The Baptist Standard | The Texas Baptist Newsjournal
     
 
Friday, November 20, 2009
Home arrow News arrow Pastor says he’s ‘poli-ticked’ about election
Register Register Help Tools
Subscribe to our FirstLook weekly
e-mail preview

 
Pastor says he’s ‘poli-ticked’ about election Print E-mail
By Bob Allen   
Published: October 16, 2008

GRAPEVINE, Texas (ABP) -- At a time when polls indicate growing distaste for politics in the pulpit, one Southern Baptist mega-pastor is launching a high-profile sermon series aimed at getting Christians off the bench and into political action.

“There’s a game going on for the heart and soul of our nation, yet so many of us have been drinking deception for so long that we don’t understand the implications and the seriousness of the game,” Ed Young Jr., pastor of Fellowship Church in Grapevine, said in a televised sermon Oct. 12.

“There’s a game going on and it's time for us to sober up, to step up and to get into the game -- to not merely remain as spectators, but to be participators.

“I don't know about you, but I’m poli-ticked,” Young said. “I’m ticked at what is happening on the field. I’m ticked as I look at the scoreboard and as a responsible citizen, as someone who should be under God -- because we’re one nation under God, not alongside God or above God. We’re one nation under God, but as people who love God and who want the best, we should be ticked.”

Among things ticking him off, Young ticked off a litany of what he considered social ills affecting the United States:

-- Homosexuality. “God made man and woman to be together as husband and wife,” Young said. "God did not create Adam to be with Steve but to be with Eve.”

He said people at Fellowship Church love homosexuals but do not approve of their sexual behavior, “because God has said from cover to cover marriage is for one man, one woman in this covenant, in this commitment.

“I cannot believe that our nation is trying to redefine marriage,” he added. “I’m all for everyone having equal rights, but when it comes to this institution called marriage, give me a massive break.”

-- Abortion. Young recalled walking on a beach and reading a sign listing penalties for disturbing a nest of sea-turtle eggs. “We’re really into protecting developing baby sea turtles,” he said. “So our government is into that, but it's OK to take the lives of developing babies? It's OK to take the lives of 3,200 developing babies every 24 hours? What’s right is now wrong. What’s wrong is right.”


-- Big government. Young said government is supposed to protect the people, but the U.S. bureaucracy has grown into a monster that he has nicknamed “Fedzilla.”

“If you do something well, Fedzilla takes the profit, and then gives the profits … to this big monster, and then hands out the profits to people, many of them who are able-bodied Americans, many of them who can work, who should hold a job, but who don’t want to, who want to sit around, smoke weed, drink six-packs and play with their iPhones.”


-- Immigration. “We have the Congress worrying about steroid use in baseball, when you’ve got terrorists crossing the border who want to blow us off the face of the map,” he said.


-- The economy. “We’re drowning in a sea of debt,” he said. “This $700 billion bailout: I’m no economist, but isn’t that sort of like giving booze to a recovering alcoholic?”


-- Socialism. “So many people in the media, the cultural elite, they like applaud, for example, Cuba,” Young said. “Cuba's a wreck. Talk to anybody. Talk to a Cuban American who was there when a young man smoking a cigar took over.

“Socialism has wrecked and ruined that beautiful land,” he continued. “Socialism is non-biblical. It scares me to death as I see this slide toward socialism.”

Young urged listeners to tune in for the following week’s sermon, in which, he promised, “I’m going to tell you who to vote for.

“Here's what a lot of people don’t understand,” Young explained. “The church has become more and more of a ‘non-prophet’ entity. But I’m excited. A lot of churches are becoming ‘for-prophet.’ The prophets of God -- the men and women of God -- are standing up and saying, ‘Thus sayeth the Lord.’”

Brent Walker, executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, said he saw nothing wrong legally with Young’s Oct. 12 sermon, but that Young would make a mistake if he endorses a candidate by name on Oct. 19.

Walker criticized the Alliance Defense Fund’s recent “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” for endorsing candidates as “divisive, corrosive and unnecessary.”

Robert Parham, executive director of the Baptist Center for Ethics, faulted Young for “preaching a low-sacrifice gospel, prioritizing a moral agenda for his church members, which costs them very little.

