By Dr. Tony Beam.

Many Protestant and Evangelical leaders are now trying to prepare the Church for the inevitability of homosexual marriage. Recently, New York joined seven other states and the District of Columbia in codifying some form of same sex unions. On the federal level, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is under attack in court and the Obama Administration is parked on the sidelines refusing to defend “a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” That quote came from President Obama himself, while he was in the process of threatening the Supreme Court over ObamaCare. For those who skipped math in high school the Affordable Healthcare Act (aka ObamaCare) passed the House 220 to 215, which means it squeaked by five votes. In the Senate the vote was 60 to 39 with the bill just barely crossing the filibuster threshold of sixty votes.

In 1996 the Defense of Marriage Act passed the House 342-67 and the Senate 85-14. So it seems that for the Administration the definition of the term “strong majority” is a moving target. Mandated universal healthcare squeaks by on a vote that is declared to be a strong majority while the Defense of Marriage sails through in what the Obama Administration must have thought was a close vote.

President Obama has described his view on the nature and definition of marriage as “evolving.” In political speak this means he is waiting to see which way wind is blowing as he approaches November. President Obama is nothing if not expedient. If the May 2011 Gallop Poll numbers hold (53% believe Gay marriage should be recognized, 45% do not) you can bet the president will join those who are pushing our culture toward the destruction of marriage.

There can be no question the issue of homosexuality is putting enormous pressure on conservative evangelical churches to compromise and condone what God has clearly condemned. Dr. Albert Mohler, President of Southern Evangelical Seminary recently stressed that the true church, “must stand without compromise on the authority of the Bible and the principles of sexual conduct and morality that God has revealed so clearly in His Word.”

While acknowledging that, “homosexuality has been here since we were all broken in the fall of Man”, Dr. John Piper, pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis also acknowledged that, “What’s new is normalization and institutionalization” of homosexuality.

The gaying of the culture has caught many in the church off guard. The new openness of homosexual behavior coupled with an emphasis on transgender and bisexual lifestyles threatens to overwhelm the church with arguments, which on the surface, may seem difficult to refute. Let’s take a look at three of these arguments and see how they hold up to the test of reason.

1. Homosexuals claim they are simply demanding their “equal rights.” It’s a brilliant argument really. In the same way pro-abortion advocates staked out their claim to the term pro-choice, advocates of homosexual marriage have rallied around the rights claim. Who wants to be anti-choice? The problem is in an abortion the party that has the most to lose has no choice. When a mother exercises her right to choose her baby loses his or her right to life. Who can argue with a person’s rights? You can when you realize everyone has the same right when it comes to marriage. You have the right to marry any qualified person you wish from the opposite sex. We are all playing by the same rules. What many homosexuals want are special rights that are tied to their particular sexual preference. Once you open the door to special rights for same sex couples you open the door for special rights for couples who want to marry based on polygamy, bestiity, incest, pedophilia, or any other unhealthy relationship.

2. Homosexuals also claim they are a class of people like African-Americans. Here is a simple question you should consider before you jump on this bandwagon of insanity. Is there a difference between skin color and sexual behavior? Of course there is! Skin color is benign but sexual behavior is not. Having a certain skin color doesn’t hurt anyone but homosexual behavior can and does hurt others.

3. The argument that is supposed to turn back all critics is, “but we were born that way.” Here are two questions you must answer you before you buy this argument. Is there any difference between sexual desires and sexual behavior? Should people act on every desire they have? A desire does not make a behavior acceptable. If that were true, homosexuals would have to argue in favor of pedophilia, incest, and every other perverse desire of humanity. If everyone acted on every desire they had civilization would descend into chaos. All of us have desire that must be restrained by conscience or by law. The fact of a desire does not form the basis of its own morality. Add to this the fact that after years of trying no valid recognized scientific study has established an irrefutable genetic link for homosexual behavior.

At the end of the day and after all the arguments are made, the true Church will have to decide whether to heed Paul’s warning in Romans 1 or suffer the fate of Lot’s wife in Genesis 19.

