Who Are Those Guys?
This last weekend “a group of evangelicals” met in Houston Texas to endorse a GOP candidate for President. Tony Perkins, the assigned spokesman for the group, released a statement that “there emerged a strong consensus around Rick Santorum as the preferred candidate of this room…a clear, clear majority”. The meeting was “secret” and “anonymous”. The participants were asked to remain silent for a 24 hour period after the event to make sure a united statement (via Tony Perkins) would emerge from the meeting.
It seems to me that the list of participants at the meeting should be made public if the group is going to presume to speak for such a large and diverse group as “Evangelicals”. I have seen the number of attendants range from 150 to 180. In several different news reports I have read there were three ballots/votes taken at the meeting which all reflect different numbers of people voting (1st ballot: 123 total votes; 2nd ballot 119 total votes; 3rd ballot 114 total votes). So there were at least 123 people at the meeting – obviously a vote count is not the same as a head count as there are many reasons a an attender may not be reflected in the vote count. Some people had to leave the meeting early to get back to their churches and get ready for services but here are the results from the three votes as reported by the Washington Post:
The group had agreed that its minimum threshold to support a candidate was a three-quarters vote. However, the balloting on the first round was far closer than that, with Santorum receiving 57 votes; Gingrich, 48; Texas Gov. Rick Perry, 13; former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, 3; and Texas Rep. Ron Paul, 1.
In the second round, in which participants chose between the top two finishers on the first ballot, Santorum received 70 votes to Gingrich’s 49.
It was not until the third ballot, after some of Gingrich’s supporters left, that Santorum cleared the three-quarters threshold, receiving 85 votes, to Gingrich’s 29.
Here are the people who I have been able to determine were at the meeting.
- Judge Paul Pressler, host and owner of the home where the meeting took place. (Description from his facebook page: The Hon. H. Paul Pressler III is a former Texas Appeals Court Justice, and is principally known for his role as the architect and leader of the Conservative Resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention.)
- Tony Perkins, President of Family Research Council
- James Dobson, Founder of Focus on the Family (source)
- Gary Bauer, president of Campaign for Working Families (source)
- Pastor Richard Lee, First Redeemer Church in Cummings Georgia (source)
- Pastor Jim Garlow, Skyline Church, San Diego California (source)
- J.C. Watts, Former House of Representatives R-Oklahoma (source)
- Richard Viguerie, ConservativeHQ dot-com (source)
- Penny Nance, president of Concerned Women for America (source)
- Ken Cuccinelli, Virginia Attorney General (source)
- Michael Geer, president of the Pennsylvania Family Council/PAC (source)
- John Stemberger, president of Florida Family Action (source)
- George Barna, The Barna Group (source)
- David Lane, California-based political activist (source)
- Don Wildmon, founder of the American Family Association (source)
- Bob Vander Plaats, The Family Leader, a political organization (source)
- Erick Erickson, blogger for RedState dot-com, radio host (source)
If you know of any more, add them in the comments.
My opinion about this meeting is here…
Related Posts:
An Open Letter To All Americans
This letter was written by “Religious Leaders” to “All Americans.”
In light of my post yesterday entitled “An Evangelical Papacy?” I thought it would be appropriate to comment on this letter – not so much on its content and whether or not I would sign or agree with it, but rather the relationship between this sort of action and the action of the anonymous group in Houston who endorsed Republican Rick Santorum this last weekend.
The issue raised in these two activities is how the church, pastor, religious leader impacts the culture. The letter and the weekend endorsement meeting represent two different approaches to how to impact culture. Today is Martin Luther King Day, and maybe the most famous open letter of our era was written by King from a Birmingham Jail. I would submit that the “open letter” approach is a good and healthy approach for “Religious Leaders.”
BUT, the actions of ministers and religious leaders in endorsing candidates is not. In fact, not only is it not a good and healthy approach, I would submit that it is wrong and destructive to the inherent power of the clergy/church resident in their holy and righteous voice. When we write an open letter, or challenge a system to which we have demonstrated partisan allegiance, the effort is eviscerated of holy power.
Here is how pastors and churches can impact their culture. Go back to your church and your community and reach out to the people in the neighborhoods surrounding your church geographically. Stop trying to be “national” or “significant” in the eyes of the media. Stop trying to manipulate the political structures by getting into bed with politicians.
Related Posts:
An Evangelical Papacy?
I just wanted to sit down, watch some football, read the last in the Hunger Games series and enjoy a Sunday evening.
But the “evangelical leaders” (whoever they are) went and almost ruined my day. Last night, just in time to make the announcement for Sunday morning, an anonymous group of “almost 170 conservative leaders” met in Houston, Texas and decided that Evangelicals are endorsing Rick Santorum as the Republican nominee for president.
