Obama and Dobson Ignite Readers

Barack Obama and his skirmish with Dr. James Dobson caught the attention of many of our readers this week. Here are just a few comments of the hundreds we received:



Rev. Chris from California says, It is disingenuous of Dr Dobson to claim that Obama misuses scripture, and disparages the use of Leviticus’ dietary prohibitions which have been set aside by the New Testament, and yet, the same holiness code that discusses keeping dietary restrictions is given eternal validity when it talks about certain homosexual behavior. Jesus did not set aside the homosexual provisions; indeed, he did not discuss homosexuality at all; Paul is the premiere setter-aside of the dietary laws. So, we are left with some verses having continuing validity while the next verse is no longer relevant? Seems like that sort of cut and paste approach to scripture is part of Dr Dobson's problems. Perhaps if he had a bible in paragraphs, he would understand that cut and paste interpretation doesn't work. The bible is a whole, and the principles of interpretation demand that one takes the context seriously.




Iris in Oklahoma wrote, Bark’s present strategy of courting the vote of evangelicals by telling them how much he agrees with them is ridiculous. Whenever he will actually vote in Congress, he is very liberal, and is for abortion, homosexual marriages, and is anti-Semitic. How can so many pastors and other active Christians feel he will lead us morally? He says he did not go to a Muslim school yet in a book he wrote 10 years or so ago he says that he attended Muslim school for two years and studied the Koran and also went to Catholic school. Come on, he is lying to us and is not to be trusted.



Bruce from Texas has some questions as well, in the article on Senator Obama, mention is made that the bible states that eating shellfish is an abomination. The response is that Jesus’ teachings in the New Testament are not consistent with that. Since Jesus was a 100% observant Jew until the day he died and he said to follow the Jewish Law fully to his followers until the day he died, which they continued to do for the next 70 years, how could his “teachings”, as the Reverend Dobson stated, be different in the New Testament. His teachings never swayed from 100% observance of the 613 Commandments in the Torah, one of which is observance of the Dietary Laws.

This is confusing. An explanation would be helpful.



EDITOR: Bruce, we will get some expert opinion on this matter, look for an article next week!



Also on the Obama, Judy from Oklahoma writes: The Obama will search for a permanent church to attend as a family, although Obama said he would not likely settle on one until next year. I find this statement scary sense he won't be deciding on a church until after the election is held. I suppose he figures once in office he can do as he well pleases. My concern is what kind of church he will join. Will it be an ordinary church denomination of America or will it be one of Islamic and Muslim content?





The autistic child banned from church in Minnesota also drew reactions from readers:




Laura in St. Louis has an interesting remark: What is the legal question in this situation? Is it concerning a religious entity’s right of association vs. a handicapped person's protection against discrimination?

Maybe the court shouldn't have granted the church's order of protection, but since it did...I would throw that lady's butt in jail for violating a court order.

I thought church was about being in communion (agreement) with other members in the worship of God. And I don't understand why she would insist on forcing her family, in addition to her handicapped son, to be in the middle of a situation where they are not welcome. Even in a small town, I would think that there are other churches that would welcome them with open arms. I'm sure my Lutheran Church-MO Synod one would.


EDITOR: Laura, I am confused, would you welcome this family in your church or visit the mother in jail?

CR Mailbag- Readers Question Obama's Secret Religious Leader Meeting

The CR Mailbag is full of explosive comments about Sen. Barack Obama and his closed door meetings with a collection of religious leaders including Franklin Graham and TD Jakes. Here is a just a small sampling of the thousands of emails we received:

M.A Goode goes right after TD Jakes and his support of Obama:

This meeting to me was a JOKE -- 1st of all, why was it secret & exclusive? I have lost all respect for TD Jakes & his so called ministry. The fact that he would support a man like Obama tells me all I need to know about him, that he is your typical black racist Democrat, politically speaking. Obama is a very deceptive man and is only sorry when he gets caught at something that would interfere with his political ambitions. His voting record and the people he associates with tells me all I need to know about him. Hello...he is not an honest and forth-right person.