You can hear Dr. Tony Beam live on Christian Talk 660 weekday mornings from 7:00-9:00 AM (EST) as he is the host of Christian Worldview Today. Visit Dr. Beam’s website at www.tonybeam.com.

Dr. Tony Beam is Vice-President for Student Services and the Director of the Christian Worldview Center at North Greenville University in Tigerville, South Carolina, Dr. Tony Beam received his Master of Divinity from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, North Carolina, and his Doctor of Ministry from The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky.

By Dr. Tony Beam.

Since the 15th century Lady Justice has been portrayed as a Greek goddess with scales in one hand, a sword in the other, and her eyes covered with a blindfold. The scales represent the balance between truth and fairness. Her double-edged sword represents Reason and Justice, which may be wielded either for or against either party in a legal dispute. The blindfold represents objectivity that refuses to take into consideration the race, social standing, wealth, poverty, or power of the person being adjudicated.

These are admirable traits of justice that must be defended in a society that reveres truth and respects the rule of law. But there is another trait that must be added to lady justice if justice is to be served in the Trayvon Martin case. She will have to be stone deaf so she can ignore the din of posturing, grandstanding, and outright deceit that has erupted in the case’s wake.

Here are just a few examples of what the combination of a 24-hour news cycle and unprincipled leaders can produce. The Rev. Jesse Jackson told a church in Eatonville that Trayvon Martin is a “martyr” and that his death could be compared to the shooting of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Not to be outdone in the inflammatory rhetoric department, Rev. Al Sharpton called for “an escalation in civil disobedience” if George Zimmerman is not arrested. Rep. Shelia Jackson Lee joined the outrageous march to judgment by suggesting that George Zimmerman somehow broke his own nose in an attempt to mislead the police.

But the Nobel Prize for rhetoric above and beyond the call of insanity goes to the New Black Panthers, who have now offered a one million dollar bounty for George Zimmerman to be captured and delivered into their custody. Finally, in a speech that was supposed to ease the racial tensions in Florida Rep. Frederica Wilson said, “Trayvon was hunted down like a rabid dog, shot in the street and racially profiled.” One can only imagine what Rep. Wilson would have said if she was trying to ramp up rather than tamp down racial tension.

In addition to over-the-top and under reported racially charged rhetoric from political and civil rights leaders you have outright deception flowing from the mainstream media. The Today Show on NBC edited the 911 call made by Zimmerman to make it appear he made a racially motivated remark about Martin. The NBC edited version of the 911 call between Zimmerman and the dispatcher went like this:

Zimmerman: “This guy looks like he’s up to no good … he looks black.”

A transcript of the complete 911 call shows the actual exchange with the dispatcher reveals quite a different story.

Zimmerman: “This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.”
Dispatcher: “OK, and this guy – is he black, white or Hispanic?
Zimmerman: “He looks black.”

NBC announced they have “launched an internal investigation into the editorial process surrounding this particular story.” To say the least, it will be interesting to hear what the investigation reveals.

These are just a few of the examples of rushing to judgment for the purpose of political and personal gain in a high profile case that in the end will make the truth much harder to discern. No one denies that on the night of February 26 a tragic event took place in the town of Sanford, Florida. A black teenager was shot to death by a person the New York Times has called “a white Hispanic.” Either the shooter was justified because he acted in self-defense or he is guilty of a crime. The state of Florida has appointed a special prosecutor to sort through the evidence to see if charges should be brought against Zimmerman.

I hope the Lady Justice can ignore the context long enough for her scales of truth and fairness to be rightly balanced.

You can hear Dr. Tony Beam live on Christian Talk 660 weekday mornings from 7:00-9:00 AM (EST) as he is the host of Christian Worldview Today. Visit Dr. Beam’s website at www.tonybeam.com.

Dr. Tony Beam is Vice-President for Student Services and the Director of the Christian Worldview Center at North Greenville University in Tigerville, South Carolina, Dr. Tony Beam received his Master of Divinity from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, North Carolina, and his Doctor of Ministry from The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky.

By Dr. Tony Beam.

What does July 1 through July 3, 1863 have in common with March 26 through March 28, 2012? They represent three days over 100 years apart where the United States grappled with what kind of country we are and will be.

