Letters from Paul

Recently, with the ongoing debate about the mosque in New York, religion has once again been put in the spotlight of politics.  As a pastor, I do not believe it is correct to preach sermons that address political issues, but rather it is my calling to preach scripture and its application to personal lives.  With that being said, this is a blog not a sermon and it has come to light that our current president has put forth several questions such as, “Whose Christianity would we teach in the schools, James Dobson’s or Al Sharpton’s? Which passages of scripture should guide our public policy?” 

What I find most interesting when considering President Obama’s questions, is not that he would ask them, but rather why doesn’t the average church goer know how to respond to such accusations.  There is no doubt that the president and I do not share the same views when it comes to scripture, but what is clear is the lack of biblical teaching in many churches today has left the people speechless.

For many, what is taught and preached from the pulpit are topical sermons.  This occurs when the pastor simply has a subject or a topic that they want to present to the congregation.  In order to present the topic, the pastor will then look up single verses throughout scripture which support his view or belief concerning the topic.  What is unfortunate is that very little attention is paid to the context in which the passage was written.  When this occurs, our churches tend to know lots of quick references to passages, but our churches possess very little biblical knowledge.  This is exactly the case when it comes to Obama quoting scripture out of context and the response is simply applause from a Biblically illiterate crowd and silence from the church.

Perhaps you might think this is old news and I realize that President Obama’s comments were made four years ago, but for many it has just come to light recently.  These are the questions Obama asked on June 28, 2006 at the “Call to Renewal” conference.  

Which passages of scripture should guide our public policy?
Should we go with Leviticus which suggests that slavery is OK and eating shellfish is an abomination?
OR
Could we go with Deuteronomy which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith?
OR
Should we just stick with the Sermon on the Mount, a passage that is so radical, it is doubtful that our own defense department could survive its application?

The first issue that stands out immediately to me, and it should to you as well, is that the topic Obama is addressing is “What kind of CHRISITIANITY should we teach,” and yet; President Obama’s first three issues are not dealing with Christianity.  The first five books of the Bible are the Torah or Law.  This is Jewish Law.  If the president wanted to discuss Judaism, perhaps he went to the right place, but that is not the topic at hand.  President Obama is simply taking the passages out of context and in turn distorts the Christian faith.  With that in mind, let me simply look at each issue that President Obama brought up.

Slavery:

It is clear that the president either knows nothing about slavery in the Old Testament or he is simply playing on the ignorance of the crowd.  Although slavery, the buying selling of human beings as property, has been going on throughout history; that is not the practice that Leviticus is addressing.  Perhaps Obama is only familiar with the practice of slavery as it was in the west.  Jewish slavery occurred primarily when a Jewish person had debt and in order to pay it off, he would SELL HIMSELF into slavery in order to pay his debt.  The three primary forms of slavery were either self, family, or indentured servitude.  Slaves were not bought and sold as a benefit to the rich.  What is most surprising to many is that slavery in the Old Testament was a benefit to the poor.  Slavery was a way out of poverty.  It was guaranteed employment, food, shelter, and protection.  Slaves were to be treated as people . . . as individuals.  In fact, the Bible never refers to slaves as property.  Unlike the western practice of slavery, a Hebrew slave could conduct business, borrow money, own property, and buy their freedom.  There were also other benefits that a slave had, but another one that is worth mentioning is that some slaves wanted the relationship (slave and master) to continue for the rest of their lives.  This was not the decision of the master, but the slave, therefore; scripture addressed how both the slave and owner were to make the bond permanent. 

Eating shellfish:

Again, this does not describe Christianity.  If Obama wants to look at dietary rules or laws of Christianity – why not go to Acts 10 where God puts before Peter all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air and says, “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.”   

Stoning a child in Deuteronomy:

Once again – This is Judaism, not Christianity.  For the sake of the president and those who applauded, let’s look at this issue.  Is this really foreign to us?  I cannot stress this enough, “Context is important.”  Before I discuss this issue on a personal note, I will simply state that as a Christian, the death of one who leads others away from God, pales in comparison to the loss experienced by families, communities, and nations who turn from God, but for the sake of the president and others who were shocked at this discovery, let’s put the topic in context. 

