Andy Ostroy at Huffington Post:
Sen. Joe Biden's a perfectly appropriate vice presidential running-mate for Sen. Barack Obama. He's got 36 years of Senate experience, is a true intellect, a foreign policy expert, and a genuinely nice guy. But ever since Sen. John McCain added plucky Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to his ticket, the old adage nice guys finish last is beginning to take on new meaning in this year's presidential contest. It's time to dump Biden and replace him with Sen. Hillary Clinton. I don't care how it's done. Campaign chief David Axelrod can figure that out. And the sooner the better. Because I'm starting to think that if Team-Obama doesn't do something dramatic fast, it's gonna lose this election. There's a worrisome shift in momentum and in the polls. The Palin phenomenon, while truly unfathomable to Democrats, has energized McCain's campaign and allowed him like Houdini to snatch Obama's "change" theme right out from under him. It's time to snatch it back.
Conventional wisdom says replacing Biden with Clinton can't be done. That it's too late. That it'll make Obama appear indecisive, impulsive and lacking good judgement. Many Democrats believe this would cause irreparable harm to the campaign, ringing Obama's death knell. But this couldn't be further from the truth. In fact, it'd be a freakin' coup for Obama, and would instantly melt Palin's undeserving outsize political ice cap.
To be sure, a Biden-Clinton switch would cause quite a stir in the media. They'd accuse him of all sorts of things, from being politically expedient and flip-flopping to being irrational and ill-equipped to be president. The talking heads on CNN, Fox and MSNBC would be locked in a non-stop frenzied orgy of derisive rhetoric. But we also know that it would make about 18-million Hillary voters ecstatic at the same time. So, honestly, who really cares what Joe Scarborough, Keith Olbermann, Wolf Blitzer or Brit Hume thinks? These pundits don't constitute an appreciable voting block. What they think and feel would be utterly dwarfed by the euphoria from Clinton's faithful supporters. It's a pretty safe bet that an Obama/Clinton ticket would capture virtually all of these loyal Clintonistas. It's also a safe bet that many of those highly coveted 18-49-year-old women who polls show migrated to McPalin this past week would drop the spunky little hockey mom in a heartbeat for Hillary. Lastly, it's an even safer bet that Obama's current voters would stick with him as well. So, where's the downside? Show me a Democrat, today, who'd dump Obama for McCain if Biden was replaced with Clinton? They don't exist.
Obama should do what the Republicans would do in this situation. In fact, he should do exactly what his opponent did. Shake things up. Be unconventional. Roll the dice. Out-McCain McCain. Who cares how it looks. Who cares what the media thinks. One thing's certain: there's an 18-million deep pot of gold out there waiting to be mined. An Obama/Clinton ticket would slam the door shut on this election.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Joe Guarino: Obama to dump Biden?
September 12, 2008
Rush Limbaugh openly speculated during the opening moments of his radio program today as to whether Barack Obama might be preparing to remove Joe Biden from his ticket in favor of Hillary Clinton. He cited the two-hour lunch meeting Obama had with Bill Clinton yesterday in Harlem.
But there are other circumstances, of course, that could theoretically lead to a perceived need to change the vice-presidential nominee. First, of course, is the nomination of Sarah Palin and the manner in which it has turned the presidential race upside down. Obama is now behind in the polls nationally and in some of the key states he was previously leading.
Second, there is newly released polling information that suggests the change of fortune could spill down to congressional races, and perhaps even cause the national Democrats to lose control of the House of Representatives.
Third, the Obama campaign at least momentarily appears to be out of energy, to be striking the wrong notes with the electorate, and to have lost its appeal.
And fourth, even Joe Biden has conceded that Hillary would have been a better running mate.
It is not clear to me how a national party, at this point, goes about changing its nominee. I do not know how party rules could make that happen.
But if, in fact, there are secret negotiations taking place with respect to Hillary replacing Biden on the ticket, the Clinton's are in a very strong negotiating position. And I suspect that Obama, to entice her to join him, would have to cede to the Clinton's a significant chunk of his presidency.
That is why I suspect it will not happen. But if it does, we may not learn until much later what agreements have been made.