I don’t know if I could have said it any better than Jim West at Zinglius Redivivus in a post entitled Endorsements by Clergy Are Meaningless (And Evil), but he was brief, and I want to expand on why this meeting and this action is so wrong.
The term “Evangelical” refers to a particular form of Christianity, ie, the Church. Churches are not political entities, nor should they be. Pastors should not “endorse” candidates, nor should they involve themselves in political activity. Pastors and “churches” should hold themselves apart from the political enterprise. Christians, as individuals, can and should involve themselves as free citizens in a free and democratic society. And they should be guided by their convictions. Their convictions are guided by the church. But the direct involvement of the church/pastor muddies the waters and weakens the church.
These 170 or so “leaders” may not all be “pastors” but I venture to say that many of them are, and their intention is to “influence” the votes of the “evangelicals” by endorsing Santorum. But they met anonymously, used the media power of organizations like Focus on the Family (James Dobson and Jim Daly) and the Family Research Council (Tony Perkins) presumed to “speak” for the church, albeit distancing that moniker in favor of the more general term “evangelical”. These guys want to speak for the church, but represent no particular church and are not empowered by the leadership of any particular church. It is no wonder, any church that would promote this sort of buffoonery has no business calling itself a church.
They met “in secret” and “anonymously.” I have looked for a listing of this group, it should be easy to find, but have been unsuccessful. Should I not have the ability to find out who this group of leaders who is speaking for us “evangelicals”? This sort of clandestine meeting is shameful.
Here is the most that should have happened. This group meets and hashes out their consensus and then Tony Perkins comes out and says, “Family Research Council endorses so and so”, “Focus on the Family” endorses so and so” or “Blank Church endorses so and so” or “Pastor Blank endorses so and so”. Why did they do it this way? Why not have one of the “organizations” endorse? The National Association of Evangelicals may have been represented, wouldn’t it have been more “official” if they presumed to speak for us? Why didn’t they? What they have done appears to be an end run around behavior that might threaten their tax exempt standing.
To sum it up in a word: Pathetic.
Related Posts:
John 13:1-20: What I left out…
As a follow up to Sunday’s sermon, here are some further thoughts from the text:
Timing issues: We are given the time marker “berfore the feast of Passover” in verse 1; “during supper” in verse 2; “got up from supper” in verse 4. It seems that the feet washing occurs in the middle of the supper which would be odd. This activity would normally have been done at the start of the evening, that is, at the arrival of guests. This points to the nature of the deed: Jesus is not instituting a ritual or tradition of foot washing, but using it as representative of the larger category of service in general. The example to us is of Jesus as a servant, not Jesus as a “foot washer”. The service that we perform toward one another is broad and not to be confined to a narrow activity.
The phrase “he loved them to the end” (13:2) is fulfilled in the cross where Jesus proclaims “it is finished” (19:30). That phrase is actually better translated “they are finished” and refer to the knowledge that Jesus had that in his death “all things had been accomplished” (19:28).
Judas is identified with the devil (v.2) and Satan (v. 27). Judas is contrasted with Peter here in this chapter, even though the contrast is not seen so much with behavior (betrayal and denial are both sinful), but with heritage or parentage. Judas aligns himself with the devil, the father of lies, is of the world (compare chapter 8:21-30; 39-47) and is therefore “not of God.” Peter on the other hand is portrayed as a believing one, even though he will deny Jesus, and is identified as connected with the Father. This connection to the Father is highlighted by his identification as Simon Peter (the name Jesus gives him) versus Simon bar Jonah, his “wordly” name.
The word “betray” literally means “give up” or “give over”. Compare with Peter who later offers to “lay down” his life for Jesus (13:37).
Jesus “laid aside his garments” (13:4). this is his voluntary service. Later on, the soldiers take his outer garments and cast lots for it (19:23-25).
Jesus “throws” (literal transaltion of “ballo”, which is also the word used in verse 2: the devil “threw” into the heart of Judas) the water into the basin. It may be a stretch, but often water is symbolic of the Spirit in John (3:5: which I translate “water, even the Spirit”; 7:37-39) and here Jesus uses his example as the vehicle for future Christian service that is accomplished by the ministry of the Spirit. Later in John 21 Peter girds himself and “throws” himself into the sea to get to Jesus. Connection? I think it is, the language is unusual which would cause us to make a connection.
In verse 10 Jesus makes the statement: ”you are clean” which he clarifies in 15:3: ”You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you.” It is the ministry of the Word/word, that is the truth that makes you free, clean.
Related Posts:
Immigrant Song
Today marked the anniversary of my parents arrival in the United States as immigrants. Their journey started 4 days earlier in Tehran, where they got on a Red Cross Cargo plane and flew to Cairo, Rome, London, Ireland somewhere, Iceland, Greenland and finally NYC. The leg from Iceland to Greenland took 9 hours, from Greenland to NYC took 6. Two train rides (NYC-Chi; Chi-LA) and six days later they arrived in LA.
