8/30/2004 06:26:00 PM|W|P|Jon Fortt|W|P|The following post comes from David Tieche, my best friend and an awesome Christian high school teacher from whom I hope you'll read a lot more around here: There aren’t too many things that drive me up a wall. I mean, I have a few pet peeves (like toast crumbs in the butter, strange long hairs on the soap, etc), but most of the time, I’m pretty chill. I guess you kind of have to be when your job is to deal with teenagers all day. I don’t know it it’s because it’s an election year or what, but I have been hearing and seeing things lately that have been driving me crazy. I mean, they bother me so much that I have literally lost sleep, my mind racing in anger and confusion and frustration. So, I’ve attempted to highlight four things that I have seen in Christian circles lately that really bother me. I list them only because I care probably more than anything about the local church. I want to see her become powerful, wonderful and beautiful bride that I know she can be, and these things just make her look rather ugly. 1: CHURCHES WITH FLAGS INSIDE THEIR SANCTUARIES I am mildly uncomfortable with having American flags inside a church, period, especially in a place as diverse as San Jose, CA, with people from all sorts of nations. It kind of sends the message that to be Christian means to be American. But whatever. We live in America, so I’m okay with it. However, the idea of a church having an American flag inside a sanctuary crosses over into really dangerous spiritual ground. It suggests that somehow the Cross is on the same level of a nation’s flag. This is ridiculous at best, heretical at worst. It also might send the message that God plays favored-nation status: that He somehow likes America better than, say, Sudan. The flag is not our hope. The flag does not save us. And this nation, as great as it is, is not the vessel God chose to save the world. 2: CHRISTIANS WHO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES STRONGLY WITH ANY POLITICAL PARTY: Imagine you went to the church where the pastor was an alcoholic and he preached and spoke openly about his love of imbibing massive amounts of Guinness and Jagermeister to the point of absolute inebriation. You’d cringe. Why? Because the pastor has chosen to identify and align himself with something that is fundamentally not of God, and everyone knows it. I think something similar happens when Christians boisterously identify themselves as Republicans or Democrats. Neither party is holy. They’ve both got good things going for them, but as far as institutions go, they’re a far cry away from that demand that Jesus made to “be Holy as your Heavenly Father is holy.” We all know that politics is often a dirty, corrupt game. So why would you tie yourself, and Christ, to something that’s not holy? The better approach, I think, would be to tie yourself to Christ, and that which is holy. And point out all the good things that Republicans are trying to do, and all the good things that the Democrats are trying to do. And point out all the bad ideas that the Republicans have, and all the bad ideas the Democrats have. Be an equal-opportunity truth-seeker, wisdom extoller and idea-basher. Francis Schaeffer, a French-American theologian and thinker called this process “co-belligerence.” Here’s what he said about it: "Christians must realize that there is a difference between being a cobelligerent and an ally. At times you will seem to be saying exactly the same thing as the New Left elite or the Establishment elite. If there is social injustice, say there is social injustice. If we need order, say we need order. In these cases, and at these specific points, we would be cobelligerents. But do not align yourself as though you are in either of these camps: You are an ally of neither. The church of the Lord Jesus Christ is different from either -- totally different." 