Is it warming up to McCain or simply being scared to death of an Obama presidency and the Democrats in complete control of all three branches of government. For me it may be the latter.
Gagging as I vote,
Tom

Plenty of progressive Evangelicals support Obama, and for the the very good reason that his policies are far more in line with Gospel principles of economic justice and care for the poor and helpless than are those of McCain, who will perpetuate the sickening hypocrisy and empty promises of the “compassionate conservative” in the White House while sticking it to the poor and the middle class to benefit the wealthiest 1 percent. How anyone who reads the Bible and takes seriously the thousands of injunctions to do justice and to practice economic fairness and to refrain from grinding the faces of the poor can support the greedy, corrupt practices of the Republicans in power simply baffles me. What Bible are you guys reading, anyway? Show me where it says “Take from the poor and give to the rich.” “Turn a deaf ear to the cries of the helpless.” Or even “God helps those who help themselves.”
Your hard hearts are so far from the spirit of Jesus that your example has alienated millions of people from Christianity and the good news of the Gospel. But I guess those are the “non-elect” so they don’t really matter anyhow. No point in carrying the Good News to them or to anyone else, really, is there? Since it’s already been preordained who’s going in the trash bin and who’s going to heaven. Maybe that’s what lies behind many of your political attitudes.

yelladawgNC, I attend a church that spends a lot of time and money feeding the homeless and helping the marginalized. I abhor the fact that many of the republicans have economic philosophies that only make the richest even richer. However, no ammount of poverty in this nation (in which the homeless live like kings compared to some in other nations) can trump 4300 unborn children being murdered every day legally. If a democrat were willing to step out and support the rights of the unborn, I would probably vote for that person, but until then I am regretfully forced to give my vote to the republicans. No democrat is willing to step out and be what I need as a candidate.

“Plenty of progressive Evangelicals support Obama, and for the the very good reason that his policies are far more in line with Gospel principles of economic justice and care for the poor and helpless than are those of McCain, who will perpetuate the sickening hypocrisy and empty promises of the “compassionate conservative” in the White House while sticking it to the poor and the middle class to benefit the wealthiest 1 percent.”
How did the wealthiest 1 percent benefit under the current administration at the expense of the poor? The poor don’t pay taxes, they actually get money back. And nobody is cutting welfare payments are they? Food stamps are still available aren’t they?
“Take from the poor and give to the rich.”
Where was that done?
“No point in carrying the Good News to them or to anyone else, really, is there?”
And you demonstrate that you really don’t understand what you are criticizing especially since I’ve repeatedly mention the importance of sharing the gospel to transform lives.
“Maybe that’s what lies behind many of your political attitudes. ”
That is far from my political attitude but I guess you wouldn’t understand that because I’m just a caricature to you anyway.
“But I guess those are the “non-elect” so they don’t really matter anyhow.”
As Reagan would say, “There you go again.”
“Turn a deaf ear to the cries of the helpless.”
Like the baby left to die on the abortion table?

Tom, if I vote for him, I’ll be gagging while I do it as well.

Writing as a European, I am puzzled that both of the major parties in the US marginalize Christians by supporting (1) right to life after birth but not before birth or (2) right to life before birth but not after birth. We Europeans have our own issues, of course, and you Americans probably can’t imagine having your selection of church staff (literally, even in 2008) being affected by the Queen’s decree. But at least in the US, unlike China, abortion is never required.
Is there a Reformed perspective on this topic? If both the Pres US and our hostess Michelle’s church (I’m guessing) are both Reformed, maybe not. But here is something I find helpful.
As difficult as it may be to accept, a Calvinist view of abortion is that God elected some children to die a physical death in the womb so that they may more soon enter their eternal abode, be that heaven or hell. That does not mean abortion is right. It is evil. But election also applies to the unborn.

