At the Intersection of Faith and Politics
- Monday, May 18, 2009, 4:13
- Iowa, Top Story
- 1,802 views
- 99 comments
Ever since the Iowa Supreme Court issued decision allowing gay marriage in Iowa, my faith has been intertwined with my politics. To be honest, the two have been a jumbled mess for most of my life. My faith instills in me principles that are non-negotiable. I then support candidates and causes that support or advance my worldview.
The latter isn’t always easy to do, especially when your income comes from political candidates. I have worked with candidates who are supportive of my worldview, and I have worked for candidates who I have had differences with. That said, none of those candidates have been openly hostile to my worldview.
On the other hand, when dealing with your church, one would expect there to be little or no hostility towards a Christian worldview. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Just yesterday, President Obama gave the commencement speech at one of the greatest Catholic universities in the western hemisphere, Notre Dame. I don’t have any problem with Obama accepting the invitation to speak at Notre Dame, but I have major issues with him being invited to speak at their commencement given that he is hostile to the Catholic Church’s position on abortion.
Here in Iowa, we have our own version of the Notre Dame saga. The Iowa Methodist Church has invited the controversial Rev. Jeremiah Wright to speak at its conference in Ames next month. The Methodist Church’s motto is “Open Hearts, Open Minds, and Open Doors,” but there is nothing “open” about Rev. Wright’s sermons other than his hatred of America. It’s hard to understand why the Iowa Methodist conference is bringing in Rev. Wright to speak. He was so controversial that President Obama had to go out of his was to distance himself from Wright during his campaign.
These two instances hit close to home for me. I grew up in a very Catholic home. I was an altar boy for ten years in the tiny unincorporated town of Bryant, Iowa. We said the Rosary every night during lent, and I attended St. Ambrose University, a Catholic institution where many of my college professors were priests.
One of the things that I always appreciated about the Catholic faith was its history and traditions, as well as its unwavering stance on issues like abortion and gay marriage. Even with its long-held views on those issues, I have to admit I’m not surprised by the invitation to have President Obama speak at Notre Dame’s commencement.
Some priests in the Catholic Church believe that issues like the environment and social justice are equal to or superior to the Church’s long-held beliefs on the protection of the unborn and its opposition to gay marriage.
For example, I was the president of the College Republicans at St. Ambrose in Davenport, Iowa. I was a Junior and Senior in the years leading up to the 2000 Iowa Caucuses. While I was never allowed to use campus-wide voice mail to alert students about upcoming events, one of the priests was allowed to send campus-wide notice that Al Gore was coming to town and encouraged students to join him in welcoming Gore to the Quad Cities.
Not only was I upset that there was a double standard between the political activity of a student group and campus ministry, but a very popular priest was active in recruiting students to be support then-Vice President Gore because of his stance on environmental issues. This priest simply ignored the fact that he was advocating for a candidate who is opposed to one of the Catholic Church’s main teachings regarding life.
I am no longer a Catholic, but I attend a mass occasionally with my family and follow things like president Obama’s commencement speech closely. I’m currently a Methodist, but to be honest, the denomination really means nothing to me. I am simply a Christian who seeks to find a congregation that is not hostile to my worldview. With the Methodist Church inviting Rev. Wright to speak at its conference, I’m now beginning to realize that the Methodist Church is apparently hostile to my world view.
While I find Rev. Wright’s visit to Iowa troubling, equally disturbing is seeing what the state lobbyist for the Iowa Methodist Conference has advocated for. Their lobbyist, Naomi SeaYoung Wittstruck, lobbied for the repeal of federal deductibility and also supported a bill which would require Regents universities to study climate change (HF 769). At a time when our state and our universities are under tremendous financial strain, this seems silly, particularly given that many scientists have come to the conclusion that climate change likely not manmade.
This lobbyist registered against legislation that would require students at postsecondary schools to provide proof of citizenship and/or legal status (HF 141). She also supported the repeal of the Iowa English Language Reaffirmation Act (HF 14). She also lobbied against a bill that would allow for enforcement of immigration law at the local level(HF 107). While I understand the call to be kind to aliens and sojourners among us, I have to question whether it is right for us to aid and abet illegal conduct (see HF 141 & 107). Most people also feel that, while a family may choose to speak a language other than English in their home, it is still important to have one common language used in business and government. This is not an issue that divides, but rather, it can be one that would unite us as a state.
While Ms. Wittstruck’s positions on the above issues are mildly troubling, the fact that she failed to register a position on several bills with Biblical implications is highly disturbing. For example, Ms. Wittstruck failed to register on the following bills.
SF 353: A bill for an act creating a religious freedom and civil marriage protection Act, providing a repeal, and providing effective dates.
HF 545: A bill for an act relating to proof of identity of a parent provided notification of the performance of an abortion on the parent’s pregnant minor child.
HF 567: A bill for an act prohibiting the provision of state funds to certain entities in the state that provide family planning services.
HF 318: A bill for an act relating to the determination of when life begins and acknowledging the rights, privileges, and immunities of an unborn child.
HF 323: A bill for an act relating to informed consent to an abortion and providing a criminal penalty, and providing effective dates.
HF 231: A bill for an act relating to termination of pregnancy reporting information, and making penalties applicable.
HF 183: A bill for an act relating to the teaching of chemical and biological evolution in school districts and public postsecondary institutions and providing an effective date.
HJR 6: A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Iowa specifying marriage between one man and one woman as the only legal union that is valid or recognized in the state.
HF 691 A bill for an act relating to access to obscene materials and child in need of assistance proceedings and child abuse reporting.