3: THE PASTOR TALKING ABOUT POLITICS TOO MUCH This sends the message that the primary way that Christians are supposed to work out their faith with fear and trembling is to go and vote. This is an easy action that requires next to nothing of anyone. John Kerry or George W. Bush is not going to fix the world: only real world Christians doing front-line work is going to do that. And that’s hard work that requires the entire commitment of thousands of souls. Not five minutes one Tuesday. 4: ANY CHRISTIAN TALKING POLITICS TOO MUCH I hear so many Christians whose lives revolve around various laws that are or are not about to get passed. Dr. James Dobson is a prime example of this. His radio show and books for years featured some of the best Christian psychology and family life skills training I’d ever heard. He’s a pro at helping Christians learn to be better parents and better spouses. He strengthened families. But his recent foray into politics has changed his focus almost entirely on external factors like laws. The most dangerous threat to my marriage is not a law: it’s personal sin. And that’s the same for every marriage. Laws don’t stop personal sin: only Christ can.|W|P|109391586805577021|W|P|Tieche: Four things that drive me crazy when church meets politics|W|P|jon.fortt@gmail.com8/30/2004 06:33:00 PM|W|P| Jon Fortt|W|P|So Dave,
Does this blog qualify as talking politics too much? Or is it trying to be an antedote?9/07/2004 11:02:00 AM|W|P| Adam Heine|W|P|Tell your friend Tieche that he's right on. I mean, obviously there's a balance - we *are* supposed to vote as part of our submission to the authorities God has placed above us. But, as you say, voting is a very different thing from working out our faith or serving our Lord Jesus. In terms of clear discipleship, voting is almost a non-issue. Acting is an issue.8/29/2004 11:19:00 PM|W|P|Jon Fortt|W|P|In case you hadn't heard, there's a new political t-shirt out. It says "I had an abortion" on the front. I'm one of those Christians who ticks off my friends because I'm personally pro-life but politically pro-choice. I think that ideally no one would have an abortion, but outlawing them would be bad social policy. (We can get into that in a separate post, readers, and I'm sure we will.) But here is a shirt I think we can all disagree with. Following a link from emergingminister.com, I saw this shirt. Now, maybe there's something implied in the shirt's message that I don't understand. Maybe it's part of some deeper statement about the abortion rights debate. But you know, I couldn't tell that, because all the shirt says is, "I had an abortion." Is that a statement of fact? Of pride? Of solidarity? In other words, your point is? This shirt seems to me to be about as productive (and yes, inflammatory) as the right-wingers printing up "I bombed an abortion clinic" t-shirts. Which, for the record, I do not recommend. That's right, I'm officially being sarcastic.|W|P|109384772673093344|W|P|"I had an abortion" shirts sold out|W|P|jon.fortt@gmail.com9/29/2004 07:54:00 PM|W|P| Anonymous|W|P|I had an abortion. Not sure I would wear a t-shirt to advertise it. Not sure how I would react to seeing another woman wearing one. I would probably cry. I had the abortion in my early twenties. I'm fifty. I still cry over the child who is gone. Utterly and completely gone.11/29/2004 12:56:00 AM|W|P| Anonymous|W|P|There's a site at http://clinicquotes.topcities.com that contains a long list of first hand quotes and accounts from current and former abortion doctors and clinic workers. It doesn't tell anyone what to believe morally or what political position to take, but it provides a lot of information about abortion. I encourage you to take a look and post your opinions/observations in the message forum or guestbook. Everyone who is interested in the abortion issue should check out this site.1/17/2005 01:10:00 PM|W|P| Anonymous|W|P|re: clinicquotes.topcities.com

