Illegal Immigration

A primary element of the Christian faith is, at least in theory if not in absolute reality, independence from the state or government. Confusing one's religious faith with civil matters can lead to such atrocities as occurred in the holocaust in Nazi Germany. It is with that horror in mind that Christians should approach their thinking about illegal immigration and the very real people who migrate here across U.S. borders without lawful permission. (Photo from: http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/border5.html).

As a Christian, I have mixed emotions and feelings about this issue because I know illegal immigrants personally through my sister's marriage to a Mexican immigrant. My brother-in-law's family is mostly here in the United States illegally. As recently as this past week over ten hispanics who were employed by the construction company where I earn my living were fired because their social security numbers turned out to be illegitimate. I had worked with these men for over a year or more on the most recent construction project, Oviedo High School, Oviedo, Florida. Both through contact with my sister's in-laws and through hispanic men I know at work, illegal immigration has taken on a personal face with me.

The real question here is how to uphold the law while at the same time honoring the real humanity of these illegal immigrants who are mostly trying to better their lives and support their own families. There is a tension here for the Christian. Christ commands us to go into all the world and proclaim the Gospel to all people in every nation (Mark 16:15-16; Matthew 28:18-20). We are to love our neighbors as ourselves (Matthew 22:39; Mark 12:31; Luke 10:27). On a planet which gets smaller with every technological advance we must increasingly view other inhabitants of the earth as our neighbors. Even though I disagree with Hillary Clinton's view of family values, there is a sense in which we do indeed live in a global village.

Moreover, Americans in general are concerned about national security, job security, and the use of tax monies collected from citizens. A large portion of our taxes goes to educate the children of illegal immigrants and to provide medical care for their families through costs incurred at our hospitals. The crux of the matter is that these concerns are secondary to the commands given to Christians by our Lord in Holy Scripture. This is not to say that Christians cannot have loyalty to the United States but we must never forget that our first allegiance is to God. To place the United States of America first would amount to idolatry.

Having said this, there is a tension between obedience to civil authority and obedience to God. The Apostle Paul says in his epistle to the Romans that we are obligated to obey the powers that be:

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

Romans 13:1-7 ESV (http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=Romans+13%3A1-7)

The way forward for the Christian, therefore, seems to be one in which we become advocates for our neighbors, in this case illegal aliens, without breaking the civil laws of our land. American Christians in general have a tendency to accommodate to American culture, values and prejudices. Essentially, American Christians are guilty of being more concerned for their own well being than for the well being of humanity, our neighbors in all parts of the world.

In some ways liberal theology has done a better job concerning social justice for our neighbors. However, in doing this the theologically liberal side of Christianity has jettisoned the authority of Scripture as the revelation of God (compare Carl F. H. Henry's systematic theology, God, Revelation, and Authority). On the other hand, conservative Christianity seems to have jettisoned social justice issues in favor of prosperity and their own personal interests, which is a violation of the command not to covet (Exodus 20:17). Christian ethics are philosophically and theologically more complicated than morality. Even morality becomes complicated when secondary general revelation in the form of human reason begins to question the primary revelation of Holy Scripture.

How we interpret Scripture and apply general revelation and reason is a fallible and human process. However, it seems to me that in the ongoing culture war between liberal Christianity and conservative Evangelicalism, both sides have accommodated to the American culture in different ways but both remain guilty of idolatry by placing human interests before the glory and worship of God. While Holy Scripture is infallible, we as humans continually err because even our ability to reason has been tainted and corrupted because of the curse placed upon Adam after his rebellion against God. In a sense, then, we are all rebels against God regardless of our theology. Until Evangelicalism as a whole comes to that realization, Evangelical Christians will continue to be blind to their own sins against God's glory and against their own neighbors.