Not only did Ms. Wittstruck fail to take a Biblical stance on these bills (and a proposed amendment), but a few of the bills she supported antithetical to Biblical principle. For example, she supported a bill that classified sexual orientation the same as other classifications based on immutable characteristics (i.e. race, gender, ethnicity, etc.) The Bible is very clear that homosexuality is a sin, and like other sins, should not get special protection under the law.
Ms. Wittstruck also supported a measure honoring Judie A. Hoffman. While Hoffman has done much charitable work, she is well-known for lobbying on behalf of The Interfaith Alliance Action Fund, a group that has taken a high profile role in working to usurp God’s definition of marriage here in Iowa. The Iowa Methodist Conference should not be advocating for honoring this woman.
It is unacceptable that a lobbyist for a religious institution failed to advocate for traditional marriage as defined in God’s word and also failed to advocate for those most innocent among us who have no voice, the unborn.
When I take a step back, I think the problems in our churches are far greater than the ones that we are dealing with in the Republican Party. While I know that some people think WHO Radio personality Steve Deace is too hard or even unfair to our Republican candidates and office holders, he is equally critical, if not more critical, of the leaders of our churches.
It’s disappointing that our religious institutions feel the need to invite people to address their conferences and graduating classes who openly chastise what these organizations believe. On the other hand, the left calls people who believe in the rights of the unborn and traditional marriage bigots.
Look at the fallout the Obama administration had to deal with for having Pastor Rick Warren give the prayer at President Obama’s inaugural. The outrage was caused because of his belief that gay marriage is wrong. So, while the liberal left can’t even tolerate a pastor like Warren who rarely says anything anybody would disagree with, our churches and religious institutions are inviting the most radical opponents of the teachings of the Bible to speak to their flock.
How can we expect a political party to stand on its core principles when our churches kowtow to the liberal left?
About the Author
Craig Robinson has written 502 stories on this site.
Craig Robinson serves as the founder and Editor-in-Chief of TheIowaRepublican.com. Prior to founding Iowa's largest conservative news site, Robinson served as the Political Director of the Republican Party of Iowa during the 2008 Iowa Caucuses. In that capacity, Robinson planned and organized the largest political event in 2007, the Iowa Straw Poll, in Ames, Iowa. Robinson also organized the 2008 Republican caucuses in Iowa, and was later dispatched to Nevada to help with the caucuses there. Robinson cut his teeth in Iowa politics during the 2000 caucus campaign of businessman Steve Forbes and has been involved with most major campaigns in the state since then. His extensive political background and rolodex give him a unique perspective from which to monitor the political pulse of Iowa.
99 Comments on “At the Intersection of Faith and Politics”
Trackbacks
Write a Comment
Gravatars are small images that can show your personality. You can get your gravatar for free today!
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Great article Craig! I’m thinking the ISU College Republicans should offer an alternative for the Methodists to go see…someone a little more friendly to the U.S.
So what’s your point? You don’t like the Catholic Church so what do you do–you leave. You don’t like the Methodist Church so what will you do–leave. So go find a church that is consistent with your beliefs. What all of this has to do with politics escapes me.
I didn’t leave the Catholic Church over the scenario listed above. In fact while individual priests seem to go AWOL, I still admire the Catholic position on the social issues. As for the Methodist Church, it seems like I may need to decide whether or not I want to help funding an organization that I am in disagreement with. It’s not an easy thing to do. I’ve been very involved in my congregation, and like my local church for the most part.
Being a Catholic requires commitment. My personal view is that leaving the Church is tantamount to a moral abortion. “The hell with it, I’ll just get rid of it.” Another act of convenient disposal. Don’t like your wife–just divorce her. Don’t like your car–I’ll get a new one. My girlfiend’s knocked up–just……..To borrow heavily from Billy Holiday, “Christ was sent to save us from our sins but also from flabby cheeked, brittle boned, week kneed, thin skinned, pliable, plastic, spineless, effeminate, sissified, three carat Christianity.” Man up, Robinson.
Moderation,
Aren’t you the one whose kids are in Catholic school but you’re okay with same sex marriage?
You’ve no room to talk.
Peggy: I am not OK with gay marriage but I respect those that differ from me. I have little sympathy however for those that leave the Church.
Moderation,
Being a Christian requires commitment. As I mentioned, above I didn’t leave the Catholic Church over any disagreement with its principles or teachings. I left the Catholic Church for personal reasons and for anyone to call that decision a moral abortion is ludicrous.
“Christ was sent to save us from our sins but also from flabby cheeked, brittle boned, week kneed, thin skinned, pliable, plastic, spineless, effeminate, sissified, three carat Christianity.”
I find this funny coming for a user who goes by the handle “Moderation is Everything.”
The last thing I want to do in my faith or in my politics is to water down or compromise on my principles. I have no desire to moderate my beliefs in order to win elections. Now finding a better way to communicate what we believe is another story.
Mod,
I also respect people who differ from me.
Have you ever heard of the Spiritual Works of Mercy?
Any “church” which is affiliated with the National Council of Churches or the Interfaith Alliance is a leftwing political organization–not a church concerned with saving souls.
There are probably individual godly pastors who do care about saving souls but then I would ask, why do they affiliate themselves with these groups.
We were faced with this same decision. We belonged to a Lutheran church that eventually merged with other Lutheran churches and became the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.
We had all we could take of their leftwing politics and chose to leave for the more conservative LCMS and a requirement for our membership was that the LCMS does not belong to the NCC.
Start googling to learn about the NCC. They were founded to promote Communism and they are succeeding.