I haven’t got time to answer your full frontal assault here, Michele, but let me just say to John that while I understand that abortion is the deal-breaker for him, I’d like him and others who share that view to consider that the desperation of poverty, of being unable to take care of the children one already has, of being unable to work or to travel to a better job because of a lack of affordable day care and of public transportation, of being forced to live in unhealthy, substandard housing in crime-ridden neighborhoods where children attend inferior schools–all these things contribute to women feeling they have no choice but abortion, and all of them can be directly traced to the policies of the Republicans. So if you want to lessen the number of abortions, help women take care of the children they already have. (And, yes, promote policies–as Obama has clearly done–that encourage fathers to take responsibility for their children.)
I’d also like to say that many Democrats, myself included, believe abortion should be safe, legal and RARE. (As to the first two, what good can it do to consign women once more to back-alley abortionists or to put women or their doctors in jail?) As to making abortions rare, to this end we ought to be working hard in conjunction with people of goodwill regardless of party to reduce the need for and the number of abortions. I don’t understand why more of an effort in this regard has not been made, but I suspect it’s because the ideologues on both sides find that just too much political hay can be made by maintaining an uncooperative and intransigent attitude toward those on the other side. In the meantime, poor women and their children continue to suffer.

“‘None of these people want to meet their maker knowing that they didn’t do everything they could to keep Barack Obama from being president,’ the participant said.”
This is a good example of what is wrong with the conservative movement in general. Rather than making someting happen, they are more interested in preventing something from happening. They offer no viable counterview of hope – only an endless harangue of compalints and critiques. Basically, they are showing themselves to be no more than obstacles rather than bridges or any other positive metaphor. I do not believe that God is very interested in what you kept from happening. God seems much more interested in what you are doing to improve life.
Obama is providing a message of hope, with some plans and proposals that make enough sense that people are supporting him. Until the whiners quit whimpering that he is not what they want, they will get less attention. That is unless they choose to pee in the well – to make toxic (as in 2004) the entire process with mis-information and misdirection.

Amen, jestrfyl. That’s why, when I see one of them heading for the well with their hand on their zipper (on this blog or elsewhere) I’m going to do my darnedest to head them off.
And to Rev. Poley: With all respect, your assertion that God elected some children to die in the womb in order “that they may soon enter their eternal abode” strikes me as the kind of abhorrent idea that the brittle logic of Calvinism inevitably leads to. I fervently hope and pray that you never tell the grieving mother of a stillborn child or one who dies from Sudden Infant Death Syndrome that God desired and willed the death of her baby, nor allow her to think so. That is cruelty.

yelladawgNC: Plenty of progressive Evangelicals support Obama, and for the the very good reason that his policies are far more in line with Gospel principles of economic justice and care for the poor and helpless than are those of McCain
Paul: Show me where in the Constitution it allows the federal government to get involved in social welfare. Then show me where in Scripture that the government is suppose to do welfare. Last time I read my Bible, charity was the responsibility of the Church, not the government.
yelladawgnc: How anyone who reads the Bible and takes seriously the thousands of injunctions to do justice and to practice economic fairness and to refrain from grinding the faces of the poor
Paul: Doing justice like not making it harder for the poor to get food, by forcing corn into gas? Economic fairness like overtaxing the rich, which leads them to slow, or stop spending? Do you not realize that when the rich slow or stop spending, people like me (I clean houses for a living) take the hit.
yelladawgNC: Show me where it says “Take from the poor and give to the rich.”
Paul: Show me where the Bible says we should overtax the rich. Oh, wait it doesn’t, but it does say something like “thou shalt not steal…”
yelladawgNC: No point in carrying the Good News to them or to anyone else, really, is there? Since it’s already been preordained who’s going in the trash bin and who’s going to heaven. Maybe that’s what lies behind many of your political attitudes.
Paul: It is obvious that you have absolutely no understanding of Calvinism.
Back to my work situation. I own a house cleaning company. My wife and I are the only employees. We depend on the rich having more of their money so that they will spend it on services like ours. When the taxes on the rich are lowered, we get more work. When they are raised, we loose work.
When the liberals in government force corn ethanol into the gas, they take food off of the tables of people who depend on lower food prices to get by. The price of corn goes up, which does not lower the price of gas, and sense more farm land is devoted to corn, and less to other crops, other foods start to cost more money as well.
All of this is hitting my family rather hard. Because the democrats in congress, and a few republicans in name only are addicted to power, and looking like they care, my family and I will suffer. Obama promises more of the same failed policies that Carter gave us, and no one that supports him cares that it very well could ruin me financially. Show me where that is Good News!!!

I consider myself to be Christian, and political;ly to the right, and have absolutely no intention of ever supporting a liberal, so Obama is not an option for me. But, neither will I support Mc Cain, as he is too liberal as well. Sorry, I can’t get on the Double Talk Express. I will not have any part in putting them in the White House. No, I would not put Ron Paul or Mike Huchabee in either. Both are too liberal on key issues, and no better than McCain. Sorry for the rant.
Vote your conscience, grab your wallets and run for the hills. The late 1970′s are coming back.
Paul

There’s a possibility that the Christians in America will vote for Senator McCain to block a potential Obama Presidency with its radical leftist ideology and to keep the rubber stamp approval of the Democratic Congress from being implemented, but Senator McCain has few friends other than himself.

