Peter Heck - columns - "O," He of Little Faith

Archive

Subscribe to this blog's feed

2010 Articles

Sunday, October 10 2010

"O," He of Little Faith

In light of the fact that an increasing number of Americans are questioning his faith, President Obama has apparently been told by his advisors to ratchet up the Jesus talk. So at a staged event in Albuquerque, New Mexico, Obama complied by responding to a question about why he became a Christian.

"I came to my Christian faith later in life and it was because the precepts of Jesus Christ spoke to me in terms of the kind of life that I would want to lead," he explained, adding he was moved by the thought of, "Being my brothers' and sisters' keeper."

One has to wonder whether such an answer was really what his advisors were wanting. After all, who would ever suggest the president use the Biblical phrase, "being my brothers' keeper," when his actual half-brother (blood related) resides in a shack in Kenya?

If I may be so bold, I think this strained proclamation of faith by the President is far more about a Machiavellian manipulation of the masses (trying to convince people he's something that he's not) than it is about a devotion to the teachings of Christ. In other words, I call bull.

Anyone who has actually studied and taken the ?precepts of Jesus' to heart knows that Jesus taught us to be personally charitable. This is fitting with Christ's testimony that his was not a political kingdom, but a spiritual one (John 18:36). He came not to conquer earthly thrones, but the human heart.

Yet false teachers like Obama seek to confuse that point. They tell us that obedience to Christ comes in the form of high taxes on the wealthy to fund social programs for the poor. Even if these programs weren't as miserably ineffective as what they are, look at what they foster: envy, greed, bitterness and resentment. Not exactly the motivations of love and altruism that Jesus said were to be at the heart of our goodwill.

In truth, there is not one recorded instance of Christ advocating the government confiscation and redistribution of wealth in the name of charity.

Jesus did say: "The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.' (Matthew 25:40)

Jesus did not say: "The King will reply, ?I tell you the truth, whatever you forcibly took from the masses through taxation in the name of these brothers of mine, you did for me."

Jesus did say: "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." (Matthew 19:21)

Jesus did not say: "If you want to be perfect, go, get elected to high office and then use the law to confiscate the property of those who have, and give to those you deem more worthy of it. Then claim you are following me."

You get the point. Barack Obama's social gospel of government sponsored theft is a flat contradiction to what Jesus taught.

So keeping in mind another Biblical precept that "by their fruits you will know them" (Matthew 7:16), perhaps it's time to put Mr. Obama's fruits on trial against the actual principles of Jesus he claims are so moving. If these words of our Savior truly spoke to Obama about the kind of life he wanted to lead, the evidence should be manifest.

But oddly, according to the New York Times, "In 2004, before Mr. Obama entered the Senate, he and his wife gave $2,500 to charity, 1.2 percent of the taxable income.?Their charitable giving only went up when it looked like he was campaigning for the presidential office,' said Paul L. Caron, a professor at the University of Cincinnati College of Law."

Moreover, cited and notated research of conservative writer Ann Coulter reveals something truly astonishing: "For purposes of comparison, in 2005, Barack Obama made $1.7 million - more than twice President Bush's 2005 income of $735,180 - but they both gave about the same amount to charity. That same year, the heartless Halliburton employee Vice President Dick Cheney gave 77 percent of his income to charity."

In other words, while Mr. Obama is very interested in being charitable with your money, he's pretty stingy with his own. While you may find that in the teachings of Marx, you won't find it in the precepts of Jesus.

As I watch Mr. Obama's persistently arrogant, sanctimonious sermonizing to a nation of citizens far more personally charitable than him, there's another phrase of Christ that comes to mind. Perhaps the President would be wise to familiarize himself with it...whitewashed tomb.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 05:36 pm | Permalink | 17 Comments | Email

Comments:

How dare you? Who are you to judge a man's faith based on his politics as that was the gist of your article? Who are you to even suggest that because he interprets scripture one way, and you another, that his faith is not true? Are you Christ-like enough, are you pure enough that you can feel so free to sit in judgment over what and how he chooses to donate, to measure his soul? If he has done it properly and not to suit political ends, then don't you realize that he did it so that the left hand would not know what the right was doing? Again, how dare you? Do you not realize that the measure you use shall be used against you?

Posted by Lee on 10/10/2010 18:41:41

Are you not aware that many people question your faith because of the political stance you hold on torture and Guantanamo Bay? You cannot judge by that because you cannot know his heart. Yes, we shall know a tree by the fruit that it bears, but how can you judge his fruit from afar? How accurately can you judge good or bad fruit when you are only able to see it from a distance? You don't know him as a man, and I believe you forget that while man can see the outward appearance, only God can know the heart (1 Samuel 16:17)? You accuse him of perverting scripture to lead people, and yet you have twisted this passage to suit the same end.

Posted by Lee on 10/10/2010 18:42:57

I know that your faith is true, but you have committed a horrendous error in judging a man that you do not know. This is the very definition of ‘judge not lest yea be judged.' I don't care if you want put all of your best efforts into turning people off of voting for Obama and the democrats. Do your worst, but never, and I mean never, use the Lord's words to meet a political end. You can suggest that Obama's policy does not meet the standard of this Christian nation, but don't presume that you can comprehend what lies in his soul.

Posted by Lee on 10/10/2010 18:43:39

I will remember you in my prayers because I honestly believe that you are faithful. As I have said before, I have even had to defend your faith to others, though I don't agree with you. But there is just something horribly wrong with this. People are going to see this as your bad fruit, and you will fall prey to the very judgment you are laying against the president.