These black religious leaders that call themselves Christians are obviously still imprisoned & imbittered in the slavery mentality from over 200 years ago -- how sad, and what's really unfortunate & destructive is that they are spewing that venom indirectly & some directly to their congregations. It's very divisive!!!

I would have no problem voting for a black man , but NOT someone like Obama!!! He is a Liberal Progressive who is a Wolf in Sheep's clothing! Voting for a man simply because he is black and winking at his sins and all his discrepancies is as about as Racist as you can get!!


Marge was short and simple:I for one, would like to know his responses. How can the lay person know the answers to these serious questions of today, if they are kept secret.

- Marge




In your article Christian Leaders Meet Privately with Obama dated June 11, 2008, I read all the statements that the Christian representatives made to Obama, but nothing about Obama’s responses. Such as, Franklin Graham’s question as to whether or not Jesus is the way to God… that is a great question, but what good does it do us to know he asked it, without knowing Obama’s response? What was the purpose of the meeting? Why is it that we can never talk about what Obama says or does? On the surface, this article gives the appearance of two things: First, that Christians are taking a stand on this election, and secondly, to the casual reader, that Obama wants to appeal to Christian leaders. In my opinion, both are wrong. Why do our leaders meet with someone like Obama in a “secret” or “private” meeting when they are obviously NOT going to tell us how Obama feels about these issues?? That’s not taking a stance. Why was this meeting so “secret”? Is he afraid that his answers might be made public? That is not an appeal to Christians.

We can’t discuss ANYTHING about Obama, and yet he could very well be the next leader of our nation! Why does this not alarm us?

Sincerely,

Jeff
Hallsville, Texas



What the man believe? Does he believe Christ is the Way, Truth and the life? If not…….he is not a Christian.

What does he believe? Why no answers. Who is he?


J. Carmichael



Editor: I agree with many of your opinions. I question the Christian leaders for being so tight-lipped about the deatails of the meeting. If Sen. Obama is indeed, reaching out to the Christian community, I doubt that closed-door meetings are the answer.

Reader Mail Blasts Father Pfleger

Father Pfleger and his antics continue to draw comments from Church Report Readers, here are just a few of the hundreds we received:

I was always under the impression that Pastors, Preachers, men of the Cloth….should be preaching The “Love of Christ”, however, in Wright and Fleger’s case, they preach hatred. I wonder what Jesus would do if he was in that church when they preached their sermons, which weren’t sermons at all.

Judith



Thank goodness this priest was removed---someone woke up to the fact something should be done about
priests that act in an unchristian way. Bravo



I am pleased he has had a painful week, he does not deserve to stand in any pulpit of any Christian church and spew the hate, bias and ridicule that harms the image of Jesus Christ and his teachings. Since he has been sanctioned many times by the Bishop, why is he not dismissed for his hypocrisy? Obama waited too late to leave this sick congregation and its many hateful leaders. I want a president who will represent all Americans, no matter what race, ethnicity, religion or party bias. Too bad Obama has lost credibility and integrity with me and many other voters.

Sandra from Texas



This man is no man of God!!!! Jesus taught love and nothing has come out of this man's MOUTH BUT HATE,Wright's or anyone that is connected with that church seems to follow the same pattern or should I say that Wright led the other's to follow him..The church it self seems to do nothing but down grade anyone that isn't black,especially whites.

T Fuller, Charleston, South Carolina


Editor: I have been outspoken for a long time about my thoughts on Rev, Pfleger, dating back to last summer when he called for the “snuffing” of a gunshop owner in Chicago. I am glad the Catholic church finally took this opportunity to silence this man.



One reader objected to a recent column from Harry Jackson, a long time Church Report columnist. The article title, “Foreplay or Rough Sex with Evangelicals”. The article focused on the various gay groups forcing their agendas on churches.


Mark wrote: “I greatly object to the headline “Foreplay or rough sex.” Crude language is not “cute.” I expected better from you.

Editor: Mark (last name withheld), I agree. I don’t like the title either, but I won’t disrespect an author and re-title his or her work. I also object a lot more strongly to the gay agenda pushing in on Christian values and there is no greater example of this than the rifts in so many mainline churches as they continue to struggle with this issue.