This is NOT a "neutral" site - the site is full of anti-abortion propaganda, quotes that are not attributed (so how do we even know if they're real) and they miss a central point:

Even if doctors who perform abortions later regret it, that doesn't make abortion immoral - to imply so is a cheap shot and based on the fact that anti-abortion forces can't face the truth. They make up "post abortion syndrome" and, incensed that it doesn't exist, work to create such a syndrome by spreading guilt, fear, and shame about abortion. (In the book Targets of Hatred, by Patricia Baird-Windle - see! I'm honest enough to quote my sources - abortion clinics had to file a lawsuit against anti-abortion organizations that COPIED DOWN THE LISCENCE PLATES of all cars in the clinic parking lots, used the DMV to ILLEGALLY COLLECT THEIR ADDRESSES AND PHONE NUMBERS, and then call them up, trying to make them feel they'd made a wrong choice, and if they walked into God's hands they'd be forgiven. )
They make up false links between abortion and breast cancer, make up statistics on how safe it is, and when confronted with the truth, they say that since Planned Parenthood makes money from abortions that Planned Parenthood must be lying. (And why shouldn't they make money off of a legal, legimitate medical service? Hospitals charge for birth services, dentists charge for fillings, doctors charge for medical visits.)

And then when they go on sites such as this, they hide behind neutrality while stacking the deck and twisting the facts.

I'm not impressed.5/13/2005 08:47:00 PM|W|P| Anonymous|W|P|Probably too late to this discussion for anyone to see the comment, but....

Simply put, the purpose of the shirt is not to boast, or brag about it. It's to bring awareness to the forefront. Simply put, it's easy to condemn people whom you don't know. It's harder if it's someone you've met, gotten to know, maybe even admire.

The point is to confront the people who talk about mothers who "murder their babies" with the faces of the people they are condemning. It's also a refusal to be ashamed of their decision.8/29/2004 09:51:00 AM|W|P|Jon Fortt|W|P|In his comment on my gay marriage post (Cross: Gay marriage, Christian marriage and the election) from last week, Allen raises an objection, citing Romans 1:18-32. Thanks, Allen, for posting. I'm not arguing with the scripture itself of course, or its interpretation. I'm focused on its bearing on today's political debate. Should we expect America -- a county that has religious freedom as a core value -- to adopt policy based on Christian scripture? Remember, religious freedom is not a Christian value. If you're a Christian, you don't get religious freedom, because you've chosen already. You don't go hopping back and forth. (Don't get me wrong, I'm a big proponent of religious freedom. But that's because I'm an American, not necessarily because I'm a Christian. Make sense?) But I digress. The church needs to uphold marriage within the church, based on God's word. But what's our obligation to the rest of the country? Is it our duty as Christians to block gay citizens outside the church from getting the benefits of a civil ceremony? I would say it's not. I think it's no coincidence that Paul is very concerned with behavior within the churches -- but he doesn't endorse Roman leaders and he doesn't try to influence Roman policy, even though he's a Roman citizen.|W|P|109379959196202640|W|P|Gay marriage and scripture: a conversation|W|P|jon.fortt@gmail.com8/30/2004 01:42:00 PM|W|P| Allen|W|P|Gotta give my 2 cents again. :)

My take is this: we are supposed to be Christians 24/7 and scripture commands us to resist the evils of the world. The world would have us accept gay marriage, whether in a religious or civil ceremony. The laws of this country were established by a government that was founded by those who cherished Christian values and wanted religious freedom as a fundamental part of the first amendment.

By accepting pro-choice and pro-gay marriage propoganda as "normal" when more simply put, it is murder and a lifestyle contrary to what God defined between man and woman, we as Christians would be telling our Lord and Savior to "get with the program and modernize your thinking." Speaking only for myself, I fear my God and Savior with a healthy respect and I will not compromise the values my Lord placed in me when He saved me. And while I will strive to live peacably with all men (and women), I will not strive against the Living Word of God, which has made all these matters clear.

The answer to your question is also clear: we as Christians must turn to our God and Savior in prayer and ask Him what to do. And sometimes, that means making a stand that is unpopular. In the Bible, that led to the deaths of prophets, the Lord Jesus and His apostles but I will leave off with this scripture:

Matthew 10: 27-40 (KJV)

27 What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops.

28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

29 Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father.

30 But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.

31 Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows.

32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.

33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.

39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.

40 He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.8/30/2004 11:04:00 PM|W|P| Jon Fortt|W|P|Allen,

I don't think we're disagreeing. But there's a difference between advocating Christian principles, and advocating politically for Christian laws.

In the Great Commission, Christ called for us to make disciples, not secular laws. He says in Matthew 28:19-20:

"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

To me, that says to draw people toward a knowledge of Christ, not to merely hem them in with secular laws. No one will be saved by a Constitutional amendment.

I don't feel I'm selling out or compromising by cherishing religious freedom as an American -- even if that means my fellow citizens get to do some things that as a Christian I don't think are right. I believe a free nation provides the best environment for us to evangelize. But too often, we mistake political lobbying for evangelism.