Benedict Arnold is a name that most are familiar with.  It is the name of a man who betrayed his country and it is a name which no one wants to be associated.  Benedict Arnold was a general in the revolutionary war, and yet; he worked for the British.  He turned on the very people that were fighting for his freedom?  How could someone do this?  Surely, this type of behavior should be dealt with harshly, and it was. For his actions, Benedict Arnold  was hung. 

When it comes to Deuteronomy, the people of Israel are reminded what God has done for them and instructed  before they enter the Promise Land (remember, this is a new generation).  For Israel, God had brought down the most powerful government in the world, Egypt.  He delivered Israel, led them, provided food, kept them hydrated, and was now about to go into a land and give Israel victory over nation after nation.  Scripture says they would live in homes they would not even have to build.  They would eat crops from fields they never had to work.  So, they were getting all of these gifts and if one turned on God, led others to leave God, BETRAYED THE ONE WHO FOUGHT FOR THEM, then that person would die for betrayal.  I wonder why Obama failed to put it in context. 

What about the Sermon on the Mount comment?

Could our Defense Department survive?  Even though the president is not specific concerning which passage he is referring, I presume that he is making reference to Matthew  5:38-42 in which it is written that we are not to resist the one who is evil and that we are to turn the cheek if someone were to strike us.  Perhaps he was referring to Matthew 5:43-48, which instructs us to love our enemy.

Let me first say, it doesn’t matter which of these passages that the president was referring to and it would not matter if he referred to other passages within The Sermon on the Mount and attempted governmental application.  The sermon was not addressed to governments . . . it was addressed to individuals. 

I wonder why the president didn’t refer to Romans 13:1-7 and make reference to the Defense Department, because this passage does explain the role of the government.

¹Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. ²Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. ³For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, ⁴for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. ⁵Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. ⁶For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. ⁷Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.

I wonder why the president didn’t refer to 1 Peter 2:13-14

¹³Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution whether it be to the emperor as supreme, ¹⁴or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good.

How would our defense Department survive?  One does not have to be a Greek scholar to understand that the government is to be an institution for good and the government is to bring judgment on those who “do wrong.”  The government does not bear the sword (automatic weapon, tank, nuke) in vain.

What is somewhat surprising is that after Obama makes these grave errors in proclaiming scripture, he made this comment, “Before we get carried away, let’s read our Bibles now.” 

I have a few questions.

How does the president read the Bible and vote pro-abortion?  Evidently the president is worried about stoning children, and yet; he is supportive of between 1.5 million and 2 million abortions in our country annually.  I wonder if Obama ever read Psalm 139:13-14.

“For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb.  I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.”

I realize that poverty exists and we should help those with less,  but where does scripture talk of simply giving people money and requiring nothing from them.  I have never  heard President Obama speak about 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15.  I think many will be surprised that it clearly says.

“If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.  For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work, but busybodies.”

Has the president read his Bible when it comes to illegal immigration?  How does the president and others simply ignore the word, “illegal?”  Scripture is clear that individuals are to be submissive (subject) to the governing authorities.  When one is illegal, one is breaking the law.  I again refer to Romans 13 when it clearly states:

²Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. ³For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. 

Why is there even a discussion, if we have read scripture, concerning homosexual marriage?  I realize that this practice has been going on since biblical times, but when the government steps in and endorses sinful, unnatural, and dishonorable relationships, we ought to be ashamed.  In no way am I endorsing violence towards homosexuals, but again, let’s be sure that we read scripture such as Romans 1:27b.

“men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.” 

So I would like to know since scripture is clear that there is “due penalty” for this lifestyle, how is it loving or caring for our leaders to endorse this type of behavior and sanction it within the institution of Holy Matrimony?

I wonder, as a Christian president, why are these instructions in the New Testament ignored?  The question is not, “Which Christian principles should we apply?”  The question is, “When is the president; when is the church; when are individual Christians going to pursue and embrace Biblical literacy and proper Biblical application?”  I realize that there are differences among theologians, but the issues addressed here are not deep doctrinal issues, but rather very basic social issues in which the authority of God’s word is quite clear. 

1.  You shall not murder – you shall not even be angry with your brother (abortion)
2.  An idle person will suffer hunger (government handouts)
3.  The government is not a terror to good conduct, but to bad (all illegal conduct)
4.  God gave them up to dishonorable passions (homosexuality)     

I am not endorsing Dobson’s nor Sharpton’s Christianity.  It does not belong to them.  It is of God.  Please Mr. President, church, and believer . . . read the Bible . . . and read it in context.