The answer is not to liberalize our understanding of Scripture or to reduce our doctrinal commitments to the lowest common denominator. Instead conservative and reformed Christians must move forward intellectually and theologically, recognizing limitations and tendencies to err. The state of Evangelicalism as a whole is depressingly woeful. Evangelicals have a tendency to be prejudiced against the poor and the less fortunate, even though they give significant amounts of money to charity and evangelism. As one author put it, when Christians are prosperous they tend to take their blessings for granted and to become lukewarm. Historically, it has been in times of great persecution that the church has grown both numerically and theologically mature. Because most Evangelical churches are middle-class, the values of Evangelical churches tend toward materialism and thus idolatry.

While the social gospel commits idolatry by accommodating to earthly concerns for social justice, conservative Christianity commits idolatry by seeking its own comfort and well being in excessive luxury. The worst case scenario of this is the pentecostal/charismatic tendency toward the health and wealth gospel. However, I have observed this phenomenon in Evangelicalism in general because the health and wealth message has infiltrated not only pentecostal/charismatic circles but Evangelical circles in general.

The short of it, regarding illegal immigration, is that we Christians should be as concerned for the well being of illegal immigrants as we are for our own job security and national security. A humane solution to this problem would be one in accordance to the law of the land, which means there will be nothing done illegally. So a compromise of some sort should be considered. Perhaps allowing a more liberal plan for distributing working visas to Mexicans and other hispanics would be in order.

Securing the border is a national security issue as well. When the borders are not secure not only do we get good workers but along with the good we get illegal drug smugglers and criminals in general. In Mexican culture certain things like vengeance are more tolerated than in American culture and society. This clash of cultures leads to all sorts of cross cultural misunderstanding.

At one time our local law enforcement agencies took a hands off approach to illegal immigration but now that the problem is out of control they are beginning to realize that it was a huge mistake. Illegal immigrants are much harder to track and trace because they continually change their names and social security numbers. When murders and other felonies are committed this makes it much harder to locate and prosecute those illegals who perpetrate such crimes.

Recently in Lake County, Florida a sheriff's deputy was attacked by twelve hispanic males. The deputy was injured and only two of the men were arrested. Both of the men arrested were illegal and the remaining men escaped. (See http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,225889,00.html here.)

So with the flood of illegal immigrants we also get a crime wave, despite what the liberal side of the political spectrum would have us believe. We get drug smugglers and those who have little to no respect for American law. My own brother-in-law is apparently now serving time in federal prison for drug trafficking and conspiracy. Several of his brothers were also arrested as well and of those, at least one fled back to Mexico to avoid prosecution.

Last year on the Florida Turnpike a young Mexican couple and their two young sons aged 5 and 6 were gunned down in an apparent retaliation involving a major drug deal gone bad. (See http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,225889,00.html). I have no articles declaring that the couple or the drug dealers were illegal aliens. However, it is almost certain that where there is illegal drug activity involving hispanics on this level, there is a connection from Mexico and illegal entry into the country as well.

So this is the issue being ignored by the national media at large. The United States is under siege by illegal activity from illegal immigrants in general. Not only drug trafficking but crimes of assault and battery on citizens and law enforcement officers, rapes and other crimes as well. Many of these crimes go unsolved because the perpetrators are chameleons who change their names and identities at will and often flee back to Mexico to avoid prosecution. At least one of the brothers of my brother-in-law fled to Mexico to avoid cocaine trafficking charges after jumping bail. The husband of one of my brother-in-law's sisters was also murdered in Michigan over a drug deal gone bad. I am still not sure if he was murdered by the Mexicans he worked for or by whites who were out to rob him of drugs and cash.

Despite our concerns for illegal immigrants and human rights issues, we should be concerned for the safety and security of our own country, our local communities, and our families. It is my opinion that something has to be done to stop the flood of illegal immigration across our borders. Our jobs and wages are affected by cheap illegal workers and the companies which hire them go unpunished. Crime rates are up and even our law enforcement officers are at risk from poverty stricken illegal immigrants who have little or nothing to lose and place a lower value on life than we Americans do.