Rush Limbaugh openly speculated during the opening moments of his radio program today as to whether Barack Obama might be preparing to remove Joe Biden from his ticket in favor of Hillary Clinton. He cited the two-hour lunch meeting Obama had with Bill Clinton yesterday in Harlem.
But there are other circumstances, of course, that could theoretically lead to a perceived need to change the vice-presidential nominee. First, of course, is the nomination of Sarah Palin and the manner in which it has turned the presidential race upside down. Obama is now behind in the polls nationally and in some of the key states he was previously leading.
Second, there is newly released polling information that suggests the change of fortune could spill down to congressional races, and perhaps even cause the national Democrats to lose control of the House of Representatives.
Third, the Obama campaign at least momentarily appears to be out of energy, to be striking the wrong notes with the electorate, and to have lost its appeal.
And fourth, even Joe Biden has conceded that Hillary would have been a better running mate.
It is not clear to me how a national party, at this point, goes about changing its nominee. I do not know how party rules could make that happen.
But if, in fact, there are secret negotiations taking place with respect to Hillary replacing Biden on the ticket, the Clinton's are in a very strong negotiating position. And I suspect that Obama, to entice her to join him, would have to cede to the Clinton's a significant chunk of his presidency.
That is why I suspect it will not happen. But if it does, we may not learn until much later what agreements have been made.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Canadian bishops to ponder implications of 'next steps' after Lambeth
From The Anglican Journal (Canada):
Marites N. Sison
staff writer
Sep 10, 2008
The Canadian house of bishops will discuss next month how best to respond to renewed proposals for a moratoria on the blessing of same-sex unions, the ordination of openly gay persons to the episcopate, and cross-border interventions.
In a related development, Archbishop Fred Hiltz, primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, said he has requested Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams to facilitate a meeting between him, the primate of the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone, Gregory Venables, U.S. presiding bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, and the primate of Brazil, Mauricio de Andrade, to discuss cross-border interventions.
The three primates – Archbishop Hiltz, Archbishop de Andrade, and Bishop Jefferts Schori – have repeatedly asked Archbishop Venables to stop meddling in the internal affairs of their provinces. Archbishop Venables has, on his own accord, been providing episcopal oversight to churches that are in serious theological dispute with their respective provinces over the issue of sexuality. Archbishop Williams has said he will do his best to facilitate the request.
In an interview, Archbishop Hiltz said the Canadian bishops will have “a very focused conversation” around how they understand the call for moratoria. He said there are conflicting interpretations on what the moratorium means, with some thinking it means not having any new blessings, and some interpreting it as retroactive, which would require a synod like New Westminster to rescind its 2002 motion that allowed same-sex blessings in their diocese. He added that the Archbishop of Canterbury’s recent letter to bishops about the moratoria was also “significant.” Archbishop Williams had acknowledged that, while the call for moratoria received support from “a strong majority” at the conference, he was nonetheless aware of the “conscientious difficulties this posed for some.”
Archbishop Hiltz said that the diocesan bishop of New Westminster, Michael Ingham, “rightly pointed out that it’s not for him to rescind the motion; the synod has to debate the issue.” The primate said that he’d be “very surprised if they rescind that motion.”
Archbishop Hiltz said that the call for moratoria would also be “a huge pastoral challenge” for bishops of four dioceses that have pending requests from their synods for the approval of same-sex blessings “given the kind of strong majority votes those synods” had.
He also said that the question of reciprocity remains. Bishops who are being asked to hold off on same-sex blessings are bound to ask, “Am I going to see a similar act of graciousness on the part of a primate or a bishop who intervenes from another province?” said Archbishop Hiltz. He said that there is clear evidence that the interventions are not going to cease. Already, conservative primates who boycotted the conference and formed a council for the Global Anglicans Future Conference (GAFCON) have announced plans for church plantings and the possibility of creating a new province in North America.
“It’s very complex because (they) feel their intervention is a pastoral response,” he said.
Archbishop Hiltz said that he was “not surprised” by GAFCON’s rejection of the proposals to address the conflict over sexuality. “It almost feels to me that whatever accusations or charges they lay against us, they appear to me to function very much a separatist group,” he said.