As for the founding principles of this nation: Let us not suppose that it was founded by Biblical literalists. As this article explains, Thomas Jefferson liked to play cut and paste with his Bible. Since I see the Bible as the inspired word of God, I can't look up to Jefferson as my political ancestor.8/31/2004 08:58:00 AM|W|P| Allen|W|P|It does sound like we're pretty much on the same page, ideologically. I just think people should vote (whether on a single issue or for a candidate on a ballot) by what their conscience tells them. We could probably have a fascinating, separate discussion on how America as a country has changed since its founding, in regards to how important the Word of God was to the people and in the creation of the law -- as compared to now.

Best Wishes,
Allen9/13/2004 12:46:00 AM|W|P| Anonymous|W|P|I invite you to read "Connecting The Biblical Dots: Why Jesus Is For Same-sex Marriage." It is completely based in Scripture - using the KJV. Read it here: http://www.purplepew.org/biblical_dots.html8/29/2004 09:20:00 AM|W|P|Jon Fortt|W|P|There's a piece in today's Newark (NJ) Star-Ledger that looks at one church as an example of why white evangelical Christians are so loyal to the Republican party. (Sorry I have to say it that way, but evangelical black Christians obviously vote Democat.) In the piece, Dan Peters, the minister of Limerick Chapel, says "The Republican Party tends to reflect more closely the views of people who take the Bible literally. ... I have determined in my heart personally that I will not vote for someone who upholds Roe vs. Wade." Okay, abortion is one example. Why do people always focus on that? What about Jesus's views on social welfare and giving to the poor, which are markedly un-Republican? (Matthew 19:16-26) What about the fact that it's difficult to make a New Testament Pro-Life case for the death penalty, since someone could argue that the death penalty is the ultimate form of late-term abortion? In one New Testament death-penalty trial that Jesus attends, he argues for the defendant (John 8:1-11). The bottom line is, if you're looking for the Christian political party, you can forget it.|W|P|109379762709407095|W|P|Republicans, evangelicals, abortion, poverty and the death penalty|W|P|jon.fortt@gmail.com4/15/2005 01:27:00 PM|W|P| Anonymous|W|P|If abortion is the issue of absolute and utmost importance to the Republican party, and one agrees with the proposition that passing a constitutional amendment requires using large amounts of political capital.....then why are the President and Congress not pushing for an amendment banning abortion rather than one "defining marriage". surely ending the murder of innocent children is more important than whether or not same sex couples enter into a strictly legal (not religiously sanctioned) contract. why do republican office holders always say they are against abortion during their campaigns then do nothing about it once they are in office ?8/27/2004 08:29:00 AM|W|P|Jon Fortt|W|P|It's about the word more than the meaning, I think. I know fellow Christians who just feel uncomfortable with the word "marriage" being conferred upon a gay union. They don't have a problem with equivalent domestic partner benefits. They just feel that Christians own that word, "marriage." Where did that idea come from? In the Bible there is plenty of religious basis for marriage, from the very beginning. Adam and Eve are called husband and wife. In Matthew 19, Jesus says that what God has joined together, man shouldn't separate. But it's clear that there's a big difference between American marriage and historical Christian marriage. (Vegas weddings, anyone? Britney Spears?) This country (and, I believe, each citizen) faces a duty to protect the rights of the entire populace, and protect them equally. That being said, it is hard to imagine how a nation that supports religious freedom could deny certain rights to certain citizens on religious grounds. Wouldn't this be sort of like a national law that states that Holy Communion must consist of unleavened bread and wine, no fluffy bread, no grape juice? That's none of the state's business. The church should do marriage its way, and be careful about imposing religious definitions on the state. What if it were to happen the other way -- and the state wanted to start imposing religious definitions we didn't like? |W|P|109362258499140994|W|P|Gay marriage, Christian marriage and the election|W|P|jon.fortt@gmail.com8/28/2004 03:19:00 PM|W|P| Allen|W|P|I'd have to disagree with you on this one, based on scripture in Romans. Please read in its entirety. This isn't the only scripture reference to gay relationships but I think it gets to the point. Marriage was defined as between one man and one woman by God and it is Man who has tried to change that, against what God established from the beginning.