The solution to this complicated mess will not be easy nor will it be a perfect one. However, from the looks of things as they are we as Americans, and those of us Americans who are committed Christians, cannot afford to continue looking the other way while our jobs are at risk on the one hand and our own safety is threatened by criminals on the other. An erratical approach to illegal immigration is no longer viable, wise or acceptable.

May God have mercy!!!


Check out this link on FBI statistics for crimes committed by illegal aliens:

http://www.capoliticalnews.com/s/spip.php?article25

Episcopal Stations of the Cross: Christianity Today Blows It Again

[Note:  Since this blog article was originally posted Edith Humphrey converted to the Eastern Orthodox Church.  The theology of the EOC churches is notably semi-pelagian and not monergistic.  Ironic that Dr. Humphrey remains a professor at a mainline "Presbyterian" seminary.  It only shows how far down a seminary and a denomination goes when it rejects Scripture as the final authority and the classical Reformed confessions of faith.  In the place of Scripture common grace, general revelation and reason become the ruling authority and from there relativism and irrationalism are the final word.  Note that Dr. Humphrey was at one time ordained with the Salvation Army.  Does anyone doubt that Arminianism leads to Rome or Constantinople?  Think again!  Click on the title above to see the Christianity Today article.  2/27/2012.  Charlie.]

In a recent critique, Christianity Today criticized the Episcopal Church for advocating a replacement of the traditional liturgy for the stations of the cross with goals for eliminating world poverty in the third millennium. While this was a worthy attempt at a critique, Christianity Today woefully blew it by distorting the Gospel themselves.

The author of the article, Susan Wunderink, quotes from Edith Humphrey, a professor at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary (Presbyterian Church USA, which is itself liberal) to show Humphrey's disagreement. However, in posting Humphrey's remarks Wunderink tacitly endorses Humphrey's own distortion of the Gospel in Matthew 25's parable of the sheep and the goats:

"Like the song, "God Has No Hands But Our Hands," it forgets the sovereignty of God," she said. "God does use us, but he's the initiator. It's so sad to see the gospel diluted to simply being kind to others. I don't think that a gospel like that really communicates the grandeur of God and what he's done for us in Christ."

So far so good. However on page two of the article, Humphrey goes on to say:

The Episcopalian materials urge meditation on Matthew 25, Jesus' parable of the sheep and the goats, as "the mandate of Episcopal Relief and Development." Humphrey emphasized that there is much justification for the principles of the Millennium Development Goals in Scripture, but said that's not the point of Jesus' parable. Jesus, she said, was talking about how he will honor non-Christians' mercy and service to his representatives.

"It simply shows to me a lack of care in using the Scriptures in context," Humphrey said.

And here is the problem with Professor Humphrey's criticism of the liturgy. She herself winds up distorting the Gospel by allowing that "non-Christians" are somehow going to be saved simply by the good works that they did in mercy to Christ's "representatives." This is just another example of how Christianity Today has implied that justification is by faith plus works or has attacked the doctrine of justification by faith alone (sola fide), a cornerstone of the Protestant Reformation and the very Gospel itself. It seems obvious to me that Miss Humphrey is supportive of the Anglo-Catholic tradition which denies the doctrine of justification by faith alone which is taught in Scripture and in the English Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion. Either that or her liberal theology has biased her against the exclusiveness of the way of salvation through the cross of Jesus Christ. It is indeed a sad day when an allegedly "evangelical" magazine pushes works righteousness as a means of justification before God for salvation.

The truth is that Matthew 25's parable of the sheep and the goats is directed to Christians in the visible church. By their fruits you will know who is a genuine Christian and who is not a genuine Christian (see Matthew 7:15-23). Likewise, in the final judgment many false Christians in the church will be exposed as goats and not sheep. Those who turn out to be false Christians will be lost. But this parable in no way implies that we are justified before God on the basis of our own merits, good works or any such thing. When interpreted in the total context of the Bible, including the pauline passages, sanctification is a necessary result of being justified by faith alone. However, sanctification is merely an outworking of a genuine conversion, the fruit of justification by faith alone. It is not and cannot be the means of justification before God for Christians or even non-Christians for that matter.