Craig, you list the problems with the lobbyist from the Methodist church. You are so right. The Iowa Interfaith Alliance is into protecting illegal immigrants. Why” Because they know they’re future Democrat voters.
The Interfaith Alliance celebrated the SC decision to legalize gay marriage in Iowa.
The Interfaith Alliance protects abortion “rights”
Google Iowa Interfaith Alliance and find the member groups.
I completely agree with Deace that the problems we are facing in the US right now can largely be laid at the feet of apostate churches. We rightly blame government schools and the media has been totally taken over by liberals but there has not been enough focus on the corruption of the churches.
The churches have the potential to be the biggest offenders of all because people trust their churches. They shouldn’t.
If Mod believes that people should not leave their churches, does Mod believe that we should go along with everything they say and do at anytime.
We left our original church and have been greatly rewarded for it and we would do it again.
I have no desire to support a leftwing group that goes against everything in which I believe.
Back to the main article, is the Judie Hoffman referenced the same one who was the prez of the League of Women Voters in Sioux City that wouldn’t stop harping about Congressman King refusing to debate Rob Hubler?
I find it odd that you who are contemptuous of those that depart from orthodoxy refuse to hold yourself to the same standards. Mr. Robinson leaves the Holy Roman Catholic Church for “personal reasons.” What about those who marry a person of the same sex for “personal reasons” or choose to abort a child for “personal reasons?” Do they get a hall pass. too?
Peggy: Of course I have heard of the “Spiritual Works of Mercy.” One of its tenets is to “counsel the ignorant.”
Here is an article mentioning Judie Hoffman. Notice the affiliations of the Episcopal church, the Plymouth Congregational church, Planned Parenthood, LAMBDA, int., etc.
What more does anyone need to know about the Interfaith Alliance other than it has NOTHING to do with faith at all.
They hide behind “faith” in order to fool unsuspecting good people.
Oops. Forgot to provide the link. Sorry. http://www.bleedingheartland.com/diary/2314/
Good, Mod! Another is to admonish the sinner.
Here is another link showing the cozy relationship between these “churches” and the Democrat party.
Typically, those churches in Iowa who are the most often mentioned belonging to the NCC, IIFA and now this group, are the Methodist church, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Presbyterian church USA, the Brethern church, Christian Church, Disciples of Christ, United Church of Christ and the Reformed church. There are many others as well, but these are the best known.
http://www.iowaprogressives.org/board.htm
DV, my goodness! You dislike a very large proportion of the population of America, virulently dislike is how it looks just by your own words.
Name-calling demagoguery never inspires or attracts trust or belief, not even from fellow-travelers.
I wholeheartedly agree, DVFO. The Iowa Interfaith Alliance is a front organization – a pack of liberals hiding behind religion.
CD: You have it wrong. I don’t dislike what these people are doing–I HATE what they are doing. They are spreading a gospel of killing the unborn, marriage between people of the same sex is ok, Communism/Socialism is desirable, all wealth belongs to the state.
The last thing I want is for ANYONE to trust these liars and perverts.
Now interpret that any way you want. Never once do I say I hate these people. I don’t hate them. I don’t know them but I do know what they do and I do know I hate the destruction they are bringing to unsuspecting, gullible people and the destruction they are doing to our culture.
Unfortunately, we have a nation full of trusting people who don’t stop to assess the long-term ramifications of what other people say and do. We lack “critical thinking skills”.
Yer not even able to slow down long enough to realize the trust I refer to as being hard to attract, is trust in the name-calling demagogue.
How do you feel about the Rev. Wright calling for God to damn America?
FWIW, I called the number listed in the announcement about the Methodist church bringing Wright to America and asked the “gentleman” if he agrees with Wright to God damn America.
He told me he does agree with Wright. Do you agree with Wright and the Methodist I talked to?
I will not be suckered into submitting to a cross-examination on a blog.
We’re talking about the same thing here if we’re talking about ND inviting Obama to speak at their commencement or if it’s the Iowa Methodists inviting “Rev” Wright to speak at an award dinner in Iowa.
It’s the effect of creeping socialism on our society. Churches are largely to blame for this.
Wright and Obama are both flaming, radical liberals. Obama puts on a more moderate face but make no mistake about it–he’s a radical. He didn’t sit in the Rev. Wright’s pews for 20 years for nothing.
This goes to show the tolerance of the American people. They just take it and take it and take it until we wake up and find ourselves taken over by a bunch of left wing, socialistic radicals who are robbing us of our freedoms and our once rich economy.
The mainline churches are dying and rightfully so. They are not churches at all–they’re radical liberal political organizations and they’re using the money of the unsuspecting parishoners to advance their liberal political agenda.
DVFO, well said about the mainline churches.
Con. Demo and Moderation,
You said “Name-calling demagoguery never inspires or attracts trust or belief.” Please explain what, in your opinion, inspires and attracts trust. In the last few weeks, it has become abundantly clear that polls alone should determine our platform. Are polls, then, what inspires and attracts trust? In my observations, trust is built upon unwavering principles. You may not agree with me 100% of the time, but you will always know exactly where I stand. In my case (and apparently Craig’s and DVFO’s), the Bible (not the Church, or polls) is the absolute truth and authority for my life.
Additionally, from a biblical perspective, be careful throwing out words like “name-calling demagoguery”. 2 Peter not only warns the Church of false teachers, but emphatically states that the truths of the Bible will never change. If the Bible warns of false teachers (i.e. Interfaith Alliance, NCC, Jeremiah Wright), then I think you would be hard pressed to suppose speaking out against them is inappropriate “demagoguery”.
