Every Sunday morning I watch two different pastors on TV. I watch Ed Young and Joel Osteen. Both very different men with very different preaching styles, but I have always enjoyed them both.
This morning, while I was dressing, I was listening ... more than watching ... Ed Young. He was talking about how some people seem more interested in saving the lives of unborn baby turtles than they are the lives of unborn children. I agreed.
Then I heard Ed talking about government as a "monster" and how the mean ole government punishes success in America. That mean ole government takes money away from successful people and gives it to lazy, weed smoking, no goods who drink beer and don't want to work. I went, "huh?" I turned around and there he was on stage with the Democratic donkey and Republican elephant behind him.
I turned off my TV.
It is beyond sad when a pastor ... someone a whole congregation looks up to and trusts to impart knowledge to them that is both biblical and accurate ... says something that is meant to incite anger and a negative reaction from his congregation and is nothing more than propaganda strait from the Republican Party.
Are there people on welfare who smoke pot, drink beer, and just don't want to work? I am sure there are. Do you honestly think that the majority of people on welfare smoke pot, drink beer, and refuse to work? I seriously doubt it and I haven't found one source that would back that insinuation up at all. Basically, Ed Young was making an assertion that was blatantly meant to cause members of his congregation to believe that people on welfare are dope smoking alcoholics who are too lazy to get up and get a job.
I happen to know quite a few people on welfare. Some of them even go to my church. I know a few who are on disability because they are disabled. They can't work. I know quite a few working momma's who receive daycare assistance and medicaid for their children. I know quite a few people that have received federal student loans so they could get a college education. I know people who work and get food stamps. I know people who work and get disability for a child who is disabled. I know elderly people who have worked all their lives and now live on Social Security and have Medicare. I know veterans who receive assistance too.
I even know one or two who smoke pot and drink beer. But, then again I know people who don't get any assistance whatsoever and do those things as well. Go figure.
Republicans, and some Conservative Christians, don't like the assertion that they are callous human beings who care nothing for the poor, elderly, young, and disabled ... yet they are quick to insinuate that anyone who receives assistance is some kind of dope head who doesn't want to work but will happily drink beer all day using someone else's money. They seem to conveniently forgot that all those social programs they want to abolish actually help hard-working people too. They also help children, the elderly, veterans, and the disabled. Lazy no-goods are just a small fraction of the people that are aided by social programs.
Anywho ... I won't be watching Ed Young for awhile ... may not again. He has allowed his politics to invade his pulpit and that isn't something I am interested in. Plus ... I get really tired of these preachers who want to talk about the biblical principals of preserving and protecting life ... but then conveniently forget that life doesn't end when a baby leaves the womb ... and that Jesus preached on caring for the poor, the widows, the children.
Why am I not surprised? Indoctrination. He can make them all vote anyway he wants. All he has to do is make them think they are going to hell if they don't vote republican.
I am a firm believer that politics should be left at the door. Of course, there are some issues that we have to discuss as they do relate to faith, but to actually promote a party line ... no. I wouldn't go to a church that did that and I thank God my church doesn't. We have Republicans and Democrats ... and the occassional comment is made that tells you real quick which party some are on (insert snarky global warming and Al Gore comment here), but all in all politics as a subject is not discussed.
It's sad to read an entire blog that is a long ASSUMPTION. I really wish you had taken the time to listen to Ed's entire sermon. He goes on to talk about how welfare is okay for those who need it, he just doesn't like when those who don't need it are using it. He also talks about how the church should step up and help those who are less fortunate, not the government. He says the church should care for the elderly and the disabled and that they need to do a better job than they're doing now. He says that it is the church's responsibility. He never even eludes to the idea of leaving the disabled or elderly out in the cold.
He also doesn't promote a single political party or even mention a single candidate's name. Ed is VERY passionate about saving people for God's Kingdom. You say you listen to him often, but do you really listen to him? It sounds like you don't really listen at all. You really should take the time to listen to an entire sermon before you make a judgment on the actual sermon. The entire sermon ended up talking about turning people to Jesus! Oh, if you had only listened. Maybe you should spend MORE time listening to Ed preach (start by listening to an entire sermon before you make a judgment) the FULL gospel.
Rebecca, I have heard the whole sermon ... at least what was aired and what he has on his site. Maybe he preached more to his actual church and didn't have that aired. But, there was only one sentence about the church helping the poor and it didn't include what you are saying.
Before I decided to post, regarding the comments he made that were exactly as I said, I watched the whole service (at least what was aired and is on his site). I rarely ever just say something and not do my homework.
I like Ed Young, but what he said did and does insinuate that welfare recipients are nothing more than weed smoking alcoholics that don't want to work and just want to play with their iPhones. That is what he said.
And, to be honest, I can't wait to see what he says next week since he says he is going to tell his church who to vote for. Now, he may tell them to vote their conscience. He may tell them to vote for JESUS. He may even go so far as to name candidates. But, considering his commentary on welfare recipients and his comments regarding certain celebrities (who support Obama and he named them by name and said they were wrong), he doesn't need to even name one Republican candidate. His bias has already shown itself. It is obvious who he thinks we all should vote for. The comments have already been made and the negative comments he has made are obviously toward one party. He may not have meant to do that, but he did.
Now, as for my whole entire blog being one long assumption, I seriously doubt you have read my whole blog and that statement is not true. Plus, it is an insult and to start a comment with an insult at someone's blog is rude and hardly opens the door to communication ... let alone discussion. I seriously doubt you just walk up to people at church or go to their homes to address something they said and insult them right off the bat. But, I would appreciate it if you are going to call my ENTIRE blog one long assumption that you would actually read it first.