The fact that Jesus is talking about Christians is obvious from Matthew 25:34 where he refers to election from before the foundation of the world and verse 37 where he refers to them as "righteous." Since we know from Paul's apostolic teaching that the "righteous" are righteous by faith alone, then Matthew 25:37 cannot possibly refer to "non-Christians" as Miss Humphrey contends!

Miss Humphrey has betrayed her misunderstanding of the Gospel and so has Miss Wunderink by printing the comments without further criticism or remark. Miss Wunderink in effect has implied that Humphrey's remarks are correct, which they are not.

The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion clearly disagrees with Humphrey's interpretation of the Gospel:

XI. Of the Justification of Man.

WE are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore that we are justified by faith only is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort; as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification.

XII. Of Good Works.

ALBEIT that good works, which are the fruits of faith and follow after justification, cannot put away our sins and endure the severity of God's judgement, yet are they pleasing and acceptable to God in Christ, and do spring out necessarily of a true and lively faith, insomuch that by them a lively faith may be as evidently known as a tree discerned by the fruit.

XIII. Of Works before Justification.

WORKS done before the grace of Christ and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, are not pleasant to God, forasmuch as they spring not of faith in Jesus Christ, neither do they make men meet to receive grace, or (as the School authors say) deserve grace of congruity: yea, rather for that they are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but they have the nature of sin.

This is just another frustrating example of the ignorance of so-called "Evangelicals" who have no clue as to what the Gospel actually is. I am beginning to wonder if Christianity Today has any right to make any claims about the Gospel at all since the magazine is continually getting it wrong. I am by no means a "fundamentalist." I am merely a Protestant who holds firmly to the doctrines of the Bible and stands in the tradition of the Protestant Reformers.

May God have mercy!

Addendum:

Article XVIII

Of obtaining eternal salvation only by the name of Christ

They also are to be had accursed that presume to say that every man shall be saved by the law or sect which he professeth, so that he be diligent to frame his life according to that law and the light of nature. For Holy Scripture doth set out to us only the name of Jesus Christ, whereby men must be saved.

(See:  Stations of the Cross — Without the Cross  and Stations of the Millennium Development Goals
for the context of my comments and quotes for this article).

03/08/2012.  Addendum 2:  Since this story was written Edith Humphrey has converted to the Eastern Orthodox Church.  See:  Edith Humphrey:  About Me.  Apparently Pittsburg Theological Seminary does not have a problem with having professors on board who are not Protestant or Reformed or even Presbyterian.   See:  Pittsburgh Theological Seminary.  You will also notice that she was ordained with the Salvation Army for five years.  Does anyone doubt that Arminianism leads to Rome or Constantinople?  Think again.

Charlie

Addendum:  Matthew 7:21-23 makes it clear that the unrighteous think their works will justify them.  Only those who trust in the merits of Christ are truly justified and that justification is by means of the gift of faith alone.  The ground of justification is the objective work of Christ on the cross.  (John 19:30).

Videos Against False Teachers

I hope you will take a few minutes to view the videos I posted below. I think they speak for themselves. Unfortunately, I was once caught up in this sort of anti-intellectual, ecstatic silliness. Most of the acting out things have more to do with hypnosis than with Christianity or with miracles. These false teachers and preachers prey on people who have desperate needs in their lives and the false preachers exploit these needs for their own filthy lucre and greed. It is indeed sad and unfortunate but God is still in control and these false prophets will answer to God the Almighty some day.

May God have mercy!

John Piper Comments on the Prosperity Gospel

Beware of False Prophets

False Teachers Exposed

Little "gods"?

