Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts

Jan 3, 2009

Standing with Israel's right to defend itself

by Dan Grubbs

After reading the transcript of Ambassador Bolton’s interview on “Hannity & Colmes,” and reading Secretary of State Rice’s remarks about Israel, I have finally succumbed to the harsh realization that our two nations are effectively alone on one side of the geo-political world stage. Yes, we have friends in Great Britain, Poland and Canada, but they really are inconsequential in the matters of the Middle East.

I’ve never really subscribed to notion there is overwhelming lingering anti-Semitism in Europe. So, the change in the sentiment of Europeans is based on something else. I’m of the opinion that change is fueled by something identifiable.

As the volume of Muslim immigration into Western Europe continues to grow, the incoming ideology becomes a solute in the old solvent of Europe that gives us a new social solution that is the new European soup. I believe France’s Sarkozy does not have the fortitude to do the right thing due to the swelling Muslim population in his country. Instead, it motivates him to little more than a public relations stunt by visiting the region in the name of peace.

There is no social or political will in Europe or Asia to stand with a free Israel that simply demands its right to exist without threat of attack.

Where is the outrage that missiles are landing on Israeli soil, killing Israeli citizens? Where is the international pressure to stop missiles from terrorizing hundreds of square miles populated by human beings? I don’t hear Europe’s outcry against these attacks when they kill. I don’t see news broadcasts focusing on the dead Israelis and the mourning families and the destruction caused by Hamas missiles. Yet, I do see protests all around the world when, in its own defense, Israel launches reprisals. I see news broadcasts telling biased stories and showing scenes specifically designed to raise ire against Israel’s fighting to remove the threat against it in Gaza.

Blogger Joel Griffith in the blog The Seven Sola discusses how Europe carps against Israel for strongly defending itself and frustratingly writes, “In my more irritated moments, I sometimes wish someone would lob a few mortars into a Western European city, and see who calls for being “proportionate” then.

No, Griffith is not literally wishing for mortar fire, but uses the expression to illustrate the hypocritical nature of the vocal opposition to Israel defending itself from attack. I agree with Ambassador Bolton who denies there is such a thing as a disproportionate reaction and attributes that idea to the rhetoric of academia and the impotent whimsy that is the United Nations.

Imagine that someone is shooting a rifle at your child and fires twice. Also imagine that you have a rifle with a magazine of six rounds loaded in it and you have the sniper across the room from you. Does the number of times the sniper fired at your child matter to you? No, you’ll use all the force you have to stop the sniper up to and including firing all six rounds of the rifle in your hands to protect your child. The notion of proportionate reaction is ludicrous. Israel has the right and is warranted to launch retaliatory attacks and to initiate military action to remove any threat to its people and its stability.

The United States and other free nations should make it clear that Israel is justified in its actions. The diplomatic cry to Israel for cease fire is misdirected. I guarantee you that if there would have been no missiles being fired into Israel, there would be no retaliation. The UN and France should be applying pressure on Hamas to end their attacks, not applying pressure on Israel.

I have no idea where President-elect Obama’s administration will stand (actions, not rhetoric) on Israel’s right to eliminate the threat of violence to its people. I hope that he makes an international statement by standing shoulder to shoulder with Israel, strongly rebuke both Hamas and Hezbollah, and support all actions to stop Iran from gaining nuclear arms.

But, my loss of hope for international solidarity with Israel cautions me not expect the new administration to rally the world together to support our friends along the Jordan.

Dec 20, 2008

Bound with unbelievers

by Dan Grubbs

My previous post may seem like it made too far a stretch to connect King Saul with Rick Warren. I understand that sentiment. However, I think there are other biblical teachings that directly apply to this situation in which Rick Warren finds himself.

2 Corinthians 6:14-15 is the main text I'll refer to in my disagreement with Warren accepting the invitation to deliver the prayer for the inauguration. Paul is teaching the believers in Corinth not to connect themselves with the false teachers around them, and secondarilly, not to associate themselves with unbelievers. The passage reads:
Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have
righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? Or
what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an
unbeliever?

In application to our own lives, the idea of being bound together is often referred to as unequally yoked, as two draft animals yoked together to work for a common purpose. If you yoke two oxen that aren't matched as a collaborative pair, you can't plow the field properly. If believers yoke themselves together with those who are in opposition to God and His word, they will be unequally yoked.

It is clear that President-elect Obama stands in opposition to God on many issues. This fact cannot be denied. What partnership can we, as believers, have with one who so starkly stands in opposition to the God whom we serve?

Continuing in the 2 Corinthian passage, God calls believers out from among such as President-elect Obama, whose public position on many issues count him as one associated with darkness.

Should we pray for Mr. Obama? Absolutely! Not only as the leader of our nation, but more importantly, for his relationship with God to be healed. Yet, Mr. Warren will not be praying for Mr. Obama's salvation on Jan. 20, but instead, will be by his presence, endorsing the agenda of the chief executive.

Dec 19, 2008

Is that bleating of sheep and lowing of oxen I hear?

By Dan Grubbs

If I wasn’t a fan of Rick Warren before, I certainly am not a fan now that he will deliver the invocation at President-elect Obama’s inauguration next month. I’ve read that Mr. Warren views this as an opportunity for national healing. However, I see this as something else.
I don’t think God was too happy about King Saul withholding the sword from Agag, the Amalekite king, and brought back spoils of war when Saul was directly commanded by God to destroy all.

Of course there’s not a direct comparison of Mr. Obama with Agag, but there is something of a parallel. Mr. Obama's support of the slaughter of millions of American citizens, among other things, should cause Mr. Warren to refuse, just as Saul should have put the enemies of God to the sword.

Any man should always consider their actions from God’s perspective, considering how they fit into His plans as we understand them through the Bible. I’m not convinced that Mr. Warren’s motives to accept the invitation to deliver the invocation are healthy. As Ruben Navarrette, Jr., wrote for CNN, Mr. Warren’s appearance is supposed to be about “American’s learning to agree to disagree without becoming disagreeable.” This feels a lot like wanting to negotiate with Agag, an enemy of God; or, at best Mr. Warren is attempting to make a pleasing act of sacrifice. However, let’s review how God’s prophet Samuel replies to Saul, “Has the LORD as much delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed than the fat of rams.”

Personally, I could not make a public endorsement of Mr. Obama in this way because abortion is disobedience to God. And, there’s no apologetic to rationalize this appearance in any other way than a public endorsement.

Yes, Mr. Warren has been vocal about abortion, marriage and moral issues in this society. But, there is no eternal healing that can happen by delivering this invocation. And, it’s eternal healing that a pastor is supposed to be about.