Asked about GAFCON’s plan to set up a North American province, he said “the province has to be in communion with the See of Canterbury and it’s the Anglican Consultative Council that determines (whether a province can be set up), not a group of primates and bishops, not even the Archbishop of Canterbury.” He said that the Archbishop of Canterbury had already expressed earlier that he only recognizes one Anglican ecclesial body in Canada, and that is the Anglican Church of Canada.
Archbishop Hiltz said that while he can’t predict what the bishops will do, he is aware of that they are wrestling with the “tensions between the local and global.” The dioceses of Ottawa and Montreal – whose synods a year ago approved a motion requesting their bishops to allow same-sex blessings— are having synods on Oct. 24 and 25, a few days before the house of bishops meeting scheduled Oct. 27 to 31. The two other dioceses – Niagara and Huron – will have their synods in November and May, respectively.
“Their local constituency has spoken, an overwhelming majority in some cases,” said Archbishop Hiltz. “While some would say it was even inappropriate for them to even debate the issue after the outcome at General Synod…the synod was an opportunity to hear the mind and heart of the church local, and the pastoral needs are significant there than they are in other places as evidenced by the vote.”
At the same time, Archbishop Hiltz said, “behind them and around them is the wider picture.” The question posed by the St. Michael Report (issued by the Primate’s Theological Commission in 2005) still remains, he said. “Do we hold unity as the ultimate value and so we cling to that at the risk of making a pastoral response that is called for unnecessary in the local context, or is it the other way – the gospel imperative is so important in this pastoral context that we proceed at the risk of unity?”
Archbishop Hiltz said that while the recent Lambeth Conference didn’t resolve anything, “I think a lot of us came away a lot more aware of the context in which people are wrestling with the issue.” He said that Anglicans around the world operate in very diverse contexts. While countries like Canada allow gays and lesbians to be civilly married, there are other parts of the Anglican Communion where “if it’s found out that you’re homosexual, your life is on the line – you could be imprisoned or killed,” he said.
“What we do in Canada has the potential to impact other places,” he said. He added that bishops from other provinces also became acutely aware of what the situation in the Canadian church is.
The diocesan bishop of Montreal, Barry Clarke, has told the diocesan paper, Montreal Anglican, that he is “still in a process of prayerful thought” and “still in a space of listening to the diocese” on the issue of whether to allow priests to bless same-sex marriages under certain circumstances.
He said that his deeply moving experiences at Lambeth have also left him “deeply conscious of other voices in the wider Anglican Communion” on this and other issues.
The diocesan bishop of Ottawa, John Chapman, told the diocesan newspaper, Crosstalk, “I came home from Lambeth no further along than I was before I left.”
Bishop Chapman, who spoke on the issue of moratoria at the Lambeth Conference, said he would only consider a moratorium on the blessing of same-sex unions if its duration is reasonable. He noted that there had been no conversation on how long the moratorium would last. “I posed the question at Lambeth – moratorium? Until when? The next Lambeth?” He said he is waiting to hear what the Anglican Consultative Council and other bodies have to say about the matter.
Bishop Chapman also said that there was no consensus about the moratoria. “It was sort of a virtual majority (those in favour of a moratorium) that carried the day on that, but it certainly wasn’t consensus as there was consensus on the communion continuing towards healthy inter-faith relationships, to continue to ecumenical dialogue with a goal toward church unity,” he said.
On the question of what he hoped to achieve by meeting with Archbishop Venables, Archbishop Hiltz said, “What I would hope is that we could hear one another.”
He added; “What would I say in that meeting? Let me try and hear why it is you feel you need to continue to work to intervene in the life of the Anglican Church of Canada?” He said that he would try and explain that the Anglican Church of Canada has in place a shared episcopal ministry for those who disagree with more liberal actions of their dioceses around sexuality, and for those on the liberal side who feel marginalized by the lack of inclusiveness, a provision for pastoral generosity, “whereby those who are civilly married can come and ask for prayers, join prayers of people in eucharist.”
Marites N. Sison
staff writer
Sep 10, 2008
The Canadian house of bishops will discuss next month how best to respond to renewed proposals for a moratoria on the blessing of same-sex unions, the ordination of openly gay persons to the episcopate, and cross-border interventions.