Overwhelmed by Floods of Heterodoxy: Faulty Arguments Against Hating Hillary

Yes, I know. Jesus said we are to love our enemies and pray for those who despitefully abuse us and curse us. I guess that means I have a biblical mandate to "love" Hillary Clinton. However, the author of the editorial, "Hating Hillary: Getting to the bottom of a cultural trend that has seeped into the church," seeks to equivocate and misdirect. On the surface his argument seems to be a genuinely "Christian" one. However, if we dig a little deeper we can see this as the sophistry it really is.

Jesus never intends that we should "love" our enemies in the same way that we love our wives or our family. In fact, the Koine Greek word Jesus uses in Matthew 5:44 is "agapao." Basically, the context of the usage of this word determines its precise connotation. Since in Matthew 5:44 the context is God's general love for all mankind by taking care of basic needs, i.e. God gives sunshine and rain to all humanity in general, we are likewise to have a general concern for all of our fellow humankind. This is not to say that we must feel some deep affection for our enemies. I am certainly concerned for muslim extremists and terrorists and the worst criminals in our prisons today. I pray that they will be changed and converted to a worldview more humane and beneficial to the world. In the same way, I would hope that Hillary Clinton would stop supporting the murder of the unborn.

I have a genuine concern for those who support violence, those who are my political and religious enemies. I love my enemies in so much as I pray for their regeneration and conversion to Jesus Christ. However, the sentimentalism and false view of the editorial is just plain wrong and twists and distorts biblical Christianity into something it just is not.

For example, Scripture is mostly interpreted to mean that sometimes war is based on a just cause or in the case of the Old Testament, a "holy" cause. In the same way, conservative Christians are in a culture war against the paganism of liberal Christianity which seems to conform more to the ways of the world than to the law of God. While Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama give us plenty of "God" talk, this hardly indicates that either of them have been genuinely regenerated by the Holy Spirit.

We can legitimately objectify the validity of someone's conversion by the words they speak, since out of the heart the mouth speaks. Thus, we know that pornographers are not yet converted by their words and actions. Likewise, we can know that a "liberal christian" has not yet been converted by their words and actions. A Christian would never support the murder of the unborn or the aberrant behaviors of sexual deviants and perverts who practice homosexuality, pedophilia, cross dressing, transgenderism or a host of other morally deplorable behaviors. "Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them" (Matthew 7:15-20).

It is true that we do not have the power to condemn souls to hell and therefore we are not to "judge" because when we wish God to damn someone else to hell, we bring God's judgment upon our own heads. We are to pray for our enemies to be saved and not that God would condemn them to hell (Matthew 7:1ff). It is indeed revealing that where we are told not to condemn others, verses 15 to 20 tell us that we can indeed "know them by their fruits." Apparently discernment and insight are not the same thing as trying to condemn someone in the judgment.

Yes, sophistry is the correct word for this article. I have to wonder if the editor understands biblical theology at all? He seems to think that sin is something that we have the power to control on our own since he remarks that:

• While the loudest political voices this election season will keep only a loose rein on their tongues, evangelicals do well to ponder the Bible's insights into the mysterious yet profound connection between a person's heart and mouth: "The things that come out of the mouth," says Jesus, "come from the heart." Which is why Paul says, "Now you must rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips" (Col. 3:8). Biblical psychology assumes not only that the words of our mouths reveal the state of our hearts, but that words have power to shape the heart—for better or worse.


• http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/march/14.26.html

There is no verse in the Scriptures that would even remotely suggest that we have the power to change the state of our own hearts simply by the words that we speak. This is implicitly pelagianism at its worst. The idea that we are sinners simply by the words or actions we use or do is appalling. The Scriptures say that we must be born again and that only the Spirit of God has the power to change sinful human hearts:

• 3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again [1] he cannot see the kingdom of God.” 4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?” 5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. [2] 7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You [3] must be born again.’ 8 The wind [4] blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” (John 3:3:8, ESV)


• http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=John+3%3A3-8

This is not to say that we are not morally accountable to God for our words and our actions. We definitely are accountable to God since Scripture everywhere commands us to do good and to obey God. This is different, however, from saying that we have the ability to change our own hearts or to overcome the sinful nature in our own strength or by our own efforts. Clearly, God is the only one who change the spots on a leopard or the sinfulness of the human heart.