“I fervently hope and pray that you never tell the grieving mother of a stillborn child or one who dies from Sudden Infant Death Syndrome that God desired and willed the death of her baby, nor allow her to think so.”
If God did not will it, then why did the baby die? Could God have saved it? Why did He choose not to do so?
If God is capable of saving the life of a baby like this and does not do it, does that mean that it is God’s will that the baby die?

“As difficult as it may be to accept, a Calvinist view of abortion is that God elected some children to die a physical death in the womb so that they may more soon enter their eternal abode, be that heaven or hell. That does not mean abortion is right. It is evil. But election also applies to the unborn.”
This isn’t a Calvinist view of the issue, it’s a hyper-Calvinist view of the issue. I’m not and never will be hyper-Calvinist.
The Bible doesn’t address election of the unborn but the assumption is that if God elected some to salvation, they would be saved.

“I’d also like to say that many Democrats, myself included, believe abortion should be safe, legal and RARE. ”
But none of your policies support that.
“I’d like him and others who share that view to consider that the desperation of poverty, of being unable to take care of the children one already has, of being unable to work or to travel to a better job because of a lack of affordable day care and of public transportation, of being forced to live in unhealthy, substandard housing in crime-ridden neighborhoods where children attend inferior schools–all these things contribute to women feeling they have no choice but abortion, and all of them can be directly traced to the policies of the Republicans.”
You make it sound like the poor are the only ones who are getting abortions but I know the truth (because I know people who’ve had them plus there are websites where people brag about having one and why). It’s a form of birth control for those who thought the withdrawal method actually works. It’s a way to get rid of a downs syndrome baby. It’s a way to get rid a child that you really don’t want regardless of your circumstances. There may be plenty of women who get them because they can’t afford to support the kid, but not 40 million of them. 40 million abortions doesn’t sound very rare to me.
“I don’t understand why more of an effort in this regard has not been made, ”
Every heard of crisis pregnancy centers?
“but I suspect it’s because the ideologues on both sides find that just too much political hay can be made by maintaining an uncooperative and intransigent attitude toward those on the other side.”
Like Obama? Who wouldn’t even vote to end late term abortions or protect a baby after it made it through an abortion attempt.

“God seems much more interested in what you are doing to improve life.
Obama is providing a message of hope, with some plans and proposals that make enough sense that people are supporting him. Until the whiners quit whimpering that he is not what they want, they will get less attention. That is unless they choose to pee in the well – to make toxic (as in 2004) the entire process with mis-information and misdirection. ”
Obama doesn’t provide hope to the unborn but I guess they don’t count because they don’t vote.
How did Obama improve the life of baby struggling to live on the abortion table? If you can’t even protect the life of a baby who is outside the womb struggling to live, you’ve lost your way. I will never vote for a party that would allow that to practice to continue.

“Paul: Show me where in the Constitution it allows the federal government to get involved in social welfare. Then show me where in Scripture that the government is suppose to do welfare. Last time I read my Bible, charity was the responsibility of the Church, not the government.”
Amen to that Paul.

“There’s a possibility that the Christians in America will vote for Senator McCain to block a potential Obama Presidency with its radical leftist ideology and to keep the rubber stamp approval of the Democratic Congress from being implemented, but Senator McCain has few friends other than himself.”
Just as you’d expect from a maverick.

“If God did not will it, then why did the baby die? Could God have saved it? Why did He choose not to do so?
If God is capable of saving the life of a baby like this and does not do it, does that mean that it is God’s will that the baby die?”
God has dominion over death, so it is obviously his will that the baby died.

RJohnson: “If God did not will it, then why did the baby die? Could God have saved it? Why did He choose not to do so?
If God is capable of saving the life of a baby like this and does not do it, does that mean that it is God’s will that the baby die?”
Michele: “God has dominion over death, so it is obviously his will that the baby died.”
Then if it is God’s will that the baby die in a miscarriage, is it not also God’s will that other babies die in abortions?