In a related development, Archbishop Fred Hiltz, primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, said he has requested Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams to facilitate a meeting between him, the primate of the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone, Gregory Venables, U.S. presiding bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, and the primate of Brazil, Mauricio de Andrade, to discuss cross-border interventions.
The three primates – Archbishop Hiltz, Archbishop de Andrade, and Bishop Jefferts Schori – have repeatedly asked Archbishop Venables to stop meddling in the internal affairs of their provinces. Archbishop Venables has, on his own accord, been providing episcopal oversight to churches that are in serious theological dispute with their respective provinces over the issue of sexuality. Archbishop Williams has said he will do his best to facilitate the request.
In an interview, Archbishop Hiltz said the Canadian bishops will have “a very focused conversation” around how they understand the call for moratoria. He said there are conflicting interpretations on what the moratorium means, with some thinking it means not having any new blessings, and some interpreting it as retroactive, which would require a synod like New Westminster to rescind its 2002 motion that allowed same-sex blessings in their diocese. He added that the Archbishop of Canterbury’s recent letter to bishops about the moratoria was also “significant.” Archbishop Williams had acknowledged that, while the call for moratoria received support from “a strong majority” at the conference, he was nonetheless aware of the “conscientious difficulties this posed for some.”
Archbishop Hiltz said that the diocesan bishop of New Westminster, Michael Ingham, “rightly pointed out that it’s not for him to rescind the motion; the synod has to debate the issue.” The primate said that he’d be “very surprised if they rescind that motion.”
Archbishop Hiltz said that the call for moratoria would also be “a huge pastoral challenge” for bishops of four dioceses that have pending requests from their synods for the approval of same-sex blessings “given the kind of strong majority votes those synods” had.
He also said that the question of reciprocity remains. Bishops who are being asked to hold off on same-sex blessings are bound to ask, “Am I going to see a similar act of graciousness on the part of a primate or a bishop who intervenes from another province?” said Archbishop Hiltz. He said that there is clear evidence that the interventions are not going to cease. Already, conservative primates who boycotted the conference and formed a council for the Global Anglicans Future Conference (GAFCON) have announced plans for church plantings and the possibility of creating a new province in North America.
“It’s very complex because (they) feel their intervention is a pastoral response,” he said.
Archbishop Hiltz said that he was “not surprised” by GAFCON’s rejection of the proposals to address the conflict over sexuality. “It almost feels to me that whatever accusations or charges they lay against us, they appear to me to function very much a separatist group,” he said.
Asked about GAFCON’s plan to set up a North American province, he said “the province has to be in communion with the See of Canterbury and it’s the Anglican Consultative Council that determines (whether a province can be set up), not a group of primates and bishops, not even the Archbishop of Canterbury.” He said that the Archbishop of Canterbury had already expressed earlier that he only recognizes one Anglican ecclesial body in Canada, and that is the Anglican Church of Canada.
Archbishop Hiltz said that while he can’t predict what the bishops will do, he is aware of that they are wrestling with the “tensions between the local and global.” The dioceses of Ottawa and Montreal – whose synods a year ago approved a motion requesting their bishops to allow same-sex blessings— are having synods on Oct. 24 and 25, a few days before the house of bishops meeting scheduled Oct. 27 to 31. The two other dioceses – Niagara and Huron – will have their synods in November and May, respectively.
“Their local constituency has spoken, an overwhelming majority in some cases,” said Archbishop Hiltz. “While some would say it was even inappropriate for them to even debate the issue after the outcome at General Synod…the synod was an opportunity to hear the mind and heart of the church local, and the pastoral needs are significant there than they are in other places as evidenced by the vote.”
At the same time, Archbishop Hiltz said, “behind them and around them is the wider picture.” The question posed by the St. Michael Report (issued by the Primate’s Theological Commission in 2005) still remains, he said. “Do we hold unity as the ultimate value and so we cling to that at the risk of making a pastoral response that is called for unnecessary in the local context, or is it the other way – the gospel imperative is so important in this pastoral context that we proceed at the risk of unity?”