• 23 Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots?Then also you can do good who are accustomed to do evil. (Jeremiah 13:23, ESV)


• http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=jer+13%3A23


• 9 The heart is deceitful above all things,and desperately sick; who can understand it? (Jeremiah 17:9, ESV) http://www.gnpcb.org/esv/search/?q=jer+17%3A9

Evangelicalism is losing its prophetic edge precisely because we want to be accepted by the world. We want to fit in and and we want to be liked and seen as compassionate as individuals and as a church. Be that as it may, accommodating to the moral relativism of society at large is not an option for us as individuals or as a communion of churches. Articles like this one in Christianity Today is merely a smoke screen for compromise. Trying to bait and switch the issue from Hillary's positions on biblical ethics and morality to how we speak about her politics and her religion is logically fallacious if not outright deceptive.

Of course we should treat even our enemies with respect. However, that is not the same as having affection for them. I personally have no affection for Hillary. John McCain has some affection and respect for her because he knows her in person. Give the man an award for having a truly Christian attitude. McCain makes the right distinctions. He said that while he respects Obama and Clinton and their right to their own convictions, that in no way entails that he should embrace their political views. We Christians ought to be able to make those same kinds of distinctions without having some editorial place false accusations of "hatred" against us.

And if we are going to attack those who "hate" in the political arena, why has Christianity Today not spoken up against those who "hate" George W. Bush? Has anyone watched Bill Maher's show on HBO? Talk about hate, ridicule and verbal assault. The man has no respect for God or anyone else. One has to conclude that Maher has no respect for himself either. If Maher is a spokesman for Hillary Clinton and the political left, then it seems to me that the political left is as bad if not worse than the pundits speaking on the far right such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

The short of it is that each time I read popular Evangelical magazines like Christianity Today I have greater cause for alarm and concern for biblical Christianity's survival. Rather than solid theology what we see is increasingly ambiguous thinking and sloppy agape. Even a child can read the Scriptures and see through the sophistry expressed in this editorial. To the editor/editors at Christianity Today I can only say, "PLEASE!" How stupid do you think Christians are these days? Apparently the answer is, "Very stupid."

May God have mercy!

[Could Hillary win the religious vote?
Despite her genuine Methodist upbringing and honest-to-God faith credentials, the skepticism toward her among believers is deep and enduring. Her best hope among values voters: That they stay home on Election Day. http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/11/could-hillary-w.html From USA Today. Photo courtesy of USA Today].

Why I Oppose Hillary for President

Some call it hating Hillary but I call it opposing paganism. I am a bit weary of being accused of confusing religion with politics or of practicing civil religion simply because I choose to be a part of the political process and exercise my right to vote.



Frankly, I think it is a bit hypocritical for those on the Evangelical left to accuse those of us on the Evangelical moderate or right of trying to impose religion on the rest of the country when the liberal left wing political machines are trying to impose immorality as the law of the land. It is most certainly true that the Democratic Party has decided to make abortion on demand a party plank in their platform. Not only that but they have decided that homosexual rights and extreme feminism are to be a part of their party platform as well. These are highly offensive to me as a conservative Bible believing Christian.



I would be the first to admit that the Republican Party is full of immoral positions as well. For one, the Republicans prefer to oppress the poor instead of offering them a fair share of the economic prosperity of our nation. Wages are low and though less people are on welfare we still have a terrible situation where the working poor live in poverty and are barely able to make their rent and food bills and other basic necessities.



