All Comments for: A Promising Start for Obama's Faith-Based Office | Christianity Today

Free Newsletters:

RSS Feeds |

Audio |

Twitter

Home > 2009 > February (Web-only)

Christianity Today, February (Web-only), 2009 |

Speaking Out

A Promising Start for Obama's Faith-Based Office

Why we are encouraged — and still have a major concern.

Stephen V. Monsma and Stanley Carlson-Thies | posted 2/09/2009 09:55AM

Last week President Obama spoke at the National Prayer Breakfast, appointed Joshua DuBois as a presidential special assistant and executive director of the renamed White House Office of Faith-Based and ...

[Reader Reviews]

Average User Rating:

Rate and Comment on this article

Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 comments.

Page: 1

Show All

Lucas Ferreira de Paula / Brazil

Posted: February 19, 2009 2:21 PM


Dear Lord, I cant believe that still exist americans that thinks that he or she is better than anyone else. If you think that what Obama did is a bad thing, thats ok, that your problem, but here in Brazil for example, abortion is still a very serious crime, its one of our strongest constitutional afirmations, the right to life.

melboe

Posted: February 18, 2009 9:03 AM


Are you KIDDING ME? This man, in his first week in office, signed 3 bills that will do nothing but ensure the MURDER of millions of innocent lives - and not just here in America...NO, NO, NO, we are going to take this particular crime out to all mannor of 3rd world countries, because we Americans, we always know best! It is going to be a very very long four years.

Cynthia in SA

Posted: February 13, 2009 7:16 AM


US is blessed with the Leader who is surrounded by "God's Servants". I just pray that South Africa must learn from President Obama and elect a Leader who will be supported by those who know the Word of God. May God Bless South Africa in their Elections.

Bob Wineburg

Posted: February 12, 2009 7:38 AM

I have studied the Faith-Based Initiative since Ronald Reagan met with groups of white and black clergy in 1982, prodding them to do more for the poor. I respect these two authors but they fail to mention that the academic research has not shown the Faith-based initiative to have a significant impact on reducing poverty- the purpose for getting government money to churches. For that to have happened, the Initiative should have been conceptualized in a way that there was buy in from the 350,000 pulpits and the agencies and organizations in the 19,000 cities who provide the bulk of care for the needy in our communities in partnerships with each other. My research, Mark Chaves's research, and Telly Whitfield's research show extensive organic community partnerships among congregations and agencies. They thrive without government money. Bush did nothing to strengthen partnerships, nor did these influential authors, whose work, sadly was not focused on where it could help the poor most.

Anita

Posted: February 11, 2009 9:03 PM


Truthfully, this sounds good but I feel it is a source to set Christians offguard and discourage us from being alert to what will really happen

Paul	Posted: February 11, 2009 2:20 PM


Beware of "greeks" bearing "gifts" - oh yeah, Obama fans are non-initiators and non-thinkers - beware of whats burries between the sheets!

Maryall

Posted: February 11, 2009 12:37 PM

Stephen, get informed about Obama, his "start", and the real issues. 1. http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/23/obama.abortion/index.html?eref=onion WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Obama struck down a rule Friday that prohibits U.S. money from funding international family-planning clinics that promote abortion or provide counseling or referrals about abortion services. 2. http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/22/obama.abortion/index.html#cnnSTCText "President Obama affirmed his support for a woman's "right to choose"... 3. http://www.fightfoca.com/ FOCA will do away with state laws on parental involvement and partial birth abortion, will compel taxpayer funding of abortions and faith-based hospitals and healthcare facilities to perform abortions. 4. And just for public interest: http://www.augustreview.com/news_commentary/trilateral_commissio n/obama:_trilateral_commission_endgame_20090127110/

Nana2nd

Posted: February 11, 2009 12:29 PM


I see "mixed signals" not encouraging signs from President Obama regarding faith. We need to stay strong and stay alert. Michael Medved offers signifcant insight on this topic. Here's the link http://townhall.com/columnists/MichaelMedved/2009/02/11/obamas_un-nourish ing_prayer_breakfast

taad	Posted: February 11, 2009 10:11 AM

I can not understand this idea of abortion being legal but rare. It is another one of those coded messages. We need to think! If something is a good thing, why should it be rare? What is wrong with it? Either it is good, or to put it better, is of God, or it is not. We do not say rape should be legal, but rare, or theft, or slavery. It is crazy to hold such a position. These days are full of catchy phrases, but we need to stop and ponder them, and let the Holy Spirit enlighten us. Just how does this idea or statement stack up against the Bible and what our faith teaches us. Those who give us such phrases are trying to cover up what they are about. We need to pray for enlightenment to see with eyes of faith!

Tom	Posted: February 11, 2009 8:03 AM


I have no problem with the Obama's concern about discrimmination within the religious organizations expecting assistance from the Federal Govt. If you want $$ from the govt., you must play by public policy rules. You can't have it both ways...

Lucas Ferreira de Paula / Brazil

Posted: February 10, 2009 11:53 AM

Here in Brazil we dont have problems with parachurch organizations because they have to be legalize as NGO so they can deal with social problems, so if a church want to receive federal help they have to transform that program to a NGO and as a NGO they cant discriminate if a person is or isnt a christian. I personally think that is the best way to deal with the so called problem. And I dont know, maybe Im wrong, but sometimes I get the feeling that this american parachurch organizations just dont want to report to anyone about its actions and thats wrong, because if you are doing something that is right, you dont have to fear anything.