Archbishop Hiltz said that while the recent Lambeth Conference didn’t resolve anything, “I think a lot of us came away a lot more aware of the context in which people are wrestling with the issue.” He said that Anglicans around the world operate in very diverse contexts. While countries like Canada allow gays and lesbians to be civilly married, there are other parts of the Anglican Communion where “if it’s found out that you’re homosexual, your life is on the line – you could be imprisoned or killed,” he said.
“What we do in Canada has the potential to impact other places,” he said. He added that bishops from other provinces also became acutely aware of what the situation in the Canadian church is.
The diocesan bishop of Montreal, Barry Clarke, has told the diocesan paper, Montreal Anglican, that he is “still in a process of prayerful thought” and “still in a space of listening to the diocese” on the issue of whether to allow priests to bless same-sex marriages under certain circumstances.
He said that his deeply moving experiences at Lambeth have also left him “deeply conscious of other voices in the wider Anglican Communion” on this and other issues.
The diocesan bishop of Ottawa, John Chapman, told the diocesan newspaper, Crosstalk, “I came home from Lambeth no further along than I was before I left.”
Bishop Chapman, who spoke on the issue of moratoria at the Lambeth Conference, said he would only consider a moratorium on the blessing of same-sex unions if its duration is reasonable. He noted that there had been no conversation on how long the moratorium would last. “I posed the question at Lambeth – moratorium? Until when? The next Lambeth?” He said he is waiting to hear what the Anglican Consultative Council and other bodies have to say about the matter.
Bishop Chapman also said that there was no consensus about the moratoria. “It was sort of a virtual majority (those in favour of a moratorium) that carried the day on that, but it certainly wasn’t consensus as there was consensus on the communion continuing towards healthy inter-faith relationships, to continue to ecumenical dialogue with a goal toward church unity,” he said.
On the question of what he hoped to achieve by meeting with Archbishop Venables, Archbishop Hiltz said, “What I would hope is that we could hear one another.”
He added; “What would I say in that meeting? Let me try and hear why it is you feel you need to continue to work to intervene in the life of the Anglican Church of Canada?” He said that he would try and explain that the Anglican Church of Canada has in place a shared episcopal ministry for those who disagree with more liberal actions of their dioceses around sexuality, and for those on the liberal side who feel marginalized by the lack of inclusiveness, a provision for pastoral generosity, “whereby those who are civilly married can come and ask for prayers, join prayers of people in eucharist.”
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
S.C. Dem chair: Palin primary qualification is she hasn't had an abortion
From Politico.com:
September 10, 2008
South Carolina Democratic chairwoman Carol Fowler sharply attacked Sarah Palin today, saying John McCain had chosen a running mate "whose primary qualification seems to be that she hasn’t had an abortion.”
Palin is an opponent of abortion rights and gave birth to her fifth child, Trig, earlier this year after finding out during her pregnancy that the baby had Down syndrome.
Fowler told my colleague Alex Burns in an interview that the selection of an opponent of abortion rights would not boost McCain among many women.
“Among Democratic women and even among independent women, I don’t think it helped him,” she said.
Told of McCain's boost in the new ABC/Washington Post among white women following the Palin pick, Fowler said: "Just anecdotally, I believe that those white women are Republican women anyway."
September 10, 2008
South Carolina Democratic chairwoman Carol Fowler sharply attacked Sarah Palin today, saying John McCain had chosen a running mate "whose primary qualification seems to be that she hasn’t had an abortion.”
Palin is an opponent of abortion rights and gave birth to her fifth child, Trig, earlier this year after finding out during her pregnancy that the baby had Down syndrome.
Fowler told my colleague Alex Burns in an interview that the selection of an opponent of abortion rights would not boost McCain among many women.
“Among Democratic women and even among independent women, I don’t think it helped him,” she said.
Told of McCain's boost in the new ABC/Washington Post among white women following the Palin pick, Fowler said: "Just anecdotally, I believe that those white women are Republican women anyway."
A note from David Brickner
by David Brickner, Executive Director of Jews for Jesus (and not the founder, by the way, ed.):
September 9, 2008
Last month I had the privilege of speaking at a large church in the small town of Wasilla, Alaska. At the time, few people outside of Alaska had heard of Wasilla; now almost everyone in America knows that it is the hometown of Sarah Palin, John McCain's Vice Presidential running mate. She not only grew up in Wasilla; she served as its mayor before being elected governor of Alaska. The Palins now attend the church where I spoke; in fact, during the second service the entire family stood before the congregation as their newborn son was dedicated to the Lord.