Remember, if you have reader comments, please send them to crdaily@thechurchreport.com, please include your name and town.

CR MAILBAG- Readers Address Hot Topics

The CR Mailbag was over flowing with reader comments this week. Here are just a few of the comments:



Pam from Aledo, Texas wrote in to comment about several Methodist ministers trying to block the George Bush Presidential Library at SMU.

It is a shame that a minister is so shallow to let his personal beliefs cause such a negative image of the church. He should be ashamed of himself. Is he really doing God's work? Makes me think not.

Editor: Pam, I agree. Rev. Weaver let his liberal viewpoints cloud a significant for a fine university. Another mistaken academic.



Dorothy from Tustin, CA wanted to share his thoughts on John Hagee and his recent apology to Catholics:


It's about time that Hagee apologize for his ignorant statements on the Catholic Church. How can he even think of condemning a Bible Believing, Holy Trinity, one triune God Believing Church. If he hadn't apologized, then how would he be answering to God when he meets him face to face?



Editor: John Hagee is smart guy who has made not so smart comments. He should know better than when he entered the political arena ALL of his comments would be scrutinized.


Pat from Cincinnati wrote about the family suing a Catholic school for not allowing their children to speak Spanish:

Since when did this country become Spanish speaking? We fought the Spanish, French, Indians, and won our independence from all. Our language is English. Students should speak English or learn to speak English if they plan to live here and become contributing citizens. Their forefathers did. If they would rather speak Spanish then they should live where Spanish is the language of the land. Most of us are sick of having to press #1 to receive information in English. We shouldn't have to press anything!!!


Editor: Pat, I agree. Perhaps the next president will enact a piece of legislation that supports English being the official language as former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich has suggested.


T.L from North Charleston. SC agrees with you, Pat. In an email T.L. wrote:


These children are in America where our language is English, they should speak only English at school unless they are in a class that would require them to speak Spanish, other wise they can talk in Spanish all they want to. These children I bet aren't even American citizens and THEIR PARENTS HAVE NO RIGHT TO SUE ANYONE...

Talk Spanish at home.


Wanda from Sarastoa weighed in on this issue as well:


The English only policy should be enforced in the Kansas School....this is American and an English speaking country.... and the school has every right to make that rule.....If the family does not like it, they also have the freedom of choice and should there fore choose another school.....I will pray they lose and hope the family will understand what they are trying to do is very wrong.


Sandra from Big Sandy, TX likes the idea of Mike Huckabee as Vice President:

McCain, the GOP, and America need Mike Huckabee in Washington helping mold the future of this nation for the better. If he is not chosen, I truly believe we will see the Democrats rule for many years to come and the values and principles I cherish diluted or removed from our government and society. The 7-2 ruling by the Supreme Court yesterday to uphold penalties for those who traffic in internet child pornography re inforce my thinking because it was conservative judges who carried the majority vote. PTL this may all dramatically change in the next ten years.


Editor: Sandra, I have spoken with Gov. Huckabee on many occasions and I am convinced he would make an excellent candidate.



Judy from Kiefer, OK reacted to the new Starbucks logo:


What does a mermaid clothed or naked have to do with coffee? If the coffee doesn't sell itself close your doors. Many young teenagers frequent your stores for your cold coffee drink, as does my 16 year old grand daughter with her youth group from church on Wednesday nights. I have seen young children in your shops with their mom or dada buying your bags of coffee also. This is very poor taste for a logo.

Editor: You would think that a $4 cup of coffee would buy it’s customers a better logo, wouldn’t you!

Harry Jackson Article on Rev. Wright Draws Varied Responses

Many readers took a moment to express their feelings on Harry Jackson’s article about Rev, Wright yesterday.

Vernice wants everyone to move on, but is this condoning Rev, Wright? She wrote:


It appears to me that you have allowed your magazine to become a network of people bashing (Rev. Wright) one another. The continual commentary regarding Rev. Wright has reached a fever pitch and it really doesn’t make sense. It’s time to move on to other things people are losing jobs, gas prices sky rocketing, families are starving. I have been well informed regarding the Christian community through your magazine. Pray for Rev. Wright if you disagree with his viewpoint, but move on.