Do I believe we are called to be committed to the Word of God, yes. Do I believe that the Church is the vehicle used to carry out the mission of the Gospel (i.e. Matthew 28), yes. But the Church does not take precedence over the Bible. If leaders are teaching a truth that does not match up with the Bible, there is a problem. When leaders are willing to promote an openly pro-choice President, which is in contradiction to the Bible, there is a problem.
“I am simply a Christian who seeks to find a congregation that is not hostile to my worldview.” I found this a very interesting statement. Normally I would think that is coming from a person who wants a watered down, liberal, lets just get along, don’t tell me that what I want to do is a sin church.
I never really considered matching a church to my world view. I would normally have considered matching my world view to the church’s. You are very correct that maybe it is time to find a new church home. After all, churches are lead by man. And as such can be consumed by the sins of man.
What fair-minded, God-fearing man would stand in the pulpit and refer to Sec’y of State Rice as “CondaSKEEZA” Rice?
Jeremiah Wright is a racist.
Thinking: The problem with your analysis is that there is a considerable difference of opinion as to what the bible says and what the absolute truths are. You and your ilk believe in YOUR interpretations of scripture and are contemptuous of those that do not. Apparently Mr. Robinson changes religious affiliations like I change my shirts. Do I find that personally offensive as a member of the Catholic faith? Absolutely. Will I seek to condemn him for it as a political matter. No. Why? The government has no business meddling in such a personal matter.
KC: “I never really considered matching a church to my world view.”
Actually, that is what we should do. Let’s just hope that people choose the correct worldview.
Liberals should go to mainline churches that belong to the NCC and Interfaith Alliance, etc. They are liberals and want to support liberal causes. This is the appropriate home for them.. All Democrats belong on one of these mainline churches.
Conversely, all conservatives need to abandon those mainline churches pronto and belong to a conservative church that truly cares about saving souls rather than promoting liberalism.
These churches are where Republicans should be going. It makes no sense for Republicans to be sitting in the pews of liberal churches and donating funds for their “church” to be using to advance Democrat causes.
It makes no sense.
DVFO, again well said.
Moderation,
“There is a considerable difference of opinion as to what the Bible says and what the absolute truths are.” Please provide an example of how my beliefs fail to line up with the Word of God.
I am not contemptuous of those that do not believe my interpretations of the Bible. First of all, if you can demostrate that one of my interpretations are incorrect, I will happily change my stance, as my goal is not to win an argument, but to advance God’s priorities. Secondly, similar to DVFO, while I may disagree with others (even to the point of hating their actions), I am commanded to love them. God has a heart for people and in people and they are his, and therefore, my mission.
Finally, I believe that your appreciation for “religious affiliations” does not line up with the Bible. (Please disagree and articulate your position.) God doesn’t want us to have religion, he desires relationship. Psalm 51 says that God does want a sacrifice or a burnt offering, but instead wants a broken spirit that is repentant. To this point, Jesus sought to remove the religious establishment that was living out of obligation and ritual, rather than out of love. Again, I believe the church is the vehicle that God’s work is accomplished, but it is not the ultimate goal or authority for our lives.
It sounds to me like Moderation has a bit of Catholic elitism going on. If someone doesn’t feel that the actions of the Catholic church (or any other church for that matter) are lining up with Bibilical truths (which every true Christian should believe is absolute truth – there should be no difference), then that person has every right, and even a duty, to seek out a church that does align itself with Biblical truth.
Perhaps Moderation should be more offended by the people who proclaim to be Catholic, but refuse to live by or espouse Catholic beliefs (i.e. Tom Harkin, John Kerry, every Kennedy I can think of, etc.)
I’m sure the next argument will be that these folks do follow those Catholic beliefs personally, but they don’t want to push their beliefs on others.
That is the very definition of moral relativism, which, last time I checked, is a very un-Catholic way of viewing the world.
First, I must wonder what the people of this board have to fear from “other voices’ sounding their opinions??? Is it really that scary to hear what other people have to say on an issue??? Cahtolics, methodists??? moderation, ” My personal view is that leaving the Church is tantamount to a moral abortion” Really, moderation?? Is this the same church that protected and still protects pedophile priests?? Your precious church?? It should disgust you what the catholic church has done.
“I find it odd that you who are contemptuous of those that depart from orthodoxy refuse to hold yourself to the same standards.”
Moderation, hold yourself to your standard, hold you beloved church to your standard, the catholic church is a disgrace to mankind, how many more alterboys have to be molested before you hold you church to the standard that you want to hold mr. robinson for leaving your beloved church.
“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you (Matthew 7:12).”
“CD: You have it wrong. I don’t dislike what these people are doing–I HATE what they are doing.”
“Take it from Richard, poor and lame,
what’s begun in anger ends in shame.
Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard’s Almanac”
Leviticus 19:17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him. ”
The problem is people are too full of hate. This is the true problem with churches, the breed hate.
Silence
Wow – some of these comments sure are out there. Especially Silence’s last sentence…
Maybe we should focus on Craig’s question, “How can we expect a political party to stand on its core principles when our churches kowtow to the liberal left?”
” Leviticus 19:17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him. ”
The problem is people are too full of hate. This is the true problem with churches, the breed hate. ”
Silence: There you liberals go again–deliberately twisting what is said in order to find something to criticize. I emphasized I do not hate these people. I do hate what they are doing. There is a difference.
Funny how it is only cool for liberals to hate. They hate truth and anyone who espouses it.
Your own word deace, and you specifically capatilized the word “hate”. At least have the balls to back up what you write. Don’t be such a coward, own what you mean.