So, verbally flip flopping (something you criticize a certain other candidate for) while continuing to vote most of the straight party line makes one a ‘maverick’, hmm? Odd, the government voting site lists him in the ‘rank and file Republican’ category.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=300071
(And yes, it lists Obama as the same for Democrats. But I don’t hear the word ‘maverick’ used for him very often.)

“Paul: Show me where in the Constitution it allows the federal government to get involved in social welfare. Then show me where in Scripture that the government is suppose to do welfare. Last time I read my Bible, charity was the responsibility of the Church, not the government.”

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

and if you want to haggle over “intent,” as captured by the the federalist papers, the supreme court has agreed with hamilton on this (see united states v. butler).
as for the bible, it’s not the ruling document of this country, as this is not a christian nation, so what it does or does not say about the responsibility of government is completely irrelevant. what it says about how christians should act with charity, well obviously the church is not fulfilling it’s duties or government would have no need to involve itself. step up.
“Paul: Show me where the Bible says we should overtax the rich. Oh, wait it doesn’t, but it does say something like ‘thou shalt not steal…’”
and since this is not a christian theocracy, the government is not bound by anything that the bible says. but by all means, ask yourself “what would mccain do?” the answer: don’t pay your taxes.
“Back to my work situation. I own a house cleaning company. My wife and I are the only employees. We depend on the rich having more of their money so that they will spend it on services like ours. When the taxes on the rich are lowered, we get more work. When they are raised, we loose work.”
choose a different profession. there are ups and downs in every market. it’s a boon for the military industry when republicans are in power, and good for higher-education and research companies when democrats are in power.
“When the liberals in government force corn ethanol into the gas, they take food off of the tables of people who depend on lower food prices to get by. The price of corn goes up, which does not lower the price of gas, and sense more farm land is devoted to corn, and less to other crops, other foods start to cost more money as well.”
that’s an uninformed thing to say, especially when you fail to educate yourself on bills like the energy policy act of 2005passed by republicans, and signed by bush, which among other things:

“Increases the amount of biofuel (usually ethanol) that must be mixed with gasoline sold in the United States to 4 billion gallons by 2006, 6.1 billion gallons by 2009 and 7.5 billion gallons by 2012″

the first major legislation requiring gas additives happened over 10 years ago. the recent major food price increase is tied to the higher price of gasoline that has gone from under $2 to over $4 in the past few years while bush has been in office.
as npr reported in 2007:

U.S. farmers will plant more acres of corn this year than at any time since 1944, according to new data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. While plantings of soybeans, cotton, and rice are all down, the Agriculture Department projects that 90.5 million acres of corn will be planted this year — 15 percent more than in 2006. The trend is tied to the boom in demand for ethanol, which has pushed up the price of corn.

if farmers grew this much or more corn in 1945, and food prices adjusted for inflation were lower then, how will spin that? farmers are not mandated to grow corn, they choose to. i realize it will be hard for you to understand this, but the demand for ethanol from corn is only a minuscule part of the increase of other foods. high gas/oil prices are a bigger problem. oil prices are even driving up the price of steel and iron.

“Then if it is God’s will that the baby die in a miscarriage, is it not also God’s will that other babies die in abortions?”
It would not happen if it wasn’t.
Now, let’s just cut to the chase and preempt your little ah-ha moment, shall we? God wills all that happens but he doesn’t absolve us of our responsibility for what we do. I know that probably doesn’t make sense to you that he wills something and we do it yet we take the blame but it doesn’t have to make sense to us because we’re not talking about the guy next door, we’re talking about the infinite God whose ways are not our ways, whose thoughts are not our thoughts. We can’t understand his ways but we know what he has revealed to us in his word:
Acts 2:23 this man, who was handed over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you executed by nailing him to a cross at the hands of Gentiles.
Acts 4:27 For indeed both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, assembled together in this city against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, 28 to do as much as your power and your plan had decided beforehand would happen.
Clearly what happened to Jesus was part of God’s plan but they are held accountable for their role in Jesus’ crucifixion.
So, I can say that it is not God’s will for mothers to pay a doctor to murder their baby but he does allow them to do so. If it is his will to stop an abortion, he will. Everything that happens in this world (every single event) is under the sovereign control of God.
BTW, Paul anticipates our inherent response to the fact that we are held accountable even though God is in control:
Romans 9:19 You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” 20 But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?”
I believe in a sovereign God because that’s the God who is revealed in Scripture.
I think I’m going to have to make this a canned response since this isn’t the first time I’ve been asked this question on the blog and it probably won’t be the last

RJohnson: “Then if it is God’s will that the baby die in a miscarriage, is it not also God’s will that other babies die in abortions?”
Michele: “It would not happen if it wasn’t.”
Could God stop them if He chose to?