Paul from Georgia agrees with Harry Jackson and wrote:

I tend to agree with the commentary by Harry Jackson Jr. regarding Dr. Jeremiah Wright, that he (Dr. Wright) is preaching "another gospel". The gospel that is preached in the Bible does NOT tell us that if God is not for "the black man" then we need to "kill him and get another".

Dr. Wright seems to me to be someone who puts the "black church" above any other, and that is not what Jesus preached. Jesus said "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; no one comes to the Father but by Me." Anyone who preaches anything other than Jesus is the only way to heaven (which this "black theology" seems to be doing) is preaching "another gospel", which is a false teaching and should be avoided.


Wanda from Sarasota writes:


Is Jeremiah Wright (sorry, I do not choose to call him Rev.) getting paid for all of his appearance on these TV shows? If so, that is a lot of money to help him furnish the five million dollar house his church is building for him....You can certainly tell he loves the limelight....it appears he has a lot of hate in him for some reason or the other... so we should pray for him, he really needs it,,,, alot of devil in him I would say.


Editor: Rev. Wright does deserve our prayers for being so terribly myopic in his views that he caused an open wound for mamy African churches throughout the country.

UCC Comes Close to Denouncing Wright

While zipping through my afternoon emails, I came across a letter from Rev. John H. Thomas, the General Minister and President of the United Church of Christ. While he points he is "troubled by some of his (Wright's) controversial comments and the substance and manner in which ther have been communicated", he stops short of denouncing Wright.

Why? This man is a cancer for your denomination.

Here is the text of the letter, what are your thoughts?

It is understandable that members of the United Church of Christ have been wrestling with the controversy surrounding the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. with the same broad set of emotions and frustrations that have been expressed nationwide in recent days and weeks.

What we've heard from many of you is concern for our denomination and the well-being of our local churches. For this I am grateful. There is also dismay and outrage that the United Church of Christ is being painted in broad, caricatured strokes that diminish and ignore the reality of our members' many viewpoints and our churches' diverse histories and perspectives.

While there is high regard for Rev. Wright's ministry and leadership at Trinity UCC in Chicago during the past thirty-six years, and for his prophetic, scriptural preaching, many of us today are troubled by some of his controversial comments and the substance and manner in which they have been communicated, both by him and as characterized by the media.

Following Rev. Wright's insightful interview with Bill Moyers on Friday, many in the UCC hopefully anticipated that the prophetic voice of the church would be more clearly understood by the public and affirmed. But, unfortunately, following widespread critique of his handling of questions and answers at the National Press Club, that deep hope has turned now to unsettling despair for many. There is a collective and abiding sadness and anger in the present moment, regardless of theological or political persuasion.

I write this while in South America where I have been visiting cherished partner churches and courageous human rights organizations in Argentina and Chile. In countries still haunted by wounds from oppressive dictatorships three decades ago, I have been struck by the depth of interest in our nation's political process, and by the deep hopes of many that the United States can be a force for economic justice, peace, human rights, and racial reconciliation in a hemisphere still afflicted by deep poverty, violence, and despair. It is time now for all of us - candidates and church members alike - to turn to these compelling moral themes.

To that end, we seek your support and active preparation as many in the UCC and beyond embark on a sacred conversation on race, beginning May 18, a time when we hope our churches will promote an honest, thoughtful and mature examination of the issue of race in this country. Your prayers are also sought and encouraged for our nation and our church, especially for Trinity United Church of Christ as it continues to bear the weight of this highly visible, politically charged controversy.

May God bless us with the renewed courage, insight and grace that these days require.


The Rev. John H. Thomas
General Minister and President
United Church of Christ

Oprah Article Draws Reactions from Readers

Yesterday's article from Steve Sjogren about Oprah Winfrey has some interesting reactions from our readers:



Dear CR Editor

I Cannot understand why a Christian Internet news source such as Church Report, continues to run commentary by Steve Sjogren?