My Dad was 24, Mom 23, Kathy 1.
While peppering my parents with questions about the trip, we asked Pop about all the jobs he held…here is what he had to say:
Related Posts:
Temple Blog Podcast: John 6:60-71
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
This is the sermon from July 3, 2011 from John 6:60-71.
Here is a question that I received from a listener to this podcast:
Reverend, I listened to your sermon from July 3rd and I wonder what you would say to someone who has sincerely sought God and simply says that they do not believe?
Read my answer by selecting more…
Related Posts:
Millennial Primer
Here are four elementary overview timelines of the four major viewpoints with regard to the Millennium mentioned in Revelation 20. Narrated by David Murray, Professor of OT and Practical Theology at Reformed Theological Seminary and of HeadHeartHand Blog and the Connected Kingdom podcast with Tim Challies, you will love his marvelous Scottish accent and the graphic and simple explanations of these different views
Amillennial Timeline
Amillennial Timeline from Puritan Reformed on Vimeo.
Post-Millennial Timeline
Postmillennial Timeline from Puritan Reformed on Vimeo.
Pre-millennial Timeline
Premillennial Timeline from Puritan Reformed on Vimeo.
Dispensational Timeline
Dispensational Premillennial Timeline from Puritan Reformed on Vimeo.
Related Posts:
Sovereignty of God
Al Martin preaches a 17 part series on Sovereignty. Download the free MP3′s from Monergism dot com.
Related Posts:
Q & A: Does the Birth Control Pill Cause Abortions?
As a pastor I get lots of questions, here is one of the more interesting ones I have received lately:
Hi Pastor Steve, I have a question I’m hoping you can help me with. What, if any, is your church’s opinion on birth control pills? I’ve been on the pill since we got married and neither of us had any convictions against it, but Sunday we were listening to Mark Driscoll’s Religion Saves and there is a part where he talks about all the different birth control methods and what is ok for Christians. When he came to the pill he said that Mars Hill hired doctors (I think 5) to do a study and that they concluded that they cannot confidently say that the pill doesn’t cause abortions, nor can they say that it does. Because of this his family decided to be cautious and not use it, they also don’t recommend anyone in their church use it. He said they certainly don’t consider it a sin or something that would involve church discipline but they do strongly caution against it. This was all news to us, we certainly don’t want to be taking any chances if the pill does cause abortion so we are praying about it and seeking counsel. So that is why I wanted to ask you if NCC or yourself had a stance.
Thanks!
Here is my response:
NCC does not have a policy regarding birth control pills.
My understanding is that the primary way birth control pills work is that they prevent pregnancy mainly by stopping ovulation. That would mean that no eggs are being fertilized hence no abortion. There are other corollary effects of birth control pills that in cases where an egg is produced and fertilized these corollary effects make it difficult for the egg to implant in the wall of the uterus and as a result of that is “aborted”, or miscarried.
This is not a new discussion, it is odd to me that Mars Hill “hired’ doctors to do this study. Randy Alcorn wrote a book on this in 1997 called Does the Birth Control Pill Cause Abortions? The “issue” really has to do with the ability of the fertilized egg to implant with the existing conditions caused by the added hormones. You can find that information through a simple Google search, or looking in the Physicians Desk Reference.
If I were to write Randy Alcorn’s book I would title it: Does the Birth Control Pill Cause Miscarriages? (it wouldn’t sell as many books though) That seems to be the essence of the moral argument: what is the true nature of the effect that is described as “abortion” in this instance. Abortion seems to me to be a deliberate action after the fact, “I find that I am pregnant, I don’t want a child, I take steps to end the pregnancy” or a specific decision to use a device that has as its main function to work after fertilization (like the IUD or RU486).
But the main purpose and function of the pill is to prevent fertilization from occurring and as a side effect it makes it more difficult in the rare instance of breakthrough ovulation for the egg to implant – not impossible just more difficult. I would call this miscarriage not abortion. You are not doing anything in a moral sense to “abort” you simply are taking the risk in good faith that feritilization will not occur. So your decision it seems to me is are you willing to take a risk that a breakthrough ovulation might lead to miscarriage. I still think that is a decision to pray over, I just think it is inflammatory to speak of that as “abortion” as it doesn’t have the same moral qualities.
for what its worth…
Steve
For a much different perspective, here is a PDF link to Randy Alcorn’s book: Does the Birth Control Pill Cause Abortions?
Related Posts:
The Amman Message
For those looking for a moderate Muslim explanation of their religion and outlook….read the Amman Message.
My name is Steve Bagdanov and I am the High Priest of the Temple. Thanks for visiting. I invite you to stay awhile, browse the Categories and many articles on a variety of topics, 