A few American ministers are guilty of misusing their church pulpits.  Apparently, they have completely forgotten God’s original purpose for the use of their pulpits.  Pulpits should be used for the communication of God’s truths to His children.  When a minister or his guest speakers use a pulpit for any other reason, he or she is failing to honor the vows that he or she took.  Therefore, how should ministers and laymen use the church pulpit?  Should politicians be permitted to use church pulpits to promote their candidacy for elected office?  Should ministers be permitted to use church pulpits to criticize political candidates that they do not want to be elected to higher office?  Should people who are living a lifestyle that is unpleasing to God be permitted to speak behind a holy pulpit?

The church pulpit is a sacred place.  But, today, some ministers are using their pulpits for promoting everything but God’s divine plan of salvation.  They use God’s pulpit to promote social and political issues.  These ministers use God’s pulpit to rant and rave about issues that are not near God’s heart.  They even use profanity and disconcerting accusations against others that believe different than them.  The church pulpit should be used to purport the Good News of Jesus Christ, not the selfish desires of politically motivated men who place God second in their lives.  They should be more concerned about preaching sermons that win sinners to Jesus Christ rather than preaching sermons that help their political candidate win the 2008 Presidential Election.  However, most of all, these same ministers should remember that God does not approve of them using His Holy Pulpit to promote issues that do not glorify Him.  Also, when their church members die, God will not permit them to enter Heaven based on who they voted for in the 2008 Presidential Election.  They will be permitted to enter Heaven solely on their acceptance of Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.

The church pulpit is an anointed place.  God’s Holy Spirit resides at the church pulpit as the messenger of His Holy Word that is being preached by His ordained minister.  The Holy Spirit anoints the message of God’s Word as it goes forth to the spiritual hearts of those who are listening.  However, the Holy Spirit does not carry and or anoint messages that would dishonor God the Father, such as the promotion of a minister’s political agenda.  But, some American ministers are dishonoring God with their ungodly sermons that they preach to their congregation.  Sad to say, they apparently do not realize that what they are preaching saddens God’s heart.  In fact, the only thing that matters to God is the number of sinners that are saved at a church.

The church pulpit is an honorable place.  It is a place in the church where only a few select people should be permitted to use as a religious forum.  In fact, everyone who speaks behind a church pulpit with their views on religious issues might not be ordained by God.  Of course, since most politicians are not ordained by God, they should not be permitted to preach their political agendas behind the church pulpit either. There are plenty of public and private arenas for politicians to attempt to get votes rather than in God’s Holy House.  Also, many of the same politicians who use church pulpits as their forum for political agendas are attempting to enact legislation to suppress what is preached inside the doors of the church.  Therefore, American ministers should be extremely careful who they permit to speak in such an honorable place in their church.

The church pulpit is a truthful place.  Everyone who speaks behind a church pulpit must tell the unadulterated truth.  Therefore, since the church pulpit is symbolic of God’s throne, any message spoken behind the church pulpit must be backed by the Holy Scriptures.  However, it is evident that some ministers and or their guests have been less than honest in what they have preached.  This is the reason all church going people must know what is contained in the Bible.  Then, when a minister or his guests do not tell the whole truth, those who read the Bible will know it.  Of course, there is not much that a politician could say that could be verified by the contents of God’s Holy Word.

The church pulpit is a holy place.  It is a place where known sinners should not be permitted to use and to promote their ungodly lifestyle.  It is a place that is symbolic of the Holy of Holies, which was the most holy place in the ancient Hebrew tabernacle.  Of course, if you know what the Bible states about the Holy of Holies, you would know that if the priest was not properly purified before entering this section of the tabernacle, he would be slain by God for his ungodliness.  Therefore, since God is a Holy God, He expects those that represent Him at the church pulpit to be holy, also.  However, in the post-modern Christian world, some ministers and some of the people that they permit to speak behind their pulpits are living abominable lives.  But, these people need to remember once again that it is dangerous to be in the hands of an angry God.

In summary, the church pulpit should be used by ministers and laymen to glorify God. The church pulpit should be viewed as a sacred, anointed, honorable, truthful and holy place to communicate God’s message to His children.  The church pulpit should be used to preach spiritual truths instead of concentrating on social and political issues. The church pulpit should be used by Bible-believing Christians whose purpose is to lead unsaved souls into a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, not politicians who are seeking personal political gain.  The church pulpit should be used to uplift people rather than attempting to degrade them.  Finally, the church pulpit is the central focal point in any church.  Therefore, it should be recognized as the place where God and His holy messengers speak the truths contained in the pages of His Holy Word.

