When I imagined myself as the first black man to run for President, I always considered my Christian testimony and the part my pastor would play in it. I could not think of kicking him to the curb or ignoring my association with him. As a fundamental Baptist preacher he is prone to say controversial things from the pulpit. Controversial to the ears of the world but not to God. The world might think it hateful when he preaches on sanctification and separation especially when he says to remain separate from worldly influences. My pastor always preaches the Word. If he talks about political issues, it is from a spiritual point of view and based on scripture, not personal opinion. My political views are shaped by my faith and my faith is shaped by the preaching and teaching of God’s Word and God’s Word is presented by my preacher. It was his ministry that led me to Christ and it was under his ministry that I grew as a Christian. So I cannot conceive of any time or situation where I would distance myself from him or his teachings and comments.
Well I probably won’t ever run for President but Obama is trying hard to. So I wonder about what his testimony is. He obviously embraced his pastor and his teachings at one point. But now he is putting as much distance as he can between himself and Reverend Wright. Why? Does he or doesn’t he believe the man? Is Wright Obama’s spiritual leader or isn’t he? If not then who? Shouldn’t we get to know who is the spiritual guidance of one of America’s potential Presidents?
But if Wright is Obama’s guru then aren’t we within our right to question comments the man has made publicly? Shouldn’t we be aware of what was taught by Wright and received by Obama? Isn’t this part of Barack Obama’s testimony?
Wright is in the news again, making comments against Fox News personalities. He was at a funeral of all places. I think he likes the spotlight and plans to take full advantage of his fifteen minutes. Where does that leave the Obama campaign?
Has your pastor (or other spiritual leader) said controversial things behind the pulpit? If you were running for public office, would you promote your pastor, or distance yourself?
"O LORD, revive thy work in the midst of the years, . . . in wrath remember mercy" (Habakkuk 3:2).
"Wilt thou not revive us again: that thy people may rejoice in thee?" (Psalm 85:6)
Showing posts with label Baptist. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Baptist. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Testimony
Labels:
Baptist,
Christianity,
Faith,
Opinion,
Personal Note,
Politics,
Race Relations,
Religion
Tuesday, July 03, 2007
That's Right! I Said Baptists Are NOT Protestant!
This post is for Big Daddy Weave, an alleged student of Baptist history. BDW took exception to my assertion that Baptists are not Protestant. He invited me to catch up on my Baptist history. Nah. Instead I think I will teach him a thing or ten. From Baptist Banner Baptist History section:
Jesus said "Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist..." Notice he didn't say John the Catholic, or John the Protestant. We Baptist trace our doctrine back to John the Baptist. Schools out.
- Baptists are Ancient, and our Ancestry can be traced through the vital principles established and set forth by our Lord Jesus Christ and His disciples in the New Testament Churches
- Baptists are not "Protestants," as our testimony extends much further in History than that of Martin Luther or John Calvin.
- Baptists are not "Reformed" in Theology or practice, for our view of the church could never allow the marriage of church and state.
- Baptists are not "Calvinists," for the doctrines of grace were believed and preached long before John Calvin Preached in Geneva. Calvinism
- Baptists are not "Arminian" in theology, for our forefathers preached the Gospel with fervor long before the time of Jacob Arminius, and believed they were enabled by God to Persevere.
- Immersion was in common use among Baptists before 1641. We reject the 1641 theory of William Whitsitt and oppose the Conclusion of Henry Veddar About Baptism. We View as Suspect the modern histories of Robert Baker, Leon McBeth, Walter Shurden, Robert G. Torbet, and James Edward McGoldrick as they submit to the thoroughly disproved theory of William Whitsitt.
- Baptists heritage is far older than "Fundamentalism," or the era of the city-wide revival campaigns, or the time of the old Evangelical Alliance.
- Because Baptists have suffered at the hands of Papists and Pedobaptistic Protestants alike, we ought to venerate and remember our historic testimony far above the testimony of our persecuting enemies. That is, we ought to revere the testimony of the Paulicians, Peter de Bruys, Henry of Clugny, Balthasar Hubmaier, Henry D'anvers, John Clarke, Obadiah Holmes, Valentine Wightman, Isaac Backus, Shubal Stearns, Samuel Harris, John Leland, John Taylor, Isaac McCoy, et. al. These names should be more commonly known among Baptists than those of D. L. Moody, Ira Sankey, R. A. Torrey, Sam Jones, Gipsy Smith, John Wilbur Chapman or Billy Sunday.
- Infant Baptism is the badge of the antichrist, and flirtation with that badge is akin to treason against God's word.
- Ignorance of Baptist heritage, which is so infectious in our pulpits and pews today, is dangerous and must be overcome with a renewed teaching of our Baptist heritage and heroes of past generations.
Jesus said "Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist..." Notice he didn't say John the Catholic, or John the Protestant. We Baptist trace our doctrine back to John the Baptist. Schools out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)