My message that morning from Matthew 23: 37-39, titled, "The Jerusalem Dilemma," made reference to sin and judgment, and the need for all people, both Jews or Gentiles, to repent and seek forgiveness through Y'shua. I pointed to the many conflicts and tragedies that we hear about daily on the news, as evidence that the whole world is suffering the effects of sin and stands under God's judgment; that we all need the grace and forgiveness of God found only in Christ. These are no more or less than basic tenets of the Christian faith. Then I spoke of God's great love for Israel and for the world, and shared the encouraging news of how many Israelis are now open to hearing about Jesus.
Once Mrs. Palin's candidacy as vice-president was announced, my message became a matter of sudden public interest. A blogger on Politico.com quickly tore a small portion of the message out of context and twisted my words into something ugly and hurtful:
"Brickner also described terrorist attacks on Israelis as God's 'judgment of unbelief' of Jews who haven't embraced Christianity."
That is not what I said and it is certainly not my belief.
However, this misinterpretation of my beliefs became fodder for the media's reporting. Scores of news reports online, in print and on TV have repeated Politico's fabrication as fact without further scrutiny, sometimes even furthering the distortion. Typical of this was political pundit Rachel Maddow, as she criticized Sarah Palin in an exchange with Chris Matthews. The following was taken from NBC's national coverage of the Republican National Convention in St. Paul.
Maddow: Jews for Jesus founder [was] speaking at her church while she was there two weeks ago making incredibly, incredibly out of line comments about Israel and Jewish people. Saying that's why Israel was subject to terrorist attacks. It was God's judgment for not believing in Christ.
Matthews: What's the source?
Maddow: Politico.com
Some reports have even mistaken me for Sarah Palin's pastor, further comparing me to Jeremiah Wright who was Barak Obama's pastor. Last Saturday yet another story has come out in "The New York Times." As a result, I was interviewed by MSNBC News the following day.
I recognize that I am not the real target of this scrutiny; Sarah Palin is. By the time you read this, the whole story may have blown over for me and for Jews for Jesus, with the media moving on in search of other issues that might color people's view of all four presidential and vice-presidential candidates. Nevertheless, here are a couple of my reflections on the events of the past few days.
First, it is amazing how ready people are to believe a false report. Numerous friends and colleagues wrote to ask me if these reports were true. I'm sure it never would have occurred to them to think I would think or say such things if they had not seen them in print. How much quicker will strangers be to assume the views attributed to me were truthful? This experience has confirmed the old adage: you can't always believe what you read in the press.
I am certainly grateful for the institution of free speech and a free press. Jews for Jesus has relied on those freedoms as we proclaim the gospel. But freedom of speech can also be abused with deathly cruelty. For example, Raymond Donovan, President Ronald Reagan's first Secretary of Labor, was the victim of a long campaign of rumors and innuendo, which led to criminal prosecution. After incurring legal bills in excess of a million dollars, Donovan was acquitted of all charges. When he emerged from the courtroom, reporters swarmed around him vying for his comment. In response, Donovan posed the poignant question, "Where do I go to get my reputation back?"
Proverbs 18:21 tells us, "Death and life are in the power of the tongue, and those who love it will eat its fruit." How true! Words that roll off this two-ounce slab of muscle and mucous membrane have an inordinate capacity to affect lives. Consider for example, the speeches of Nazi miscreant Adolf Hitler, contrasted with those of statesman Winston Churchill, during the Second World War. Both were eloquent orators. Hitler, on one side of the Channel, used his words to lead a nation into devilish crimes against humanity. Winston Churchill, on the other side of the Channel, used his rhetorical skill to lead a nation to the highest and most noble sacrifice, to England's credit in her finest hour.
We need to be discerning about what we listen to and what we are quick to believe. The Talmud asks, "Why do human fingers resemble pegs?" and then answers, "So that if one hears something unseemly, one can plug one's fingers in one's ears" (Ketuvot 5b).