Posted by Lee on 10/10/2010 18:44:39

Uh...Lee, this didn't "judge" Mr. Obama's soul. It merely says two things: 1.) That Obama's claims to be motivated by the precepts of Jesus are not born out in his actions. That's not something that requires us to look on Obama's heart and judge it. It requires us to look upon his actions and ntoe the obvious. And 2.) Obama's use of the law to redistribute wealth is not fulfilling the words or teachings of Christ. Do you disagree with either of those two conclusions?

Posted by GD on 10/11/2010 14:31:52

Oh really? Well perhaps I was slightly misled by the title which I thought was a reference to the president's lack of faith. Then again maybe it was the allegation that the president is purposefully lying to the nation about his faith to garner votes in a "staged event." Heck basically said that Obama's proclamation of faith was "bull." Oh then again, maybe it was the striking imagery of putting Obama's "fruits on trial" Or where Heck made the connection that "if these words of our savoir truly spoke to Obama about the life he wanted to lead," it should be evident in how much money he donates to charity.

Posted by Lee on 10/11/2010 18:17:56

And what about the most obvious judgment of all: the reference to the whitewashed tomb. Maybe you are not familiar with that allusion, but it is basically calling Obama a hypocrite and a liar. A white washed tomb with dead men's bones inside. That is the very definition of judging someone's soul! He is basically saying that while Obama works to perfect his outward image, his heart is corrupted! There is no way to call someone a whitewashed tomb without judgment involved! And if you will not see that, then you are purposefully being blind to it.

Posted by Lee on 10/11/2010 18:18:46

Your number 2 point is not what I am talking about. He can sound that message until the cows come home if he so desires, but his blatant condemnation is not to be endured.

Posted by Lee on 10/11/2010 18:19:28

Okay, easy does it here Lee. You're a bit worked up. Let's think this through: there is obviously judgment involved in this column. There's judgment in the expression of any opinion. My point is that it is NOT the kind of judgment you speak of. Heck isn't sitting in judgement of Obama's soul. He is pointing out that Obama's actions do not comport with his claims. That involves a judgement, but one that is evidenced BY HIS FRUITS! It doesn't require gazing upon the heart. The heart is exposed by his outward actions in this case.

Posted by GD on 10/11/2010 21:17:02

And obviously I'm familiar with the concept of a whitewashed tomb. But look what Heck writes. He says that watching Obama lecture people who are more giving than him about how giving he is, is reminiscient of that claim. Heck says the President should familiarize himself with the phrase because he is sounding much more like one of those than someone inspired by Jesus' precepts. That sounds a lot more like a warning than a condemnation. The condemnation it seems is coming from someone named Lee accusing Heck of saying things he didn't say.

Posted by GD on 10/11/2010 21:20:07

I'm totally with GD on this. I think, Lee, that you don't like having your beloved Obama called out. Let me tell you, as a Christian, I am tired of hearing all the sermonizing from liberals who ignore Christ's teachings on so many other issues want to preach his message about caring for the poor to justify their government theft. It's outrageous, it's unbiblical, and it's certainly unChristlike. Peter is thankfully giving voice to that.

Posted by Jake L. on 10/11/2010 21:23:25

Jake brings up a good point. Peter didn't go into Obama's stance for killing children in the womb and outside the womb (his opposition to the born alive act). Peter didn't mention his support for the homosexual lobby. Peter didn't mention his open mockery of the Bible when he was speaking to Call to Renewal. Peter didn't mention his open embrace of the anti-family Hollywood elites and agenda. This is judging someone's fruits, Lee. It's all we can do. You may not like what the verdict is, but it's necessary to expel the false teachers from our midst.

Posted by Tory on 10/11/2010 21:28:38

I stand by what I said. Before you go calling anyone a hypocrite, a white washed tomb, you had better be sure that you are measuring them fairly. policy (at least the ones mentioned in the article) does NOT warrant such a hideous accusation. It is truly unfair, and the really ironic thing is that the same claim is being laid against Heck because of policy views he holds. you can't judge anyone over that. Policy is NOT fruit. It is too ambiguous because you can't know the intent behind it. You are judging the tree by something that does not constitute fruit.

Posted by Lee on 10/11/2010 22:07:10

Who can truly claim the authority to weigh his faith over this? You can judge for yourselves whether his policy is Christ inspired or not, but you canNOT question the faith behind it, and that is exactly what I mean when I say that this article twists scripture. that passage is meant to help us identify wolves in sheep's clothing, but it is being used to falsely brand a man as a hypocrite. I am not saying that he isn't one, but I am saying that anyone who judges him based on the policy outlined in this article, is committing a horrendous error.

Posted by Lee on 10/11/2010 22:07:57

Oh, and as I said before, I would never condemn him. I don't doubt his faith for an instant. It is his judgement that I am calling into question.

Posted by Lee on 10/11/2010 22:09:27

Lee, you write, "Policy is NOT fruit. It is too ambiguous because you can't know the intent behind it." But as GD pointed out, Heck gave examples of fruit beyond policy. He pointed out Obama's shamefully stingy giving and personal charity. That isn't policy. It is an outward display of how convicted his heart really is by those precepts of Jesus. And as Tory said, that is how Scripture told us we were to measure someone to know if they were a false teacher or not. Obama preaches one thing, but lives another way.

Posted by Rebel With a Cause on 10/12/2010 11:13:47

Peter Heck, this is as well stated as any I have ever seen about the social gospel. It is a perfect depiction of the trouble associated with applying Jesus' personal commands to the civil government. Liberals many times attempt to do this, primarily as a weapon to use against conservatives. Based on the evidence you cited regarding Mr. Obama's personal fruits, it is apparent he falls into this category. The problem is that too many conservatives and Christians don't know how to respond. You have given it to them beautifully if they will pay attention. Again, well done.

Posted by John Titus on 10/12/2010 21:16:03