Silence
Silence,
Would the word detest be more politically correct than the word hate? Because I think Proverbs 8:7 accurately reflects my disgust for abortion, gay marriage, and Jeremiah Wright’s words and actions. “My mouth speaks what is true, for my lips detest wickedness.” Or Proverbs 16:12, “Kings detest wrongdoing, for a throne is established through righteousness.” I do not hate anyone, but I do detest evil. We can use buzz words and brand words however you would like, but it will not change God’s view of wickedness. I am not responsible for your life, your decisions, or your actions, but I am responsible for my actions and obedience to the Word of God.
Looks like we’ve got a Catholic Hater on our hands!
Percentage-wise, there are more Protestant ministers accused and convicted of molesting children than there are Catholic priests but the media ignores that. And public school teachers win the gold medal for pedophilia. But they’re “heroes,” so we have to look the other way there, too.
Sin is sin, Silence – Catholics don’t have a corner on that market so buzz off.
Lydia: What amuses me is that the avatars of othordoxy are so willing to condemn others or prattle on about fundamantal truths yet fail to impose those standards upon themselves. Mr. Robinson is a prime example of this type of hypocricy. You just don’t get to leave the Church because of “personal beliefs.” Mr. Robinson is the paragon of milquetoast spineless Christianity of which you complain. Silence–no doubt the Catholic Church has its share of problems, some of which you set out in your post. This does not surprise me at all since the Church is made up of fallible humans (Pope excluded). I look at the Church differently. It preserved knowledge (pagan Greek dogma especially) during the dark ages. It inspired the likes of Nantes, the Duomo of Florence and Sistine Chapel (sorry folks, the Baroque portico of St. Peters totally destroyed the harmony of Bramante’s original design). I could go on–Michelangelo, Palestrina, Bernini. Moreover, its dogma and persistent rejection of fads (Vatican II ???) has provided a moral bulwark against the predations of modernism. Bottom line, Silence. You go to far.
thinking, if the word detest makes you sleep at better better fine, go with it. i don’t need you to be responsible for me, in fact i find it rather insulting that you would even mention it. HATE was not my word, it is the word your buddy brought up and I believe that is what to many people of “religion” truly believe in. Mat 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves”.
You may not thinking, but unforunately, to many people of religion think that way.
Please get over the reverand wright, he was quoting an american ambassdor, you all sound ridiculous trying to pound this into the ground.
Silence
Well, peggy, be proud that there are more prodestant molesting pastors than catholics (but since you said peggy, it is probably not the case, but keep bragging). Really the media is protecting Protestants now instead of catholics, get your story straight peggy, I thought the media hated all religions or did you forget you hypocrite.
Now pegster, go back to hole you came from.
silence
Moderation, you prove yourself ignorant over and over again.
I don’t think Mr. Robinson publicly pointing out the extreme flaws in what the Methodist Church in Iowa is doing right now makes him “paragon of milquetoast spineless Christianity.” In fact, it seems quite the opposite is true. He’s standing up for what he believes is Biblical truth, and that takes a lot of courage.
I’m guessing he probably didn’t point out every reason for his leaving the Catholic Church, and ususally those things are done for a combination of many reasons. But you just refuse to acknowledge that there can be any good reason for leaving a church (especially yours), and that’s just not true.
It’s not like he’s staying home on Sunday mornings. Your persecution of him for going to a protestant church smells of a severe anti-protestant bias.
And the fact that there is more than one church out there not adhereing to Biblical truth (causing the need to change churches more than once) is a condemnation of the state of Christianity today, not Mr. Robinson
Moderation,
“I look at the Church differently…It inspired the likes of Nantes, the Duomo of Florence and Sistine Chapel…I could go on–Michelangelo, Palestrina, Bernini.” Really, the reason you believe in the Church for your eternity and the reason you adhere to its beliefs is because of the Sistine Chapel and Michelangelo? Yes, people in the Church have accomplished great feats, but it seems almost irrational to place your eternal hope in a Church solely because it has had some skilled followers over the past 2000 years.
Thinking: It does no good to try to reason with the liberal mind. They are the ones who consider killing unborn babies to be a good thing and to put a caterpillar in with a terrorist to be torture.
Lydia: I will give you this. I believe in the primacy of the Holy Roman Catholic Church. I also believe that your comments reveal the hypocrisy of most of the bloggers on this post. You want to live in a world of absolutes until those absolutes are applied to you or your ilk.
Thinking: Read my post. It is Catholic dogma that sustains my faith. The Catholic faith has also been the inspiration for great art.
“…it seems almost irrational to place your eternal hope in a Church solely because it has had some skilled followers over the past 2000 years.”
I agree.
How about Jesus as our founder, Jesus giving the keys to Peter (Mt 16:18), apostolic succession, and the Holy Eucharist? Those are much better reasons to place one’s eternal hope in the Catholic Church. Peace.
DVFO, I agree we should be matching a church to our world view – question is though which comes first, the chicken or the egg? In order to form a world view we need to have input from the world. If a person gets a very liberal education, it is likely they will find a liberal church and vice versa. Problem comes in when the church moves left or right. For those with solid convictions, they are left with 2 choices – leave and find another church or stay and fight and try to change it back from within. HMMM- sounds an awful lot like something else that gets discussed on this site…
Here’s your Pablum, Silence:
http://www.catholicleague.org/research/abuse_in_social_context.htm
Peggy, where did Jesus, in giving the keys to Peter, say to place one’s eternal hope in the Catholic Church? I have diligently tried here not to disparage the Catholic Church. Peggy, I don’t want to cause division or personally attack you or your faith, but I do believe there is a higher authority and a greater truth than the Church alone. Additionally, our eternal hope should be in Jesus Christ, not in the Catholic Church. Please do not be offended, simply voicing my understanding of the Bible. Please share your thoughts.