Mr. Sjogren is so out of step with the 'Christian World View,' that I have ignored his rantings for the past year. But when Mr. Sjogren tries to sell Oprah as the Queen of Kindness and even suggest that her Anti-Christian pied Piper, 'New Spiritualism' should be followed, I must call out for an explanation.

Oprah is on a mission to lead anyone who is weak minded enough, from Jesus and into believing that, through Spiritualism an individual can save their self!

If your site was known to be radically liberal, I would feel that Mr Sjogren has a right to his misguided views, because people would consider the source. But for a Christian website, (your are Christian, aren't you?) to run commentary that glorifies and promotes the diva of deception (Oprah) as someone to be trusted and followed is beyond the pale.

If it were not for telling on your self, this heresy would make a good CR article.

If you have an answer for me, I would appreciate your attempt to help me see some sense in the madness of Mr. Sjogren's mindless commentary.


Howard Wilson Pittsburg, TX





Regarding the article entitled Oprah: A Catalyst for Kindness by Steve Sjogren, I'm surprised to see anyone from a faith-based perspective finding anything good to say about Oprah Winfrey these days. I had high hopes for The Big Give -- until I saw the show. They've taken what could have been a great way to showcase the inherent joy to be found in performing random acts of kindness and turned it into a show which is primarily focused on the competition instead of the compassion. In the process, they've tainted it with the stench of today's reality shows. What I see is yet another show that is too preoccupied with satisfying people's seemingly unquenchable thirst for watching interpersonal conflict on TV to bother with celebrating the innate good in giving. Her show seems aimed at satisfying the same lust for conflict that has made shows like MTVs Real World, Cheaters, The Apprentice, The Bachelor a fixture in today's pop culture. We love to watch people in defeat.


I know that Steve's article was making a good point about "kindness" and probably wasn't intended to be an endorsement of Oprah Winfrey, per se, but I would urge anyone wanting to send a Christ-centered message to people of faith to simply leave Oprah (and her shows) out of the conversation all together. Her new age spirituality is so twisted that it qualifies her for the "false prophet" label the Bible gives to such mongers of lies.

Gary Wood
Omaha, NE




Steve Sjogren responds:



Response from Steve Sjogren re the article that mentioned Oprah:
It might be helpful to mention the article that ran in Church Report was a re-print of what originally went into an online piece directed toward not-yet believers or a readership who are mainly skeptical about the institution of the church - though not necessarily about Jesus, the scriptures.
There are only so many matters that can be addressed in a short article (in this case 850 words max).
The one common matter between the skeptics and me was their interest in changing the world. Frankly, this group of 20somethings is very interested in changing the world by tapping into the power of kindness. There is great interest in looking into God's kindness by these folks.
I share the concern expressed by both writers... IF the suggestions made were so... that I was endorsing Oprah in any way. That is not accurate in the least. There are hundreds of my written and verbal messages floating around on the internet (or have been posted at one time) where I clarify similar thoughts each writer did about Oprah. Actually there are scads of matters about the way this show was done no one mentioned I have a difficult time with (again, if I had several thousand words I'd go into it with delight for those interested... Keep in mind, I've been pioneering this stuff for 27 years and doing it all over the world...)
In a nation whose religion is syncretism ('It doesn't matter what you believe as long as you are sincere' AND 'Just don't get in my face' AND 'Never ever imply your way is the exclusive approach to God...')
- it is no surprise that Oprah and others similar to her are in the limelight right now. She affirms the wishywashy nothingness of New Age thinking.
If I were saying what each writer was suggesting about Oprah - supporting her stance on any spiritual / 'quasi' spiritual matter, yes, that would be a huge problem. That that was not stated nor was that point even tacitly made. To one responder, passion is a wonderful thing, but when words are put in quotes, there is an implication that came from something in my writing. "Rantings"? - yes sir. Just not from me in this case.
The greater question I am consistently raising in articles wherever they appear is "Do you care about reaching these people who don't get it, OR are you okay with your present stance - standing on the sidelines as a critic and warning your friends about what they probably already know in Texas?" I stood on the sidelines as a world class warner - wrote articles galore - and accomplished pretty much nothing.
What I do is pretty much necessarily a polarizing thing.
It's a "Jump on board - go for it - armpits and elbows - we're burning daylight" OR, it's "Steve Sjogren is ranting again!" There isn't much in-between here.
Join with me and my co-conspirators, or find the stick matches, gasoline and silence all of this.