We need to be especially discerning when it comes to negative or critical remarks, because those are the ones that people love to repeat. Bertrand Russell once dryly observed that no one ever gossips about another's secret virtues.
Second, I am grateful that God can use almost anything to further His work and to get out the gospel. Case in point: the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) is a wire service for the Jewish print world, much like the Associated Press is for secular publications. The JTA released an article titled, "McCain team: Palin rejects views of church's Jews for Jesus speaker" in which they repeated the distortions of my views. However, they also provided a link to my entire sermon, both the transcript and the audio version. Anyone who chooses to check the source by reading or listening to this message is going to hear the Good News.
I will never avoid the subject of sin and its consequences, but my message says more about God's love in Christ than it does about judgment. Here is one brief excerpt:
"And so all of the controversy that we see swirling in Jerusalem is really a mirror that the world looks into to see the controversy within. The Jerusalem Dilemma is the Wasilla Dilemma; it's the dilemma of the human heart. And so it's important for us to notice Jesus' response to this unbelief, this rejection.
"'How often I've longed to gather your children together as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings.' And Jesus says 'Come under My wings, O Jerusalem. There's a place of grace that I want to establish for you in spite of your unbelief.'
"And so committed was Jesus to that place of grace that not many days after He said this, He stretched out His arms on a cruel cross and shed His blood to pay the penalty for your sin and for mine. But because of who He is—because He is the Messiah, the Anointed One of God—death could not hold Him, and the grave could not keep Him, and He rose again from the grave. And now that same resurrection power of God is available to be applied to the lives of all those who trust Him, in Jerusalem and around the world. That is the answer to the Jerusalem Dilemma, the dilemma of unbelief—the mercy and grace of God, this place of grace that whosoever will may come under and find God's forgiveness."
You can read or listen to the entire message at our website if you like. Please pray that many people, especially unbelievers, will do so. May this be God's way of getting His gospel message out far beyond Wasilla!
Written By
David Brickner
David Brickner
Executive Director of Jews for Jesus
September 9, 2008
Last month I had the privilege of speaking at a large church in the small town of Wasilla, Alaska. At the time, few people outside of Alaska had heard of Wasilla; now almost everyone in America knows that it is the hometown of Sarah Palin, John McCain's Vice Presidential running mate. She not only grew up in Wasilla; she served as its mayor before being elected governor of Alaska. The Palins now attend the church where I spoke; in fact, during the second service the entire family stood before the congregation as their newborn son was dedicated to the Lord.
My message that morning from Matthew 23: 37-39, titled, "The Jerusalem Dilemma," made reference to sin and judgment, and the need for all people, both Jews or Gentiles, to repent and seek forgiveness through Y'shua. I pointed to the many conflicts and tragedies that we hear about daily on the news, as evidence that the whole world is suffering the effects of sin and stands under God's judgment; that we all need the grace and forgiveness of God found only in Christ. These are no more or less than basic tenets of the Christian faith. Then I spoke of God's great love for Israel and for the world, and shared the encouraging news of how many Israelis are now open to hearing about Jesus.
Once Mrs. Palin's candidacy as vice-president was announced, my message became a matter of sudden public interest. A blogger on Politico.com quickly tore a small portion of the message out of context and twisted my words into something ugly and hurtful:
"Brickner also described terrorist attacks on Israelis as God's 'judgment of unbelief' of Jews who haven't embraced Christianity."
That is not what I said and it is certainly not my belief.
However, this misinterpretation of my beliefs became fodder for the media's reporting. Scores of news reports online, in print and on TV have repeated Politico's fabrication as fact without further scrutiny, sometimes even furthering the distortion. Typical of this was political pundit Rachel Maddow, as she criticized Sarah Palin in an exchange with Chris Matthews. The following was taken from NBC's national coverage of the Republican National Convention in St. Paul.
Maddow: Jews for Jesus founder [was] speaking at her church while she was there two weeks ago making incredibly, incredibly out of line comments about Israel and Jewish people. Saying that's why Israel was subject to terrorist attacks. It was God's judgment for not believing in Christ.
Matthews: What's the source?