However, I also want to point out that the scriptures also point out that Christians should not feel hatred or prejudice towards anyone...to the point that Christians should strive to be at peace with all men, if possible. It is God who will judge in the Day of Judgment.


Romans 1: 18 - 32 (King James Version)

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.8/29/2004 10:15:00 AM|W|P| Jon Fortt|W|P|Allen, you raise a valid point. I've tried to address this issue in my latest post (Sunday, 8/29). I'm not arguing against scripture. The question is, what's the proper way for us to respond as American Christians?9/06/2004 12:42:00 PM|W|P| Anonymous|W|P|boy, this subject scares me,Jon. I live in the Bible Belt and every church I know except one (the gay church) is starting a petition to pass a state law saying that marriage is one man and one woman.

I'm terrified that my people, the Christians, will start using Bible verses to commit hate crimes. I don't think Paul had that in mind.8/27/2004 08:12:00 AM|W|P|Jon Fortt|W|P|More news services are making note of the God gap I mentioned before, and its implications for Democrats. The piece above mentions that secular voters can be not just non-religious, but anti-religious. So I don't think religion and politics mix well. I'm all for keeping them as separate as possible, and for focusing on protecting religious freedom rather than promoting religious policy. But what you can't do is ignore the attitudes and values of the religious electorate -- then we end up with a self-perceived "God party" and "anti-God party." That's bad for America. I know it, you know it, and the American people know it. Okay, maybe the American people don't know it.|W|P|109362022724146860|W|P|More on the precarious 'God gap' between Dems and GOP|W|P|jon.fortt@gmail.com8/26/2004 05:35:00 AM|W|P|Jon Fortt|W|P|In today's political climate, we know the conservative Christian establishment votes Republican. Or at least, the conservative white Christian establishment. But what about the atheists and generally non-religious? Apparently, according to this AP story, they vote Democratic. This should be a cause of some concern for the Democrats. Sure, it's bad when Republicans and Christians get the Bible and the party platform mixed up. (I like my scripture preached by people who are trying to win souls, not votes. And I'm suspicious of ministers who preach war from the pulpit.) But if the non-religious Democrat trend continues, Democrats could be in the position of feeling beholden to a different sort of ideological agenda: an anti-religious one. That would further the political rift we have growing in this country between those who see themselves as religious, and those who don't. It could also further the use of the term "evangelical" as a synonym for "far-right Republican." I'd prefer that it go back to its old The American Heritage Dictionary meaning: "relating to, or being a Christian church believing in the sole authority and inerrancy of the Bible, in salvation only through regeneration, and in a spiritually transformed personal life."|W|P|109350350739882616|W|P|Dems must be careful not to pander to atheists and agnostics|W|P|jon.fortt@gmail.com1/09/2006 11:38:00 AM|W|P| Anonymous|W|P|Gee, John, didn't Herbert Walker Bush pretty much say the same thing when he said: “No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God.”

So now you propose what, a religious test for membership in the Democratic Party?

By ALL MEANS, I think the Democratic Party should not "pander" to me. Just take my money, and hope that I'll vote for your DLC Republican-Lite candidates, right? Tell me to "STFU, your kind is costing us VOTES", right?

