"Commendable" ain't what it used to be.

Eliot Spitzer's much-publicized romps with a prostitute led to his political demise in New York (as it should have). Immediately taking his place as governor was Lt. Governor David Paterson, described as "a man who gets along well with others", "humble", "wonderful", "bright and intelligent", among many other accolades. One writer said Paterson's election would elicit the following reaction: "The public is hoping for that replacement to redeem the office and to redeem their faith in elected officials in general. So David Paterson, in a sense, walks into a great opportunity," said Steve Kornacki of the New York Observer. (Emphasis mine).

Perhaps he is those above-listed things, but he is also a self-confessed (making these confessions on his first full day in office, no less) philanderer, adulterer, and even former drug user. Reports are now surfacing that the money he used to conduct his sordid affairs was tax payer's money, as he used official credit cards to pay off "constituent expenses".

So much for "redeeming the office and redeeming the faith", huh?

The point of my mentioning all this today (which by now is tired news and unfortunately all-too-common among elected officials) is the comment I overheard the other day about how "commendable" it was that Paterson was upfront about his choices and mistakes and saved the taxpayers the trouble of discovering it later. This person went on to praise Paterson's honesty, forthrightness, blah blah blah.

To that I say: Commendable ain't what it used to be.

What happened to expecting men to be men by honoring their word, keeping their promises and being faithful to their spouses? When did it become an honor to be a former drug user, serial adulterer, or whatever else men - at their worst - do? Should we not expect more from our leaders, our elected officials, and anyone that exerts influence over others than this?

Modern morality seems to have no core - no base. We call evil good and good evil. We praise what should be condemned. We are proud of what we should be ashamed of. We accept what we should not tolerate. And the standards are now so ridiculously low that we call "commendable" a man who professes his affairs, his drug use, etc. as if we should thank him for it.

For what it's worth, here is how commendable used to be defined: "deserving praise"

Obama throws all clergy under the bus ...

In his now semi-famous speech on race and in defense of his relationship with his former pastor/spiritual advisor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Senator Barack Obama threw all clergy under the bus when he said, "Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely - just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed."

Hold up there a second, Barack. Your insulting statement (both to me and to the millions of discerning American congregants) made me consider a few fundamental truths:

1) Why was a "pastor" using his position and pulpit for politics? The timeless directive for ministers of the Gospel (the true Gospel, not the Social Gospel or the Black Liberation Gospel) is to "preach the Word" (2nd Timothy 4:2 (NIV) - "Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage--with great patience and careful instruction.") I have read and listened to your pastor's hatred, vehement race-baiting, and fundamental lack of understanding of the true Gospel. I - and many others - have seen how he subverts the true purpose of church and pulpit to fulfill a distinct political agenda. What I have NOT seen or heard is the Gospel.

2) I can only speak from personal experience here, but I cannot imagine any member/attender of my congregation sitting through "controversial", "disagreeable", and "highly offensive" rhetoric from me for over 20 years. Oh noooooo. All it usually takes is one statement, one message, or one opinion with which they strongly disagree for most people to say, "Nope - that's not the church for me." In fact, one of the angriest letters I ever received was just prior to the 2000 election when I encouraged our people to consider the moral issues of abortion, marriage, etc. as they cast their votes. To vote with a biblical mindset ought to go without saying for a Christian. This couple, however, took my words as an implicit endorsement of the Republicans (when no such endorsement was made, implicitly or otherwise) and left the church. Let me be clear on this point: I will not apologize for treating moral issues as just that - moral issues addressed clearly in Scripture. Murder via abortion, deviant views of marriage, etc. are not political issues. They are moral/biblical issues and well within my purview as a pastor/Bible teacher.

3) Not only would people I have met and known not stay in a church that spewed such poisonous vitriol as is found at Trinity United Church of Christ, I would not expect them to! The Bible charges the members/congregants with the responsibility of holding their teachers/elders/pastors accountable for what they say and how they use their position.

Acts 17:11 (NIV)
Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

Who was doing that with Rev. Jeremiah Wright? Who was comparing his words with the timeless words of God? Apparently not Barack Obama.

If the Apostle Paul was to be held to that level of accountability, surely every preacher/teacher/priest should be as well! The bottom line is this: two parties are responsible and accountable for what takes place in church and from the pulpit: The minister who is accountable to God and those he leads to faithfully teach the Word (God's, not his own), and the people themselves who are responsible to God and to each other to see to it that what they hear and what they lend their support to is authentic and Godly (and Biblical).

So no, Barack. My people here have not subjected themselves to 20 years worth of politically charged and racially incendiary comments that they "strongly disagreed" with. They would not allow their church to be subverted that way, nor would they have violated their own consciences repeatedly, and foregone any instruction in the Word of God. They would leave. Or they would have seen to it that I do. And that's exactly what they should do.

The shifting landscape of American religion

Recently I shared with the congregation (during a Midweek message, I believe) some insights from the wide-ranging "U.S. Religious Landscape Survey" by the Pew Forum. Without a doubt, religion in America is changing rapidly before our eyes, as the very foundations are eroding. The survey itself is worth your time to look over, as are the following insights noted by Al Mohler in his latest blog.