Michele: “Now, let’s just cut to the chase and preempt your little ah-ha moment, shall we?”
LOL…I’m not looking for an ah-ha moment, Michele. I’m just wanting to explore the the concept of God’s will in regards to a variety of things. I have no problem accepting the idea that we are responsible for our actions before God. What I am wanting to explore is the relationship between God’s omnipotence and God’s will. Invariably when something tragic happens, whether it is a flood, a tornado, a car wreck or even an abortion, people being saying that it is not God’s will for such to happen. I have trouble reconciling this notion with the clear teaching of the Bible that God is omnipotent.
In short, as I see it, nothing happens that God does not permit, or will, to happen. Nothing happens that is beyond God’s power to influence, change or halt, as He sees fit. Having the power to change events means that choosing not to exercise that power is equivalent to permitting an event to take place. Further, if we accept the idea of God being the primary cause of everything (which some who emphasize free will may debate), then nothing happens that God does not cause to happen.
The gist of it are these questions:
- Can man do anything that God does not permit him to do?
- If not, then does that mean God permits man to sin?
- If so, then how does that relate to the traditional definition of sin being “that which is against the will of God”?

RJohnson and Michele, that’s an interesting thread between you.
This may be somewhat outside your interests, but something to consider is the concept of constancy and completeness. This is a mathematical concept that it is not possible for a system to be both complete and internally consistent. You only get to pick one. So when you throw around the omni prefix you are demanding God be complete which means you’re bound to run into inconsistencies.
I realize you view God as something outside our reality and beyond our ability to understand, but when you use logic to try and analyze God the system of logical rules you set up will run afoul of this limitation.

Karen, I had similar a question. Basically he’s pro-life so you would think that single wedge issue would be enough for the Evangelicals to vote for him.

“Could God stop them if He chose to?”
Yes of course, that’s why I said:
“If it is his will to stop an abortion, he will.”
“LOL…I’m not looking for an ah-ha moment, Michele.”
You cannot blame me for being a little gun shy given the adversarial relationship I have with the commenters.
“people being saying that it is not God’s will for such to happen”
They may be saying that because they aren’t thinking through the implications of what they’re saying. How could God not be in control of any situation that leads to death since he’s sovereign over death? And I think most Christians do believe that (though I could be wrong).
I should make it clear before I answer your questions that the Reformed believe that in the Bible God’s will is used in generally two different ways (some Reformed think there are three and others think there are four): his decretive will and his preceptive will. The decretive will is God’s secret plan that has to come to pass because he has declared it. Everything that God’s wills will happen, that’s his decretive will. His preceptive will is his declared will in his law and his word (all commands found in the Bible). It’s the way he commands us to live.
“then nothing happens that God does not cause to happen.”
I would say that nothing happens that God has not allowed to happen because God does not cause us to sin, we sin he does not:
James 1:13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. 14 But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire.
“Can man do anything that God does not permit him to do?”
No.
“Can man do anything that God does not permit him to do?”
God allows man to sin.
“If so, then how does that relate to the traditional definition of sin being “that which is against the will of God”?”
This is where the above definition comes in handy. When we say that something is against the will of God, we are saying it’s against his preceptive will (that which he commanded us to do in the Bible). He allows man to sin which is part of this decretive will even though it’s against his preceptive will.

“This may be somewhat outside your interests, but something to consider is the concept of constancy and completeness. This is a mathematical concept that it is not possible for a system to be both complete and internally consistent. You only get to pick one. So when you throw around the omni prefix you are demanding God be complete which means you’re bound to run into inconsistencies.
I realize you view God as something outside our reality and beyond our ability to understand, but when you use logic to try and analyze God the system of logical rules you set up will run afoul of this limitation.”
Though God is beyond our ability to understand, he has revealed enough to enable us to understand something about him. Though God is not bound by the laws of logic, his word is not illogical. And the God revealed is logically consistent, that’s the beauty of Reformed theology.

Michele: “You cannot blame me for being a little gun shy given the adversarial relationship I have with the commenters.”
LOL…no I can’t. Thanks for the explanation.

You’re welcome.