“Condemning gay marriage and abortion, denouncing the straw man of socialism and linking -- falsely -- immigration with terrorism require nothing from his audience,” Parham said. “It simply feels good and feeds prejudice.”

Jesus called for a “high-sacrifice gospel” of pursuing the Golden Rule, loving neighbor and seeking justice, Parham said. He hopes that in future sermons Young “will make those who are at ease in the Zion of negative uncomfortable with the broad, proactive moral vision found in the Bible,” he added.





Reddit!Del.icio.us!Google!Live!Facebook!Slashdot!Technorati!StumbleUpon!Spurl!Newsvine!Blinklist!Furl!Fark!Yahoo!Ma.gnolia!Free social bookmarking plugins and extensions for Joomla! websites!
Comments (8)Add Comment
ENDORSING A CANDIDATE
written by sandramwomack, October 19, 2008
I appreciate your words and convictions. But, you need not lobby for or endorse ANY candidate. You need to stick to preaching the gospel. I truly enjoy watching you each week on television, but once you endorse a candidate I am flipping the channel - for good.
Politics and Preaching
written by humansville, October 20, 2008
And Jesus said, "Go forth into all the world and preach the gospel of partisan politics making Republicans of all people. Whereever you go teach the virtues of a men willing to sacrifice his first wife to a rich and attractive heiress. Remembering always that my gospel is the gospel of social conservatism,excluding all those who do not think and act like fundamentalist Christians. As for giving unto Ceaser the things that are Ceaser's and unto God the things that are God's, that is a metaphor and should not be taken literally. Do make my House of Prayer a den of theocracy."
Who is talking about a theocracy, other than leftists smearing conservative Christians?
written by Achilles, October 20, 2008
Humansville, can you name one prominent American Christian who advocates repealing the First Amendment as it was originally intended and implementing a theocracy or establishing a state church?
...
written by humansville, October 21, 2008
If by theocracy you are willing to accept a definition that includes those who want to make their religious views public law, I think I can name a good many. Of course, the important thing is to label as leftist anyone who takes seriously the separation of church and state---keeping the church out of the government and the government out of the church. I can remember the days when separation of church and state was a cardinal principle of Baptists everywhere. It seems to me it has been decreasingly emphasised as a result of government funding of faith-based institutions. Now goverment funds can be used in a so-called faith-based program even though the program reguires adherence to one denomination or religion. Please call it what you will, but don't call it adherence to the first amendment unless you want to accept as your north star the wavering decisons of the court.
I don't see any names
written by Achilles, October 21, 2008
Thanks for your reply to my question, Humansville. But I do not see any names of people you say "want to make their religious views public law." I would appreciate specific examples with names and proposals that violate the original intent of the First Amendment. I do not mean using the Lemon Test or the pronouncements in Everson or any other recent innovations in constitutional law.

You are right, such decisions are leftist doctrine that speak to equality of result and status in the normal course of daily life. The Founders of the United States rejected equality of result as being inconsistent with the institution of private property. Without private property there is no liberty by definition since liberty is the protection of a private sphere set off limits to anyone including the State. Consider James Madison on the right to property: "Government is instituted to protect property. . . . This being the end of government, that alone is a just government which impartially secures to every man whatever is his own. . . . That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where arbitrary restrictions, exemptions, and monopolies deny to part of its citizens that free use of their [own] faculties” James Madison, The Writings of James Madison, Gaillard Hunt, editor (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1906), Vol. VI, p. 102, “Property,” March 29, 1792. Here is John Adams on the subject: “All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of . . . acquiring, possessing, and protecting property” quoted with approval by William Patterson another Founder in his 1785 book, *The Constitutions of the Several Independent States of America.* This quote is especially important since one can see how the Founders conceived of equality. Equality for them was the liberty from one person imposing some requirement by force without consent. They did not seek to equalize, in fact, wealth and status. Measures taken by the State to equalize status and condition would require the violation of equality and liberty. I can supply other sources if need be.