Pam	Posted: February 10, 2009 9:34 AM

MaryAnn has good advice. Hire the best people for the job from the applicant pool based on the entire scope of their qualifications, and things tend to work out. Also, I would point out that we are only talking about rules/regulations directly tied to federal funding here. If you are concerned about these rules/regulations, a good choice may be simply not to take federal money for your faith-based program. We live in an increasingly religiously diverse society (with by far the largest growing group being people of NO faith), and it is naive/unrealistic to expect that the government is going to provide grants to faith-based organizations without certain regulations/expectations in terms of the population served, proselytizing, and hiring practices.

keith

Posted: February 09, 2009 9:19 PM


Finally, a president who may really mean it when he says, "May God Bless America." Both Presidents Bush, and Clinton seemed to merely "pimp" the religious community. Obama has substance like we have not seen it since Carter.

John G.

Posted: February 09, 2009 8:54 PM

Tabitha, wake up! The article referred to "candidate Obama" to contrast what he said when he was a candidate with what he has said or done as President. It was not a mark of disrespect, simply a display of contrast. He was NOT "President Obama" when he was campaigning!!!! * As for what the article says about "recognized evangelicals" on the Board, I would take issue with listing Jim Wallis as such, since I don't believe that he is a true evangelical. But that's my personal take on the matter.

Tabitha

Posted: February 09, 2009 7:13 PM


I take issue with the reference to "candidate Obama". The article refers to him as "president" earlier on, then "candidate" later. He is the president and should be afforded the respect due his office.

Maryann

Posted: February 09, 2009 7:07 PM

Why worry about not being able to hire based on a faithbased mission? Do what secular HR people do all the time:hire the best person for the job based on qualifications, experience, etc. There are many applicants for every job anywhere & only one person gets it. All applicants are screened & who can prove you weren't hired because you were white, black, short, tall, male, female, undereducated, overqualified, an idiot, an atheist, a Christian or the HR person just couldn't stand you? Every day thousands of resumes are discarded & after interviews, HR people think "no way!" A company has the right to hire a person who fits their job description & unless the gov. forces a restaurant to hire a welder to be a chef, how can a faithbased be forced to hire a non-believer to carry on the work of Christ? Not knowing Christianity for faithbased work is like not speaking French & applying to be a French teacher. Don't expect to be hired, don't complain if you're not.

The G

Posted: February 09, 2009 7:00 PM


Be very, very scared. If readers don't detect the One World Order agenda they are asleep.

A Hermit

Posted: February 09, 2009 6:57 PM

A good, fair article. Now perhaps 'conservative' evangelicals will get so-called 'pro-life' politicians to propose and sponsor truly BI-PARTISAN legislation to effectively 'make abortions rare', rather than sponsoring legislation they know will be opposed. Perhaps 'conservative' evangelicals will act to follow Christ's injunction, "remove the mote from your own eye before trying to remove the speck in your brother's". Politics has become a trash-talking, winner-take all, us vs. "them", we're right they're wrong game. This nation's corporate materialism and greed is the underlying rot fueling abortion. It is the materialism and greed of this nation that evangelicals as a whole chooses to ignore.

Henk	Posted: February 09, 2009 6:17 PM

One of the main reasons for funding faith based welfare is the cost factor being at least half of that compared tp it being dispensed by the goverment. It's problematic as no funding is without hooks or paybacks somewhere along the line. Two notable hooks includes one being of compromise of a belief system. The other is similar to Constantine who thought Christianity could provide the glue to keep his empire together. This

Ted Voth Jr

Posted: February 09, 2009 6:03 PM

Any Christian who takes any money from any government is a fool. Our Baptist ancestors who campaigned alongside taht marvelous old unbeliever Thomas jefferson for the separation of Church and state are rolling over in their graves– or would be, if they weren't with the Lord– to see what fools we're making of ourselves, busy as termites to reestablish the Church. Would that we could say with Paul 'We are not ignrant of the ways of satan. We're mixing ice cream with horse– manure.

Rocket4321

Posted: February 09, 2009 5:38 PM

The desire for enthusiasm is understood but this President's actions in the short few weeks he has been in office dampens ones hope for what is ahead legally and politically. He says let's make abortions rare but one of his very first actions is to order millions of dollars in funding for abortion providers around the world. The fact that he worries about Christian organizations practicing "religious discrimination" should make every Christian parachurch org taking Federal money uneasy about doing so--and wondering about the impact it will have on their ministries as the Obama administration establishes more control in the months ahead. The President did not win this election because of Christian votes. The vast majority of his base is primarily constituences whose values do not always line up easily with Biblically understood values. The President politically will feel great pressure to satisfy those groups. This will be a true test of the Christian values of our President.

Ruth	Posted: February 09, 2009 5:34 PM


I agree with GMLR about the age and complexity issues. But I am not surprised as those of us who have been around a while see the culture as very youth-oriented which is not all bad but when great responsibility is given to those with little experience can we then hope for good results? Perhaps some others in the group will be able to help if advice is well taken.

GMLR	Posted: February 09, 2009 4:13 PM


come on gentleman--as you noted Dubois is 26 with a Masters degree...which means he has spent most of his adult life in academia. How exactly has he come to "know the American Religious Landscape WELL'? Youth bring us fresh ideas and excuberance-- all desperately needed in this time of despair but 26 to lead this complex issue...I don't think so

Jonathan

Posted: February 09, 2009 12:52 PM


Thanks for keeping us informed, CT. Nice work, authors.

Page: 1

E-mail this page

Write CT

Print this article

Post a comment