Steve Sjogren
Primary Coach, The Kindness Partnership



From the Editor:

Howard, first, I am glad to see from reading your note that you are a regular. Please sign up for a subscription as the freebies expire in 2 weeks.

Steve Sjogren is a world-reknowned evangelism expert. He has traveled the world sharing the Gospel preaching one simple lesson- serve others. Your attack on Steve was beyond the pale.


Howard and Gary, with that said, Oprah is a radical, I don't like her, I don't watch her television show(s) and I don't support her views. However I never tell my contributors and analysts what to write, or else you can read the dribble day after day just like any other rag.

I encourage my writers to be free with their opinions, and I equally encourage my paid subscribers to send me their comments.

From the CR Mailbag

Orin from Missouri comments on the Methodist church recent support of an open border policy saying:

I am not surprised at all that the Methodist hierarchy has chosen to oppose the SAVE act and declare for open borders. The leadership of the Methodist Church, particularly in the South, has been sympathetic for unAmerican causes for a long time. My parents walked out of the church back in the early 60's when they were supporting communist causes in Africa. They went to the bishop of their conference and had an unproductive talk. I know many of the families in Texas who disagree with the leadership but until they walk out there will be no change in church support for such activity.
Orin
Missouri


Wanda comments on a new round of lawsuits in the Episcopal church:

I appreciate your articles on the Episcopal Church as that seems to be the only way to get news about our church. In today's letter, 4/28/08 in regards to Bishop Schofield and the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin suing for the property and money that belong to the people of that parish is out rageous. The National Dioceses is doing the same thing....We the people of the church have been trying to find out where they are getting the money for the law suits and what we can do about it. They are taking our money that we give to keep them in the high live style they like to live and suing us for our property....Many letters and e-mail have been sent to the Presiding "She" Bishop with no answers....thanks for listening and keeping us informed. Wanda Coury Sarasota, FL

Editor: Wanda, we will keep you up to date, unfortunately, no one ever wins in litigation.



Pat laments the Methodist border policy:
If immigrants choose to break our laws by entering the country illegally, or lie in riverbeds, or the other things your group espoused, then they know their plight. They have done this to themselves with their decision. Personally, I believe there is a legal way and we should CLOSE our borders and people should enter our country legally. Pat C.

Editor: Pat, I could not agree more, living in Arizona, I can tell you, this problem is out of control.


Earnest gets right to the point and explains how he feels about the Methodist church and their border policy:

This is the most stupid thing I've heard of, these people have not a clue what open borders would do to our country.

Earnest from Arkansas


Editor: I agree, yet the Methodist church has been shielding illegal aliens for years with no consequence.


Steve remarks about Rev. Bynum and her recent appearance on Divorce Court:
This could only be Weeks- Bynum style, a muti million dollar wedding, and now the airing of your divorce on a popular TV show divorce court. This may make sense to Bynum, but what Fool sense does this make in Christendom? I know, I can hear her now say, how this is going to help so many abused and messed up women and how she is doing it for them. That is a crock of mess. They both have a need to feed their ego's that they both decided to do this. I guess they will produce the tapes of them consummating there marriage for public view to help other young marriage.
Aren't they just the martyrs.


Editor: appearing on national television on a bizarre show like Divorce Court appeared to be an odd public relations stunt, if reaching out to abused women was the goal, I think there are certainly more appropriate and credible outlets.

steve
hannibal, mo



Chris reacts to my article on Net Neutrality and the Christian Coalition:

Good article. From what I have read, this is the Internet equivalent of the "Fairness Doctrine" which was first sponsored by Markey in 1993.

It seems like the Christian Coalition has made a deal with the devil in my opinion.

Chris, Covington, GA.



If you have comments on a recent article, please send them to crdaily@thechurchreport.com, please remember to include your name and town.