For full discussion of the move away from the founding principles of the United States, I would highly recommend Richard Posner's recent book, *How Judges Think,* where he pulls back the curtain, as he puts it, and reveals the truth that judges, and especially Supreme Court justices, use the law and the Constitution as a waxed nose to impose their own views on people. http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/posner0808.htm
In religion, Posner observes that a majority of the Court in the mid-twentieth century decided that Christianity had too much influence in American life, and they used their power to try to diminish its preeminence. The original intent of the Framers of the Constitution was only to prevent a state church being erected. If you take a look at earlier versions of the First Amendment circulated and initially passed in the Congress of 1789, you will see that they all focus on prohibiting a state church like the Church of England. None sought to create a non-religious culture or equalize the competition among religions except insofar as none was the state religion (denomination comparable to the Anglican Church).

Reply to Humansville, part 2--hardly a theocracy
written by Achilles, October 21, 2008
As far as the Faith Based Initiative, I shall repeat what I said in another post in which someone else groping for an example where conservatives wanted to violate the First Amendment brought up the Faith Based Initiative. Here is that excerpt with a couple of modifications in light of your reply to me:

You did present a specific reference to the Faith Based Initiative program where the Federal government provides taxpayer funds to religious organizations offering social services. Here the argument for such programs is that religious oriented approaches to social services can be more effective than non-religious offerings. The second rationale is an equal-protection argument. If non-religious organizations can be funded to help those in need, why exclude religious organizations providing the same services? In the one case challenging the Faith Based Initiative based on taxpayers' rights being violated, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected that line of reasoning in a 5-4 vote. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19414473/

Both liberal and conservative groups have been on both sides of this issue. For example, the group who brought the suit that I mentioned above were atheists and agnostics who felt put upon by funding religious groups. Ron Sider, a liberal evangelical, points out that Democrats and liberals have supported similar proposals in the past including legislation that served as a precursor to the Faith Based Initiative that was signed by President Bill Clinton.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=115&subid=900025&contentid=253464

Conversely, Richard Land and the Southern Baptist Convention have raised constitutional doubts about the current version of the Faith Based Initiative preferring a voucher system to direct cash grants.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jesus/interviews/land.html

Land discusses the Faith Based Initiative near the bottom of the page.

So, I do not see the Faith Based Initiative, which you cited as the only example of a case where conservative Baptists violated the rights of others, as an especially egregious violation of anyone's rights. I agree that there is a legitimate case to be made whether the State should be funding social programs, whether religious groups should receive funding directly from the State, and the role of governmental supervision. But this is hardly setting up a theocracy.
Political over Theological
written by Preachon, October 26, 2008
Why didn't he get "ticked" over the theological issues that are doing a great damage to the church. Why not get "ticked" over T.D. Jakes denying and redefining the Trinity instead of joining him on a preaching platform?

Our churches could make a greater impact, and could glorify God in reality and not in theory if christians took the same righteousness idignation and scrutiny regarding these unbiblical teachers like Jakes and draw the same conclusions theologically as they do politically we would be biblically correct.

There is a misplaced indignation. Start biblically with accurate theological stances. The doctrine of the Trinity is an essential doctrine that T.D. Jakes denies, yet in an attempt to be culturally relevant as opposed to being biblically correct men are not pleasing God, but rather pleasing men.
SAME OLD, SAME OLD
written by mimamsa, October 26, 2008
Once again, the same old laundry list of "sins" is presented to the neglect of those which could be addressed and which would require actual sacrifice on the part of the listeners. Maybe Young has forgotten that egoism, narcissism, pride, arrogance, greed, sloth (I've heard the same message for the past ten years from him with the same old worn illustrations), are also sins. But those are never addressed perhaps because they hit too close to home with both pastor and people.

In addition, I find it hard to believe that anyone in the congregation would walk away saying that this pastor endorsed the candidacy of Barack Obama this morning. This is endorsement by implication. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

It appears to me that the church's tax exempt status should be an issue. Whether it is Jeremiah Wright or Ed Young, Jr., explicit OR implicit endorsement of a candidate or party is at least an exercise in manipulation, if not coercion.

Please read our Comments Covenant. Readers alone are responsible for the content of the comments they post here. The comments are subject to the site’s terms and conditions of use and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or approval of the Baptist Standard. Readers whose comments violate the terms of use may have their comments removed or all of their content blocked from viewing by other users without notification.
Write comment
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Login | Register
busy
 
< Prev   Next >
Copyright © 2007-2009 The Baptist Standard, All Rights Reserved.