From looking at your monthly archive list, she has alot of reading to do. ;-)
One point: you don't believe it is only the church's responsibility to take care of the poor so you wouldn't agree with her comments regardless. I watched the video footage and he doesn't say all that she claims. I think there is either more or she read into alot of what he said.
I believe that the church ... as an institution ... should help care for the poor. I do not believe that we can expect the church ... as an institution ... to take all that responsibility upon itself and actually be able to take care of all the poor. Churches in large cities already strain under the weight and that is with a welfare system.
But, I have been beyond verbal about that subject on my blog and the blogs of others. I doubt anyone who reads me has any questions regarding my stance on this particular issue. :) All they have to do is search "welfare" on this blog and they will get plenty of reading material.
And ... yeah. My blog is five years old next month so she would have a lot of reading to do!
I have no desire to read your entire archive of blogs, I just read the one blog. So since you watched the entire sermon why did you say you turned your TV off after he said that statement? It wasn't said at the end of his sermon so I could only conclude that you didn't watch the entire message. Ed said multiple times over the first two weeks of "Politicked" that he doesn't agree with the people that take advantage of welfare. He did say that no one should be on welfare. And there are a lot of people on welfare that are abusing it and could actually work. That is just plain wrong. Ed does multiple times say that there good that the disabled and elderly are able to use welfare as it is intended. His sermon the following week he does not say either candidate's name on stage a single time nor does he say which party to vote for. He listed character traits that are important for leaders to have and encourage everyone to vote according to those character traits. And yes, he concluded with "Vote for Jesus" in which he encouraged people to come to Christ (which you claim he doesn't care about people after they leave the womb). I'd be interested to know if you watched it fully (which you have said you turned it off and you said you watched the whole thing... which is it?) and also if you watched it a second time. Many, many people I have talked to after seeing it the first time were less than thrilled. Fortunately they listened/watched it again and were able to take a lot more out of his sermon and were then excited that a pastor had the guts to get up and encourage people to take their duty as voting Americans seriously.
Rebecca ...
What you are reading, this particular article about Ed Young, is a post. All of those posts put together is a blog. So, when you say that my entire blog is an assumption, you are saying every post I have written (there is over 1000) of them is an assumption.
But ... even this one post is not an assumption.
I did turn off my TV when I turned around and saw that Ed Young was preaching politics from his pulpit. I finished dressing and I went to church. When I decided to talk about what Ed said on my blog, I went to his site and watched the rest of what was aired on Sunday. If you go to this link, it will take you strait to that service.
Now, here is my point and it doesn't change. What Ed said pretty much verbatim is that welfare recipients are nothing more than weed smoking alcoholics that don't want to work and just want to play with their iPhones. He did make that comment about certain celebrities that he named by name (the ones who support Obama) and said they were wrong. Without telling anyone to vote Republican, he told everyone to vote Republican. Even his comment about the sea turtle eggs says that. He attacked the Democratic platform (help the poor, save the environment) quickly and deftly while supporting the Republican platform (starve the poor, save the unborn, and stop gay marriage). And, yes I say starving the poor is a Republican agenda. That is why they always take the few who cheat the system to excuse their wanting to be rid of it, regardless of how many honest hard-working people, disabled, veteran, and children benefit from that system. And, if they aren't claiming that then they are trying to heap all of it on the church as an institution which is not even feasible let alone logical.
And, I did not say that Ed Young did not care for people after they leave the womb ... I said preachers conveniently forget that life doesn't end when a baby leaves the womb ... and that Jesus preached on caring for the poor, the widows, the children.
Now in one sentence you say that Ed says there should be no welfare and then in the next you say he said it is good that there is welfare for the elderly and disabled. Neither sentence was said in the service I am talking about. And, it is contradictory anyway.
I am glad he has a heart for the lost and wants them to come to Christ. Most preachers, at least most that I know personally, have a heart for the lost. That is one of the reasons they are preachers. No one is saying Ed Young is a false prophet, a bad preacher, or the son of the devil.
But, him having a heart for the lost doesn't change what he said or what he has done from his pulpit. Just because he did not declare that everyone should vote Republican as in ... "All of you need to vote Republican" ... does not change that is what he said. He just played fast and loose and made a lot of negative comments regarding any and all issues that the Democratic Party supports. No one listening to him is stupid. They know what he said. And, there are other people who have listened to him and even go to that church that have made the same comments on his blog.
Now, if he really wants people to vote for Jesus ... they wouldn't vote either party because truthfully neither party has a platform that is 100% biblical. All we do, whenever we vote, is vote the lesser of two evils. Some Christians just have deluded themselves into thinking that if they vote Pro-Life and against gay marriage that they have somehow performed a divine duty. Just as some Christians feel the same way about voting for the poor and the creation God gave us.
Now, as I said, I don't have anything personal against Ed Young, but he did say what he said and he was wrong to do so ... whether he meant to be or not. And, nothing you have said in his defense has changed that he did say what he said. You are trying to defend his character. I am not assaulting his character. I am saying he said these things and he was wrong.
I watched it and you are saying what he said. She can add more to it but it doesn't change that he said what you said he said. I think you are right. I think she is trying to defend his character and you aren't actually maligning his character. You are saying he said this and it was wrong.
I didn't realize she thought a blog post was a blog.
I didn't either until that last comment.