Maddow: Politico.com
Some reports have even mistaken me for Sarah Palin's pastor, further comparing me to Jeremiah Wright who was Barak Obama's pastor. Last Saturday yet another story has come out in "The New York Times." As a result, I was interviewed by MSNBC News the following day.
I recognize that I am not the real target of this scrutiny; Sarah Palin is. By the time you read this, the whole story may have blown over for me and for Jews for Jesus, with the media moving on in search of other issues that might color people's view of all four presidential and vice-presidential candidates. Nevertheless, here are a couple of my reflections on the events of the past few days.
First, it is amazing how ready people are to believe a false report. Numerous friends and colleagues wrote to ask me if these reports were true. I'm sure it never would have occurred to them to think I would think or say such things if they had not seen them in print. How much quicker will strangers be to assume the views attributed to me were truthful? This experience has confirmed the old adage: you can't always believe what you read in the press.
I am certainly grateful for the institution of free speech and a free press. Jews for Jesus has relied on those freedoms as we proclaim the gospel. But freedom of speech can also be abused with deathly cruelty. For example, Raymond Donovan, President Ronald Reagan's first Secretary of Labor, was the victim of a long campaign of rumors and innuendo, which led to criminal prosecution. After incurring legal bills in excess of a million dollars, Donovan was acquitted of all charges. When he emerged from the courtroom, reporters swarmed around him vying for his comment. In response, Donovan posed the poignant question, "Where do I go to get my reputation back?"
Proverbs 18:21 tells us, "Death and life are in the power of the tongue, and those who love it will eat its fruit." How true! Words that roll off this two-ounce slab of muscle and mucous membrane have an inordinate capacity to affect lives. Consider for example, the speeches of Nazi miscreant Adolf Hitler, contrasted with those of statesman Winston Churchill, during the Second World War. Both were eloquent orators. Hitler, on one side of the Channel, used his words to lead a nation into devilish crimes against humanity. Winston Churchill, on the other side of the Channel, used his rhetorical skill to lead a nation to the highest and most noble sacrifice, to England's credit in her finest hour.
We need to be discerning about what we listen to and what we are quick to believe. The Talmud asks, "Why do human fingers resemble pegs?" and then answers, "So that if one hears something unseemly, one can plug one's fingers in one's ears" (Ketuvot 5b).
We need to be especially discerning when it comes to negative or critical remarks, because those are the ones that people love to repeat. Bertrand Russell once dryly observed that no one ever gossips about another's secret virtues.
Second, I am grateful that God can use almost anything to further His work and to get out the gospel. Case in point: the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) is a wire service for the Jewish print world, much like the Associated Press is for secular publications. The JTA released an article titled, "McCain team: Palin rejects views of church's Jews for Jesus speaker" in which they repeated the distortions of my views. However, they also provided a link to my entire sermon, both the transcript and the audio version. Anyone who chooses to check the source by reading or listening to this message is going to hear the Good News.
I will never avoid the subject of sin and its consequences, but my message says more about God's love in Christ than it does about judgment. Here is one brief excerpt:
"And so all of the controversy that we see swirling in Jerusalem is really a mirror that the world looks into to see the controversy within. The Jerusalem Dilemma is the Wasilla Dilemma; it's the dilemma of the human heart. And so it's important for us to notice Jesus' response to this unbelief, this rejection.
"'How often I've longed to gather your children together as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings.' And Jesus says 'Come under My wings, O Jerusalem. There's a place of grace that I want to establish for you in spite of your unbelief.'
"And so committed was Jesus to that place of grace that not many days after He said this, He stretched out His arms on a cruel cross and shed His blood to pay the penalty for your sin and for mine. But because of who He is—because He is the Messiah, the Anointed One of God—death could not hold Him, and the grave could not keep Him, and He rose again from the grave. And now that same resurrection power of God is available to be applied to the lives of all those who trust Him, in Jerusalem and around the world. That is the answer to the Jerusalem Dilemma, the dilemma of unbelief—the mercy and grace of God, this place of grace that whosoever will may come under and find God's forgiveness."
You can read or listen to the entire message at our website if you like. Please pray that many people, especially unbelievers, will do so. May this be God's way of getting His gospel message out far beyond Wasilla!
Written By
David Brickner
David Brickner
Executive Director of Jews for Jesus
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)