 Dr. Parnell is a retired public school educator and presently teaches social science courses at a private, Christian high school in Georgia.  He is the author of From Schoolhouse to Courthouse: Exposing America’s New Terror From Within (Wheatmark Publishing, ISBN: 1-58736-613-4).  He is also a guest columnist on several online websites.   

America is entering a brand new era. For the very first time we might elect a black president. God bless America. We have awaited this occasion since the struggling days of the Civil Rights Movement led by Dr. Martin Luther King. It is most unfortunate that Senator Barack Obama was the one chosen for the honor, however.

The Democrat National Party picked a man who was not sufficiently scrutinized and vetted. The truth is that Obama is not the suitable uniter for our country. In fact, it is quite likely that he will turn America upside down, bringing about divisive racial retrogression.

Do not question why you may be feeling uncomfortable with Obama. He is the epitome of what we’ve seen through the prism of those with whom he has chosen to associate for over twenty years.

If you are a person of faith, God has given you the gift of spiritual intuition. Use it wisely. Everyone has common sense. Obama said he resigned his membership from Trinity United Church in Chicago “with some sadness.” He also said he was not going to denounce the church that has caused so much pain and ambivalence for so many, including Democrats.

Some Americans are highly insulted by the church congregation that delights with flagrant jubilance while listening to pastors viciously attack their own country while mocking and insulting other people. Their behavior is not Christ-like. Americans must understand that Black Liberation Theology is not Christianity. It is a perversion of the Gospel of Christ.

Both Michele and Barack Obama took Black Liberation Theology studies before they were allowed membership at Trinity United. Their views were formed long before they ever stepped through the doors of a church whose pastor would further indoctrinate them with his own bigoted, anti-Semitic, anti-America doctrine.

Rev. Jeremiah Wright had a politically Marxist agenda shrouded in a false theology. Barack and Michele Obama bought into it because it felt familiar and comfortable to them. They also accepted every political gain that was afforded them by virtue of their association with Wright.

The fact that Obama has left Trinity says that he will do whatever it takes to play out his political hand. Obama has not denounced Black Liberation Theology, and therein lies the real story. He will probably wait until after the election in November before he joins another church that teaches the very same theology being taught at the Trinity United Church of Christ.

The twisted, unscriptural teachings of Rev. James Cone, the founder of Black Liberation Theology is the same man who demands that Jesus Christ become a Marxist. Dr Cone’s theology effectively portrays white churches in America as the Antichrist. He would have all white people despised by all of black America. Rev. Cone is a close friend of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and Trinity’s creed is centered around Cone’s teachings, as well as other black liberation “theologians.”

It is not unfair to make the assumption that Sen. Obama holds the same beliefs as his religious mentor, Rev. Wright. Obama and his wife remained in Trinity until it was no longer politically expedient. He then left to grab the gold ring on the political carousel.

In his book, “Black Power and Black Theology,” Rev. Cone states: “What we need is the divine love as expressed in black power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal.”

Obama’s writings are spiritually linked to the “religious left,” who have no difficulty with late-term abortions and agendas that are contrary to biblical teachings.

As president, Obama would be able to revitalize enormous powers and galvanize black churches across the country, effusing them with the poison of Black Liberation Theology. It is possible that if Obama becomes America’s first black president, advances in race relations gained through the Civil Rights Movement will become severely damaged.

Listen to your troubled mind. What we’ve seen throughout the divisive Democrat campaign has indeed been all about race. Reflect upon the words that came from a disrespectful and bigoted man who had the nerve to demand that “God Damn America” and blame the United States for what took place on September 11th, 2001.

Excerpts from National Review; The Gospel According to Barack Obama:

“At this rate, Barack Obama will have repudiated every one of his friends in Chicago by November.

“First, he claimed that as long as he belonged to the church the controversial views of its pastors and guest preachers would be unfairly imputed to him. Perhaps so. But the real question is how Obama could have been a member of the church for 20 years — and accepted the Rev. Jeremiah Wright as a personal spiritual mentor — without appreciating the radical ‘Black Liberation Theology’ that is at the church’s heart. Obama’s claim to be innocent of Wright’s radicalism is not credible.

“…The fact is Obama didn’t feel obligated to do his fellow parishioners this courtesy until dumping Trinity became a political imperative for him.

“Obama has slowly walked away from the church as political calculation has dictated. When the first videos of Wright damning America surfaced, Obama compared him to an obnoxious but harmless uncle and gave a widely acclaimed speech in Philadelphia, saying he could no more repudiate Wright than he could repudiate the black community or his own family.