Be that as it may, I was appalled to hear someone at a local Presbyterian church, PCA comment about how the criminal justice system should be more strict and send more people to prison and give out more of the death penalty. What planet are these people from? A recent report shows that one out of ninety-nine Americans are in jail or prison now. That's higher than any other civilized nation on earth. Do not these people realize that the cost of incarceration is a drain on the economy and takes excessive amounts of tax monies to support? And furthermore, most of those in prison are either poor whites or poor minorities. Frankly, I find the lack of compassion by my fellow conservative Christians appalling. The problem seems to be that conservative Christians have confused conservative right wing politics with a conservative biblical theology. The two are not the same thing at all!



Moreover, there is much that I can agree with in both political parties. On the one hand, I stand with Republicans who are socially conservative and oppose abortion and excessive emphasis on gay rights and militant feminism. I can never in good conscience vote for someone who is pro-choice or someone who endorses the immorality of the homosexual lifestyle, transgenderism, etc. I am also horrified that society as a whole, including some branches of Evangelicalism, endorses a radical feminism which ignores traditional role distinctions between men and women and our physical, mental, spiritual, and gender differences created by God in the beginning.



On the other hand, I can stand with Democrats who seem to have much more compassion for the poor and at least make an effort to overcome poverty and other social problems that Republicans just want to ignore and leave alone. Republicans seem to side more with the rich and the upper classes and unfortunately, conservative Christians have bought into this lie as well. Have they not read that it is harder for a rich man to enter heaven than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle? Originally, conservative Christians sided with the Republicans because the conservative party opposed abortion. But increasingly there are those in the Republican Party pushing gay rights, feminism and abortion. So it seems the reason for being Republican is getting weaker. Couple that with the Republican view that the poor deserve to be poor and we have the epitomy of hypocrisy and wickedness.



That being said, I can confidently say that the Democratic Party is just as bad if not worse. While Republicans cut programs to help the poor, reduce recidivism in the justice system, and give welfare to the rich in the form of tax cuts, the Democrats murder the unborn, openly promote sexual promiscuity by passing out condoms and endorsing homosexuality as something desirable and normal. This is why I oppose Hillary Clinton for President. She is the most militantly liberal of the two Democratic candidates and would appoint the most liberal justices she could find to the Supreme Court. She would further erode the rights of men in family court and she would push the gay agenda and militant feminism to the extreme. Hillary is so far left that she makes Obama look like a saint for the Moral Majority.



Quite frankly, I do not like any of the candidates this election year. McCain is no saint but at least he is pro-life. When the choices are limited I have to choose the lesser of three evils. For those of us who have been forced by the militant left to join an immoral and prejudiced Republican Party, there can be only one choice: John McCain.



Honestly, I have a great desire to join the Democratic Party but out of good conscience I cannot and will not do so as long as they continue to try to institute the theologically liberal side of Christianity as the national civil religion. When they stop pushing the murder of unborn children and gay rights and the rebellion of women against a biblical view of gender relationships, then and only then will I seriously consider changing political parties.



On the other hand, I am not happy with the Republicans either. Bush promised to be a compassionate conservative, which never materialized. McCain is making the same sorts of promises and says he is more moderate toward social programs, etc. That remains to be seen.



The bottom-line is that electing Hillary Clinton to be our next president is intolerable. The very thought sends chills through my spine. There should be some sort of law against allowing the spouse of a former president to run for the office since it essentially gives the office sixteen potential years of power if they operate together. Eight more years of a Clinton presidency would bring unspeakable moral erosion and decline to our nation and would further erode our religious freedoms. Hillary would make it a "hate" crime to say homosexuality is a sin. She thinks it is "sexist" to say that men should have the headship in state, religion, and family affairs.

Finally, I can with all good conscience and faith say that I oppose civil religion and confusing the separation of church and state. That would include my opposition to giving a "liberal" Christian endorsement to the political left's endorsement of abortion/pro-choice and gay rights. Separation of church and state does not mean that we have a completely secular and materialistic government. Nor does it mean that the conservatives should baptize greed and materialistic capitalism as the only legitimate form of government. The truth lies somewhere in the middle. Rather than despair completely I will be forced to decide who is the lesser evil. At this point, it appears that John McCain is that choice.

May God have mercy!