"Sold out for Jesus", yes, I can see that, but I suspect He's not the only one you've sold out to.1/09/2006 05:06:00 PM|W|P| Jon Fortt|W|P|I think you're reading a little too much into my commentary.8/26/2004 12:09:00 AM|W|P|Jon Fortt|W|P|Here is a very interesting, albeit dense, article on the influence of secularism on the Democratic party.|W|P|109354026439735413|W|P|Democrats and secularism|W|P|jon.fortt@gmail.com8/25/2004 12:50:00 PM|W|P|Jon Fortt|W|P|As an American, I'm uncomfortable with the idea that some Christians want all of their laws, and their politicians, to reflect their beliefs. Why? What if America's demographics were like Indonesia's: mostly Muslim. Would we want school-sponsored prayer to Allah? Would we want the political parties to bait each other with Muslim and anti-Muslim language? I don't think so. I think we would want to keep church and state as separate as possible. We would want laws and politicians who respect our right to believe what we do, and we would want the freedom to share our beliefs with others without the fear of retribution. We would want a fair chance to act as both Christians and responsible citizens.|W|P|109346356218862357|W|P|Christian faith and American freedom|W|P|jon.fortt@gmail.com8/25/2004 08:13:00 AM|W|P|Jon Fortt|W|P|I don't mean to pick on the Republicans here, but the Democrats aren't promoting a "God is on our side" agenda that I can see. So once again today, I'll have to give the Republicans my focus. Rev. Jerry Falwell, who has made it his mission to mix politics and religion, spoke Monday night at a fundraiser in Lufkin, Texas. He spoke about changing America, saying "We've left our moorings, our foundations. ... We've deserted the faith." First of all, I love America. But really, with the country's civil rights history, I think it's tough to argue that there was a time when this was truly a Christian state. Another person who spoke at the event, Rev. Rick Scarborough, said "We're not asking you pastors to leave soul-saving, but to do that which is right for the redemption of the nation. ... For the church not to be engaged in the great cultural battles being waged, that's not apathy, that's wickedness." I disagree. I think Falwell and Scarborough are using an Old Testament model that supposes that we live in Israel, a theocracy. I think they see themselves as modern-day prophets and judges calling that nation to their brand of repentance. But I also think the New Testament sets different priorities. In 1 Corinthians 5:9-13, Paul talks about how Christians are supposed to focus on correcting people inside the Church, not those outside. In other words, focus on getting people into the Church, not on passing your favorite laws in a secular nation.|W|P|109344697065796771|W|P|Falwell, misguided, says "vote Christian"|W|P|jon.fortt@gmail.com11/04/2004 12:58:00 PM|W|P| Anonymous|W|P|Jerry Falwell is a finger pointer that loves to avoid the plank in his own eye.
I saw him the other day on CNN. I understand the pro-life and sanctity of marriage issues, but was wondering when “a strong national defence” became a part of good Christian values.
As a baptist myself, I believe strongly in what the bible has to offer, but It’s been very hard for me to reconcile what seems to be a “culture of war”, the cold war, the war on drugs, the war on terror, with the Falwell/Bush notion of “a culture of life”.
In regards to Falwell, I invite all good Christians to revisit Jesus’ distaste for the money changers in the temples of Jerusalem and then compare this with Jerry Falwell’s website, where the first thing on the site is not “praise be to Jesus” but rather “Are Your Bank Savings Earning Less Than 3%? Our LUF Annuity Pays Annuity Rates Up To 11.3%!”
This speaks volumes about the spiritual deficit in this country. I propose Falwell be the first casualty in a new “war on hate.”

Adam Strange
blogger@adamstrange.com8/24/2004 08:30:00 AM|W|P|Jon Fortt|W|P|Christian Broadcasting Network suggests in this interview with Dr. Paul Kengor and Pat Robertson that the media are guilty of hypocrisy for their treatment of George W. Bush's religious background. Oddly, Robertson does this by asserting that Bill Clinton also talked in religious terms and had Bible studies in the White House, and that Hillary Clinton had prayer partners. If Pat Robertson acknowledges this, perhaps someone can tell me why he and others have attacked the Clinton administration so vehemently over the years. Is it because of Democratic positions on abortion, welfare, gay marriage, etc.? Can't Christians disagree on such things? Is it because of personal shortcomings? Haven't Christian Republicans had their share? Portions of the Christian establishment are allowing themselves to be molded into a political party, and I wonder if they have considered that they could be accused of hypocrisy as well. Jesus sought to build a church, not a voting bloc. And he sought to change individual people, not Roman policy. (LUKE 20:20-26)|W|P|109336169750352072|W|P|Pat Robertson, praying presidents, and hypocrisy|W|P|jon.fortt@gmail.com10/21/2004 06:16:00 AM|W|P| Anonymous|W|P|Media should talk MORE on the objectionable impact religion has had on Bush presidency. At least in terms similar to the recent intelligent article by Ron Susking on the NYT ("Without a doubt").