“Now, Obama the presidential candidate — selling the soothing politics of unity and inspiration — has carefully pirouetted away from his former church. But he has yet to give a full, honest accounting of his relationship to Wright and Trinity. The public and the press should demand one.”  Full Article
Obama shares Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s views. The dismal excuse that he did not know what was going on at Trinity United Church of Christ, is too much the suspension of disbelief. “It is inconceivable that Obama was not aware of all of this.” — Stanley Kurtz

Obama’s connections to the radical far left, which also includes a false racist’s religious theology, should be rejected by American voters. It will be up to the (Ronald Reagan) Blue Dog Democrats, Independents, and conservative Republicans to make sure that Obama is defeated in November.

Related Readings:

The Real Agenda of Black Liberation Theology

Obama’s Mentor’s Mentor

Obama & The Religion of Race War

The Democratic Party — Rev. Otis Moss Speaks at a Black History Month Event

“Rev.Otis Moss is a new generation of Prophetic Leadership. It was a truly remarkable speech that discussed the intergenerational dynamics of political activism within the Black Church Community. Reverend Moss spoke with great passion about the challenges facing the faith community in the years ahead as politics and time change circumstances.” 

Marie is a political/religious-based writer and founder of www.DrawingClose.org — a sister website to RenewAmerica.

Like an over-hyped TV reality series that finally came to an end, Hillary has conceded the Democratic nomination race to Barack Obama. This past Saturday the Democratic Rules and Bylaws Committee drove the final nail in the coffin, declaring the vote of the Florida and Michigan delegates would only count for half. 

Predictably, the let-every-vote-count ladies were livid. “Someone wins, someone doesn’t win, that’s life,” wailed Maryland treasurer Nancy Knopp. “But women don’t want to be totally dissed.” 

Everywhere I turn, liberal women have lapsed into a deep funk. Katie Couric turned the CBS Evening News into a therapy hour. Female columnists ask dark questions about the state of the national psyche. After all, this was the year women were destined to elect the first female president and make up for 200 years of patriarchal oppression. 

In the liberal mind, every adversity and setback can be blamed on a conspiratorial presence. Be it global warming, racism, classism, or sexism, a dark miasmatic force always can be singled out.  

For Hillary, sexism is the demon that requires a daily exorcism. In a May 20 interview with the Washington Post, Clinton hit the supposed sexism in media coverage of her campaign as “deeply offensive to millions of women.” 

Former vice-presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro became so worked up over the issue that she has ponied up her own money for a full-blown study. As we know, Ferraro is an enlightened guru on racial tolerance, having revealed a few months ago that “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position.” 

So let’s commence the Long March to examine how entrenched sexism spelled Hillary’s defeat. I’ll warn you, though, that this discussion will quickly turn into a murky exercise of Freudian psychology. As we know, unconscious gender bias is always lurking in the shadows — so be careful about those eye-blinks, leg twitches, and crossed arms! 

But really, folks, this is serious stuff – so exactly where’s the beef? 

For starters, some pundits made unflattering comments about Mrs. Clinton’s cackle. But was that really sexist? Or was it just a colorful way of referring to her loud and silly laugh? 

And then the cleavage commentary. Those remarks can be traced back to a July 20 column by Washington Post fashion editor Robin Givhan. Has sexism become so embedded in our culture that even women fall prey to its allure?  

In February Jack Nicholson exclaimed, “Hillary is the best man for the job.” During an Indiana rally, Hillary did a take-off on Nicholson’s endorsement, bragging, “real men vote for Hillary.” 

That comment was clearly insensitive to the ladies in the crowd because she said nothing about “real women,” right? 

Last month at a gathering of sheet metal workers, Sen. Evan Bayh described Hillary as having “testicular fortitude,” a characterization that she did not resist. Then Hillary booster James Carville bragged that if she gave Obama “one of her cojones, they’d both have two.” 

A couple months before Rush Limbaugh made a wisecrack that “Mrs. Clinton’s testicle lockbox is big enough for the entire Democrat hierarchy.” 

So were those comments sexist, or merely an example of the spirited discourse that marks any hard-fought political campaign?  

Oh, and before I forget, there was Barack Obama’s gaffe to a female reporter in Detroit: “Hold on a second, sweetie.” Now there’s REAL sexism. 

If we look at the other side of the coin, Hillary has some S-word skeletons in her own closet — like the time she dismissed Southern white male voters with the vulgar, “Screw them. Let’s move on.” 

And her sense of humor sometimes comes across as a gender put-down: “When I look at what’s available in the man department, I’m surprised more women aren’t gay,” she once quipped.  

