that suit their lifestyle–that sex, and the corresponding living arrangements among all consenting adults, are just fine. They’re changed the debate from what a person does (God’s view) to what a person is or thinks they are (man’s view).
In the following article, Gary Randall, with help from Mark Steyn, rightly frames the issue of homosexuality–why it is incomparable to inter-racial dating, why we must resist homosexual marriage, and how we can do that while caring and praying for those involved in homosexual acts. RB
By Gary Randall, president of the Faith & Freedom Network and a leading voice in Referendum 71 in the state of Washington.
Originally “Same-Sex Marriage and Interracial Marriage”
Isn’t banning homosexuals from marriage just like banning interracial marriage? I’ve heard that and so have you. In the discourse of the public debate about same-sex marriage, in nearly every case, if you oppose same-sex marriage, you are marked as homophobic, mean-spirited and bigoted.
Same-sex advocates often point out how interracial marriage was banned because of prejudice and ignorance, drawing comparables to those who oppose homosexual marriage today. “We,” they say, “are struggling against the same civil rights bigotry as African Americans and other ethnic minorities have experienced.”
But are they?
This tone is reflected in the media, almost without exception, including in my discussion with Ken Schram on KOMO radio earlier this week. And this is the tone that is asking people to, “Decline 2 Sign Referendum 71”—a new campaign from Equal Rights Washington. Most of the rhetoric from the “homosexual rights” side suggests or infers that if you oppose same-sex marriage, you are doing so because you are bigoted and you hate homosexuals.
You are prejudiced.
Not so.
People of faith can oppose homosexuality and it’s advancement to deconstruct society by redefining marriage, without hating anyone, including homosexual advocates or those who practice it. Here’s why and why also, ethnicity is different than homosexuality.
There’s been a fundamental shift in the debate over homosexual rights over the past number of years. The rhetoric has been changed to accommodate the advocates. As homosexuals have purposely shifted the rhetoric, it has made any moral objection or criticism, even that given out of concern for the good of individuals or society seem unloving or cruel.
Mark Steyn, a writer and social critic, and not necessarily a supporter of our position on marriage, made an interesting point in 2003 in a Chicago Sun Times article titled, “There’s No Stopping Them Now.” He noted a simple shift in the words and language of the homosexual movement, and credited this shift with a rapid advancement of their agenda. Steyn says that historically, moral concern for sexual activity between two persons of the same sex was identified as sodomy—an “act”. An act, he says, is what it is. Then Steyn explains in the late 19th century the act was re-described as a condition of certain persons, and was termed “homosexuality”—a condition a person was in.
A few decades ago he says homosexuality was upgraded again and now refers to a person’s identity, so now we identify people as being “gay” or homosexuals. Steyn writes: “Each formulation raises the stakes. One can object to and even criminalize an act; one is obligated to be sympathetic toward a condition; but once it’s a fully-fledged, 24/7 identity, like being Hispanic or Inuit, anything less than whole hearted acceptance gets you marked down as a bigot.”
This is the basis of the case for homosexual marriage. Homosexuality is genetic and is equal to ethnicity.
SB 5688 and its cousins from the past few years were never really about domestic partnerships, but a carefully planned strategy of incremental steps to marriage. SB 5688 is marriage. Even the Seattle Times editorial board said, “give them the name” following the passage of the bill.
Senator Ed Murray explained that concept to the Times only a few days ago and also said that the conversations withthe public were going very well. He suggested the more homosexuals talked with the public, the better they understood the gay agenda and were willing to support redefining marriage. He is saying that time is on their side because they have reframed the conversation.
Two thoughts.
First, their case is framed on a false premise. They have redefined the words of the public discourse, leading people to a false conclusion. You can reject the acts of homosexuality and the effort to enshrine them into law without hating the person or people. Remember homosexuality is an act. It does not equate with race or ethnicity.
Secondly, if time is helpful to advance the homosexual agenda, why would people who say they oppose homosexual marriage also be suggesting that we should wait a year or two to address a bill that provides for same-sex marriage? If you have been persuaded to step back and not support Referendum 71, waiting for a better political time, please reconsider. There will not be a good time politically to address this issue.
If you feel empathy toward people and their families and are conflicted about denying or taking something from them, keep in mind that there are reasons why natural marriage has been honored and given special considerations. Marriage is not simply about people who “love each other,” but it is about providing a genetically connected mother and father to birth and raise children, caring and providing for the next generation. Should we reject the wisdom of history regarding marriage as being only between a man and a woman? And should we compromise our belief in very clear biblical teaching on the matter of homosexual acts, in the spirit of trying to be fair and good?
Clearly we should not. However, that is not the true question. The proper question is, “Can I oppose the acts of homosexuality and its advancement in our culture without hating or rejecting a person?”
Yes. You can do both. You can reject the acts of homosexuality and their advancement, while caring and praying for those who commit the acts.