Moderation, you said dogma sustains your faith. Webster’s dictionary defines dogma as “a definite authoritative tenet.” I guess the same question for you, is this where the Bible teaches your sustence comes from? Isaiah 46:4 states that “I [God] am he who will sustain you.” Anything less than God will lead to religion and not relationship.
KC: Exactly, and I was faced with exactly that decision when I saw the ELCA going down the path of defying God’s word and they were going the way of the Democrat party. At one point, they even gave Hillary Clinton and award for her attempt to get universal health care.
They defend and even fund abortions, are moving toward full acceptance of gay marriage and the ordination of gays as well as every other left wing issue.
I decided it is next to impossible to change the church from within largely because of their relationship with the NCC.
There was a Bible-based conservative Lutheran church nearby that did not belong to the NCC and had an official policy of condemning abortion. I took the path of least resistance and have been rewarded mightily since.
I have said on this website for a very long time that it makes no sense for Republican voters to demand more from their political party than their church.
KC,
In some respects, I disagree with your analysis. While it is important to find a church that matches your worldview, your worldview has to first be aligned with the Word of God. It doesn’t make sense to create a worldview apart from God, and then go searching for a church that matches up with what you believe. It’s not a question of what you believe, but what is true. There is absolute truth in our world. For example, it doesn’t matter that I don’t believe in gravity. Regardless of my worldview about gravity, it still exists. Likewise, whether I believe in God or not, it does not change the fact that He still exists. God has an absolute law, and whether I believe them or not, it does not make those truths any less true. As such, our goal is not to find a church that fits our worldview, but rather to find a church that matches the Word of God. A good question to ask is, “are you going to a church that actively preaches the Bible as the inspired Word of God?”
Thinking: Here’s the bottom line for me. Of course scripture forms the basis of my Catholic faith. However, it is the Church’s interpretation of scripture that forms the basis of the Catholic dogma.
still no problem pegster.
Silence
No offense taken at all, Thinking; I welcome your questions.
Jesus is the absolute Head of the Catholic Church but he undoubtedly founded a church and gave Peter his authority here on earth. Mt 16:17-20
Moderation,
Again, I question this though. You say the Church’s interpretation of scripture forms the basis of your Catholic faith. While I think I understand what you’re saying, please show me where the Church should determine the basis for your faith. In Acts 16, it says “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and YOU will be saved.” This is not a command to blindly follow the Church, but an instruction how to personally have relationship with God. I believe eternity is based on an individual relationship with Jesus Christ, not on what a Church believes. Again, the Church is only a vehicle for God’s work to be done (i.e. the great commission, charity, unity, service), and not a place to put your hope. Your thoughts?
Thinking: Your question goes to the fundamental difference between protestantism and Catholicism. I respect your opinion but I choose not invoke the arguments that were the gist of 150 years of religious wars on the European continent. Your cite to Acts 16 is not at all inconsistent with my faith as a Catholic. I put great stock in the cites provided by the always helpful Peggy. I agree that the Church is a vehicle but a vehicle ordained by the Word of God.
Were it not for the Catholic Church, there would be no Holy Bible.
Thinking – “your worldview has to first be aligned with the Word of God” – We can’t form a world view without input. I agree that world view should come from the Word of God. But how do people arrive at that point? Does an environment that fosters a biblical view need to be there first? Or do people see the truth and move there on their own?
Because it is man who stands at the pulpit on Sunday, the congregation can be lead the wrong way.
Churches have changed over the years by a similar method as the schools have been changed. People with a liberal world view found their way into positions of power and influence. They become corrupt thinking they are promoting the Word of God by bending it to meet what they thought society wanted in an effort to drive up membership. In essence many of the churches have moved left in an effort to remain what they thought was relevant. It is exactly what is happening today with respect to gay marriage. The church thinks that is what people want so that is what they are giving the people.
In an effort to understand the Catholic Church, here are some questions I have about the Pope and his infallability. I am not looking for 150 years of war, just clarification.
1) In 2 Corinthians 12:11, Paul says he was not inferior to the most eminent apostles. How is Peter, then, above this? Was Paul incorrect in his statement? If Paul’s words were incorrect, should we throw out the significant portions of the Bible that he wrote?
2) 1 Corinthians 9:5 says that Cephas (Peter) was married and Matthew 8:14 speaks of Peter’s mother-in-law? How does this match up with current Catholic teachings?
3) In Acts 10:25-26, Peter makes it clear that he has not accepted reverance, and states that he is just a man. This is a strong contradiction.
4) Finally, to his infallibility, see Galatians 2:11. Paul says that he opposed Peter to his face because he “stood condemned.” This was after Peter was given the Papal power by Jesus, yet he is condemned. Again, is Paul incorrect in this statement, and should we throw out the writings of Paul then?
This is not good news. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2253431/posts?page=1
Thinking it is interesting that your questions deal with Peter and the “church” that his followers built. many people feel that peter was not the person that christ felt his church should be “built” on.
Silence
Thinking: Your reading of and the inferences you draw from the scripture cites are strained to say the least. Remember, Peter received the keys. Don’t read Matthew out of the Bible.
moderation, you have to remember that the catholic church was built to be a political beast. to help control the roman empire. Silence
Silence: Let’s face it. Any organization is political. As far as the contolling the Roman empire, certainly that was the result but I am confident that was not the intent. As far as your other comments, I draw thick black lines between the sacred and the mundane. Mr. Robinson would like you to believe that politics must be as rigidly doctrinaire as Churches. He’s delusional. Politics involves compromise and inclusion. Robinson’ s view is exclusionary. That’s why the political world he wishes is doomed to failure.