(Lest you think that gibe is humorous, try switching the language: “When I look at what’s available in the woman department, I’m surprised more men aren’t celibate.”) 

The truth is, Hillary didn’t lose the nomination because of sexism. All the polls showed the great majority of voters said the candidate’s sex was unimportant – and those voters who said gender does matter tended to side with Mrs. Clinton. Whatever sexism existed worked in her favor. 

Clinton lost her historic bid because her message was shrill, her strategy flawed, and in the end her public persona became inauthentic. 

So before we launch into any “long overdue dialogue” on sexism, maybe we should recognize it for what it is — a con-job by the purveyors of the politically correct.

-By Warner Todd Huston

Over the weekend, the London Times gave us a foolish headline for a foolish story. The trumpeting headline read, “A seismic shift in China’s relations with West?” This would be momentous news if true of course. But this supposed “seismic shift” was made up of whole cloth, not of any proof of actions by China otherwise. Instead of a story citing a series of decisions given a suitable amount of time to prove that China really has made some sort of shift in relations, it’s all built on an ego stroke the Chinese gave western reporters. This “seismic shift” only exists in the uncritical minds of the western press because they had an easier time of covering this story with less of the usual Chinese restrictiveness. So, they now assume, because the Chinese gave the western press a few minutes of unexpected face time, this must suddenly mean there is a “seismic shift” in relations between the oppressive, murderous Chinese government and the west? The assumption is as simple-minded as it is stupid.

I don’t often get as downright blatant as this, but sometimes one has to just come right out and say it — the western media is filled with stupid people. If this story doesn’t make you a believer that too many in the media don’t have the good sense God gave a common rock, nothing will ever convince you. This story has it all; self-congratulatory arrogance, ignorance of history, foolishness, blindness and the willful appeasement of one of the worst, most oppressive governments in human history.

The story started off as if being told by a rock star’s groupie telling her drugged out pals that she was allowed backstage to see her idol for a little face time.

Our correspondent was allowed personal access to China’s Prime Minister as he pledged openness and invited foreign journalists to a town at the epicentre

Apparently the reader is supposed to gulp in amazement that the Times’ correspondent “was allowed personal access to China’s Prime Minister.” “Gosh,” you are supposed to say to yourself, “how wonderous!” Feel blessed… the Times seems to.

Then we get the novelist’s treatment of the supposed deep, heartrending feelings publicly displayed by a man who has ordered the execution of thousands of his citizens, the military oppression of millions of those under his protection, the forced sterilization of millions of his countrymen, and the imprisonment and torture of those who hold different religious beliefs than those approved by the state.

The public face of the world’s emerging superpower gazed at the hill above him, its forests reduced to gashes of earth and rock by landslides dislodged in the massive earthquake.

Ashen-faced, he appeared genuinely awestruck by the power of nature and the extent of the tragedy surrounding him as he stood in the town nearest to the epicentre.

“Once, this was a very beautiful valley. This is a place where pandas live,” said Wen Jiabao, China’s Prime Minister. The Yingxiu Middle School was a tumbled heap in the background, its classrooms tilted at crazy angles, crumpled one on top of the other. Hidden from sight on the hill to which Mr Wen pointed are the common graves where some of the 8,600 who died in this county of 13,000 have been buried.

Yes, the Times wants us to know Jiabao cares about Pandas and everything. Gee, now we can forgive all that murder and stuff that Wen Jiabao and his government are responsible for. I feel better already. Don’t you?

But, the Times’ sycophancy just gets worse.

In an unprecedented departure for this tightly screened leadership, he invited a small group of foreign journalists – including just a single newspaper correspondent, from The Times – to join him. The group was flown in by military helicopter, an openness unheard of in China. The air force navigator on the flight was so surprised that he asked all 13 foreigners on board for their autographs.

Yes, how special.

The Times is all a gush about how neato the kindly Jiabao was to them. He made them feel so special. I wonder if they had a thrill run down their legs?

Within minutes of touching down in this narrow valley, the Prime Minister wanted to hold an impromptu press conference. He usually meets the foreign media only once a year, after the annual session of the rubber-stamp parliament, a stage-managed event with no surprises in the script. Since China’s most destructive earthquake of modern times struck this mountainous region on May 12, Mr Wen has been full of surprises.

He was eager to speak to overseas reporters, whom the party usually treats with deep suspicion. “Let a foreign journalist ask the question,” he said to the Chinese who have daily access. He even kept Mr Ban waiting for several minutes so that he could finish his answers.

And, golly, the Times even thinks Jiabao is suddenly just like leaders in democratic countries!