Pat Robertson has recently stated that before the onset of the Iraqi war Bush assured him there would NOT be any casualty.

Why did Bush say that? I think because he ....believed in that. In religious sense! He had "FAITH".

Dangerous attitude from a president to confuse reality with faith.

A president should be able to judge on facts, rational data, specialised reports and so on, rather than on 'guts', 'instict' and 'faith'.

The New York Times' article by Ron Susking ("Without a doubt") tackles exactly this point.

Quite scary to have a president of the most powerful country of the world with such an attitude of self-appointed Messiah.

Joe
human-too-human.motime.com8/24/2004 02:20:00 AM|W|P|Jon Fortt|W|P|This is an attempt at a different sort of Christian blog, one that seeks to take the news of the day straight on. I'm a journalist who is what some might call "born again" or "evangelical" -- but I don't believe that means I have to be a conservative or a Republican. I believe that I can be a Christian with my belief systems and values, but also be an American who cherishes freedom and debate. As a Christian I am willing and eager to tell others about my experience with God, and as an African American I am eager to tell about my experience as a citizen. Perhaps your perspective will differ from mine, and perhaps our perspectives will shift as we understand each other better. That's what I hope will happen. In any case, I also hope this corner of the Web will be a place where "family values" and "moral authority" do not belong to any particular party or demographic. I hope it's a place where politically charged religious rhetoric will face a firm challenge on scriptural standards. If this works correctly, Christians and non-Christians alike will be surprised at the positions I explore sometimes. I hope you'll participate. That's what the comment area after each post is for.|W|P|109333587944966610|W|P|Welcome to Cross.|W|P|jon.fortt@gmail.com9/14/2004 09:48:00 AM|W|P| Anonymous|W|P|Hi, I really enjoy what I've read so far. I'm eager to read the archives because I'm finding the page a little difficult to navigate. Did you know the archive links are broken?

Good on you for bringing up these issues, the Lord blesses us when we pursue Him with our minds as well as our hearts!

hannah
http://www.livejournal.com/users/misshannah/10/04/2005 11:40:00 AM|W|P| Anonymous|W|P|Jon,

Great Blog. I too am a Christian who believes in separation of Church and state. I am currently working on a book written to Christians talking about Christian political values. I was also thinking of putting up my own blog but maybe I will just frequent yours. Anyway, keep up the good work.

Jeff8/01/2004 01:01:00 AM|W|P|Jon Fortt|W|P|What is This? The tagline pretty well says it: a Christian political blog that doesn’t side with the Republicans or the Democrats. It’s a forum for discussing Christianity in U.S. public discourse. I’m glad to say I have links from both liberal and conservative bloggers, and I welcome both sides to come together across partisan lines and debate the issues here. That’s one of the reasons why it's called “Cross.” Why Cross? I got sick of seeing Bible-believing Christians portrayed as a monolithic group. There are conservatives among us, and there are liberals. The Bible itself delivers lots of powerful messages about social justice as well as personal morality, and I felt it would be good to give all those issues honest airing. This blog touches on such issues as abortion, gay marriage, evolution, the death penalty and war, but it does not seek to tell anyone how to vote or which political party is better. As for my own politics, I’m a journalist, and I’m registered as neither a Democrat nor a Republican. The Politics. I believe in separation of church and state. I believe a government that’s neutral to religion provides the safest environment for Christians to practice our beliefs and share our faith. Spread the Blog. You don’t have to be a Bible thumper like me to appreciate Cross. Heck, one of my earliest (and kindest) links came from a site that celebrates Kafka. If you think the blogosphere would benefit from a site with this sort of Christian perspective please do bookmark this. Blogroll this. E-mail this out to your friends and family. Now. Let's get some ideas out there.|W|P|109695615205497762|W|P|Why did the Christian Cross the blog?|W|P|jon.fortt@gmail.com