Moderation,
If you are a person of faith, that believes in what the church and Bible teaches us, how can you not apply it in the other parts of your life? I’m a Christian 24/7, it’s not something that I turn on and off like a light switch depending on what room I want to walk into. If that is being exclusionary than I am guilty as charged.
Mr. Robinson: The answer is easy. In the world of politics other people of good faith feel differently. Again, you win in politics by ADDING to your movement, not by subtracting. You are exclusionary. Rejoice that you are a man of conviction but realize your conviction will have its most meaningful recognition within the church. Conversely, that conviction will work against you in politics. Politics is by its very nature IMPURE. That’s why people of faith have traditionally eshewed politics as inherently corrupting of the soul.
“That’s why the political world he wishes is doomed to failure.”
What political world would that be? One that is built on the principles of The Republican Party or the one that forwards a concoction mixed up by some pollster? Politics isn’t just some game that we play, it has real world implications for future generations.
Thinking, allow me to respond to a couple of your points.
The vow of celibacy for priests is a discipline of the Church, not doctrine; it can be changed at any time. Since priests are supposed to represent Christ, they model their lives after his, and Paul’s words in 1 Cor 32 are also supportive of priestly celibacy.
As per Peter’s primacy, take a look at Acts 15 which gives an account of the first Church council, the Council of Jerusalem. Notice that after much discussion among the Apostles the assembly fell silent after Peter spoke – he had the final word. You cite a couple of obscure lines to support your argument but the evidence supporting Peter’s authority far outweighs it (Mt 19:27, Mk 8:29, Lk 12:41, Jn 6:69, etc.)
Gentlemen,
Truth and good should always be the end game. It’s just that simple.
I think you are jumping to conclusions, and frankly I don’t think you know me very well. I’ve worked with a number of Republican candidates of every stripe. I don’t regret any of my past associations, in fact I learned a great deal from those relationships.
So go ahead and paint me as you wish. Call me exclusionary and claim that I want to narrow the Party. It couldn’t be further from the truth. I’m confident that Republicans can win elections by adhering to their principles, you seem to believe differently. So am I the one being exclusionary or are you?
Mr. Robinson: The problem is that you are so confident in your beliefs that you believe that you are the arbiter of what those prinicples should be. There are broad principles for sure like restraint of government, strong defense, personal freedom and fiscal restraint. Other than that let your fellow Repubs be free to work on nuance. In fact, I believe that the Republican party should have room for those who are pro-choice. I actually found the Vatican’s statement today on the issue helpful to the party. Don’t forget, Barbara Bush was one of the early supporters of Planned Parenthood.
“The problem is that you are so confident in your beliefs that you believe that you are the arbiter of what those prinicples should be.”
Actually Moderation, the activist of the Party gather every two years to do that. I’ve only chaired the process once. If you take issue to the Platform of the Republican Party you should work to change it.
“I actually found the Vatican’s statement today on the issue helpful to the party. ”
Mod, what statement? I missed it.
The platform is fine just the way it is. That doesn’t mean that everyone isn’t welcome to vote for all Republicans because a smaller government, with less spending and lower taxes and a pro-growth agenda, a strong national defense with a sane energy policy is best for EVERYONE–even those who don’t know it.
Peggy: Check out the story on Yahoo news. The gist of the article was that there was no condemnation of Obama appearing at ND. Mr. Robinson: Let me ask you straight up: Is there any room in the party for those that are pro choice? I take it that you would still support the party if the platform on abortion was softened? By the way, most politicians pay scant attention to platforms. Unfortunate but true.
I’ll say it again:
Moderation is all about moral relativism. ” In the world of politics other people of good faith feel differently.”
I love how Moderation is so holier than thou when it comes to people who leave the Catholic church for principled reasons, but when it comes to him actually following the teachings of that church (i.e. that there is absolute truth that applies to everyone, such as that abortion is not okay) that goes out the window because he want to grow the party.
Hypocrisy if I’ve ever seen it.
Lydia, In our faith there are no “principled reasons” for leaving the Church. Once you have professed faith in the Church then abandon the Church, the ramifications are profound. I realize the protestant churches treat apostates differently and I appreciate that. Just wanted to set the record straight. Mod, to answer your question, there is no room in the republican party for baby killers. Murder is murder,
“there is no room in the republican party for baby killers. Murder is murder,”
Which brings us back to where we started about the Rev. Wright. The problem is that too many “churches” now brag about their defending a “woman’s right to choose”, such as the Methodist church, the ELCA, the United Church of Christ, the Presbyterian Church USA, the Brethern Church, the Disciples of Christ, the Reformed Church as well as many others.
They are an extension of the Democrat party. Look at the damage done by these “churches”.
The Catholic Church as done precious little to stop the destruction. They have done little to stop the killing of the unborn but they jump in with both feet when it comes to the issue of capital punishment.
They, like Democrats, consider the life of a murderer to be more valuable than that of an unborn baby.
I say, kill the murderers and terrorists and save the babies.
DVFO said:
___”I say, kill the murderers and terrorists and save the babies.”___
_I’d be interested in learning a bit more about just exactly who you are deciding is the murderers who you’d choose to kill._
Up to this point all your demagoguery has been calling Democrats and other Protestants out as murderers because they maybe aren’t as strong about abortion as you are.
Yoou woould KILL people whose party choice is different than yours? KILL people whose church choice is different than yours?
You really need to get a girl friend and take up a hobby.