Mr Wen’s embrace of a style of leadership more commonly associated with politicians in democratic countries, worried about their election prospects, is unlikely to be the action of an individual. Chinese leaders do not make such radical shifts from usual practice without a great deal of thought and a meeting of at least some members of the nine-man Politburo Standing Committee that rules China.

The fools at the Times imagine that China is suddenly going to be a new and improved, more democratic, kinder and gentler nation. Why it must be the plan, they foolishly think. After all, Jiabao talked to them like he was their pal!

He took the opportunity of Mr Ban’s visit to voice China’s gratitude to the international community for its sympathy and help. “This is not only a tragedy for China but for all mankind.” And he said China would not waver from its policy of transparency. “We will hold permanently to our policy of opening up.” This may be a sign that, with the Beijing Olympics only 73 days away, China wants to cool the nationalist, antiWestern sentiment that has erupted since international criticism of Beijing’s handling of the riots in Tibet in March.

All this undue praise for something that has not happened is because Wen Jaibao gave them a few minutes in one instance for the first time to openly ask questions. There is no record here, just this one instance in an extraordinary time where the normal strict standards were lossened. The arrogance of the press has made a Chinese thaw seem immanent where no history could lead anyone to such an assumption. Because Jaibao talked to them, slapped them on the back, told them he thought they were just the best ever, seemingly in a less guarded and structured situation… well hallelujah there is a new era afoot. The iron curtain has fallen, there is peace in our times.

But what is the real reason this supposed loosening of rules for foreign journalists occurred? Propaganda. Plain and simple. And Jiabao has proven to be a master at the art.

There is no “new era,” no “shift” seismic or otherwise. This monumental natural disaster has handed the Chinese the perfect opportunity for propaganda. Let’s look at some of the things that Jiabao told the dupes in the western press.

“Let a foreign journalist ask the question”– Flattery will apparently get you everywhere with the starstruck dupes in the western media

“This is not only a tragedy for China but for all mankind.”– Ah, the good old we-are-the-world speech! Good “uncle Wen” is telling us that he is just like us. Just a common citizen of the world saddened by this tragedy. Why we should let our guard down and accept him as just a regular guy.

“We will hold permanently to our policy of opening up.”– A unsupported claim not proven by time or history, yet swallowed whole by a willing media.

And finally this bit of plaintive doggerel:

“Where we stand now is the epicentre of the great Wenchuan earthquake and in this county 13,000 have lost their lives. But you can see our fellow countrymen are already getting back on their feet. Let the world’s people remember the devastating earthquake, remember the lost lives and remember the brave fight of the people in the quake-hit regions and nationwide against the disaster.”

And gosh darn it, the Times assures us he was really, really heartbroken here.

But Mr Wen certainly looks as if he is speaking from the heart. He wore the crumpled navy blue zip-up jacket that he donned when he first flew down to the earthquake-devastated area just two hours after the tremor. His expression was solemn, his lips pursed and a frown creased his face. It is a display of concern that has won him nationwide support and inspired and comforted survivors.

This is all such saccharine-like junk. Seems like sugar, but it ain’t. But the western media has bent over backwards to give the oppressive Chinese government this bright shining moment of perfect propaganda. They have allowed themselves to be pimped out by some of the worst killers in history.

There are times when labeling westerners with the epithet of “fellow traveller,” or “appeasers,” and “sympathizers” seems hackneyed and stale. It can also be a fact that using such epithets meant to imply that a westerner — whether it be a politician, an activist or a media outlet or reporter — is a willing participant in communist propaganda misses the mark or is sheer hyperbole. Additionally, sometimes using such throw away names causes a boy-who-cried-wolf effect making listeners who’ve heard this kind of name calling too often roll their eyes and wonder if you see commies under your bed at night? Sometimes calling them a commie just defeats your argument.

Then there are times when the castigation is a dead on assessment.

This is one of those times.

Yes, the western media is filled to overflowing with really foolish, easily led, dupes with assumptions of grandeur. And good ol’ “uncle Wen” knows just how to twist them around his little finger.

Now, if ten or twenty years from now, a long series of incidents and policies prove that Jiabao was not just blowing smoke makes it obvious that he was, indeed, telling the truth, well, then you can write an article that pegs this devastating earthquake as a turning point in Chinese history. You can even paint Wen Jiabao as a visionary Chinese leader. But for now there is absolutely no proof whatsoever that this is a “seismic shift” in anything but the childish, gullibility of the western press. And it isn’t a shift to anything good, either.

Peace in our times and “seismic shifts.” Ain’t it grand?

(Photo credit= www.theage.com.au)