DVFO-wrong again. The Catholic Church is at the vanguard of stopping abortion. Get your facts right. Lydia–you’re right. I am a moral relativist when it comes to policitics. I am a rigid ideologue when it comes to my faith. The two spheres, the sacred (my Church) and the mundane (my party) can co-exist. I can live with a less pure party, not with a less pure church. Fierce–just what this post needs, another Peggy.
CD: You’re an idiot and the Democrat party is the perfect home for you.
Mod, I agree with so much of what you say. I think we’re in agreement about a lot but having worked with some of these people regarding some of these issues, I KNOW the Catholic church cares far more about the issue of capital punishment than they do the saving of unborn babies.
Just get the two issues be brought into the realm of politics and you will find which issue brings out the most emotion–it’s the saving of murderers–not the babies.
Notice the tolerance of the Catholic church to all these phony Catholic politicians. There is lip service paid to the issue of abortion but no action.
I have full respect for those brave Catholics who fought the speaking by this rabidly pro-abortion “president” we have. The photo of the Catholic priest being helped by the two Baptist ministers is an unforgettable photo but still, most attended Obama’s speech and cheered him. It was a disgrace.
To think that there is never a principled reason for leaving a church (yes, including the Catholic church) is lunacy.
Luther came up with 95 such reasons a few hundred years ago, and I think a few more have come to light since.
Further, if Mod were really a “rigid ideologue when it comes to [his] faith,” he would know that moral relativism doesn’t fly. There are not two spheres to life (political and spiritual), there is just one, and absolute truth applies to everything.
Lydia: I understand that you are protestant and that you have your ideas about your personal relationship with God and you like Luther’s theses. However, you are not a Catholic. I view you, your ilk and Luther as heretics. If you were a Catholic you would understand you don’t get to leave the Church without suffering grave consequences of the soul. So my advice to you is go find your compound in Waco and worship upon your false altars. Once you have converted to the one true Church and are given permission to receive the Holy Eucharist, you can come and talk to me about apostates.
Fine, then go on sinning and trying to buy your way out of it, and never actually reading the word of God or thinking for yourself about whether your church is adhearing to the word of God, and see where that gets you when you die.
I know many Catholics who do have a personal relationship with God and live their lives (other than just on Sundays) in that fashion.
Mod is another story. He thinks if he just goes through the Catholic motions and gets his sacrements periodically, he’ll be saved, but he’s wrong.
A true faith, whether it be Catholic or protestant, is all encompassing in one’s life. The fact that Mod admits that he does not apply his faith to all aspects of his life shows that he lacks true faith.
Lydia: Let me make this very simple for you since you don’t take the time to read my posts. You don’t have the luxury of being pure in politics. Politics is about winning. Winning involves compromise. If you want to be a minority party for the rest of your life, go start your own party of the protestant Taliban and see how far you get. I suggest that you team up with those of us who want a big tent party and have some say in how this country is run. And one more thing, Lydia. Give serious consideration to converting to the one Holy and true Church so you can save your soul.
Mod,
Give serious consideration to caring more about God than you do about men and imperfect institutions run by men. When you actually recognize that you are a sinner and that you can only be saved by the grace and forgiveness of Jesus, then your soul will be save by Him, not by anything you do.
Lydia: Let’s agree to disagree on religious issues. However, in reading your posts, I don’t believe you are suited for the political world. Neither you or I can impose our religious beliefs onto others. You have a problem with that notion. I don’t. So retreat to your church and believe in what you want to believe. Stay out of politics.
So you can go out and impose your faithless, amoral views on the political world without anyone looking over your shoulder, no thanks. I’ll keep doing what I’m doing and calling out political hacks with no real values like yourself and be quite happy doing so.
Lydia believes in fairy tales. That’s where this discussion has to end, because you can’t debate someone who believes in fairy tales.
Until humanity gets over its collective fear of death we’ll never overcome the plague that is religion. We just have to hope we can thwart it when we get the chance.
Lydia fairy tale is her belief she can impose her religious beliefs upon a political system and end up the winner.
Public university grad, Silence?
The whole basis of any “religion” is does it line up with Scripture. There are only two world views. The first world view is that the Bible is completely correct, and there is absolute truth and I need to subject myself to it for his sending his Son to die on the cross and being a loving father. The second is post modernism, which believes in relative truth. In post modernism all truth is the same and God’s truth is allowed to be amended to what I want to believe at any moment. If one holds that truth is relative, then it is impossible to understand the BIblical World view and vice versa. In politics, one must look beyond the party label and see which candidate stands for real truth.
Michael: We’re not choosing pastors, we’re choosing lawmakers. The likelihood of the Democrat being more godly than the Republican is highly unlikely.
DVFO sez: “Michael: We’re not choosing pastors, we’re choosing lawmakers.”
And DV Sir, I salute you as saying something actually above the level of angry adolescent.
How do I live down a compliment from CD?
Can anyone tell me what denominations or non-denominational churches make one acceptable? This is something I’ve been trying to figure out ever since a Christian Alliance board member told me that I was not one of them when he knew nothing about me.
DVFO,
Lawmakers also have to have a foundation on which they vote. And the foundation is based on those two world views. How one lays their foundational values is how one is going to vote. It’s impossible to separate the two because the foundation affects how one thinks. Danny Carroll and I have talked on this issue before and I actually agreed with a legislator on an issue. There may be out there a good democrat who stands for truth, unfortunately that is lacking with most politicians form both. But both seem to compromise to much and seem willing to give some core convictions away.
Anonymous the church that stands for the Bible being the authority is what makes it acceptable not a label.