The Battle of Gettysburg involved over one hundred and sixty five thousand soldiers with close to fifty one thousand causalities. The country came to death grips on the fields of Pennsylvania over what kind of country would survive. Would we be a country where freedom belonged to every person regardless of his or her skin color? Would we be one country united under one flag or would we splinter into two countries with very different futures?

Gettysburg was the turning point of the Civil War. The war would drag on for close to two more years but after Lee failed in his attempt to invade the North the final outcome was really never in doubt.

Our three days, March 26 through March 28 of 2012, will go down in history as three days at the U.S. Supreme Court where once again, we will decide what kind of country will survive. This time the issue of freedom will not be decided by cannonballs and grapeshot but by nine robed justices. For the first time in American history the court will decide whether or not the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution can be stretched to compel Americans to purchase a product. Will we continue to be a country where we enjoy the freedom to make choices in the marketplace free from government compulsion? Will we survive our current debt crisis or will we enshrine a new entitlement program that will eventually grow into a monster that will consume our economy?

Writing for Fox News Karen Harned cites five key freedoms we will lose if the Supreme Court upholds ObamaCare. “It will strip Americans of the freedoms they hold dear and chisel away their ability to exercise individual liberties and freedoms,” Harned said. In addition to undermining our individual liberties, Harned says, “If the individual mandate is upheld, the Constitution will not protect Americans from any mandate Congress wants to impose.” She’s absolutely right. If Congress can force every American to buy a healthcare plan or pay a penalty what will stop them from forcing every American to buy a car that gets over 50 miles to the gallon or have solar panels installed in their homes? How long will it be before the government decides obesity is a national crisis and dictates that every American has to eat what the government considers to be a healthy diet?

Harned points out the ObamaCare mandate will infringe on the right of individuals to own and operate a small business. “Any benefits of this law are far-outweighed by the infringement and violation of small businesses’ personal liberties and by the government’s over-reach into the day-to-day operations.” Again, Harned is right. Most small businesses will not be able to follow the strict guidelines for insurance coverage for their employees. Faced with the choice of paying a confiscatory fine or provide coverage the owner knows they can’t possibly pay for most small business owners will just throw in the towel. Many more would be entrepreneurs will abandon the dream of operating their own business and simply go to work for someone else. The end result will be fewer jobs and a stifled economy.

Endangered freedom number four on Harned’s list is the freedom to decide what is medically best for our families and businesses. “If ObamaCare is upheld, over half of all Americans would be forced onto some type of government-run health-care by the end of the decade. Elite bureaucrats would be in charge of deciding what medical tests you need or should have based on costs.” This may be the most frightening element of ObamaCare. Right now, you have choices over the quality and the quantity, and the who and the what of your health care. If ObamaCare is declared constitutional those choices will soon pass into the hands of bureaucrats who will be more concerned about collective costs than personal care.

Finally, Harned points out, “ObamaCare is already a significant drag on the nation’s economy and could threaten to sink it even further when the mandate goes into effect in 2014.” The final freedom hanging in the balance is economic freedom. Will we continue to be a country where our children and our grandchildren will have the opportunity to prosper under the freest, most dynamic and productive economy in the world? Or will we extinguish the flame of economic freedom by smothering it under the weight of unsustainable debt?

Three days. In 1863, in the quite Pennsylvania town of Gettysburg, it was three days of bloody battles that decided the future of a country. The Angle stone wall marks what has come to be known as the high water mark of the Confederacy. There the remnants of General Longstreet’s division of Virginians momentarily pushed the Union forces back before reinforcements were brought up to hold the line. The Union army held and ultimately the Union was preserved.

Verbal volleys that will be no less significant than the rifle volleys that decided the Civil War will decide the outcome of our three-day struggle. As in 1863 the eyes of a battle weary populace look once again to an epic battle that will decide the outcome of our nation. Will freedom survive? Will our nation survive the cost of mandated healthcare? Three days should tell the tale.

You can hear Dr. Tony Beam live on Christian Talk 660 weekday mornings from 7:00-9:00 AM (EST) as he is the host of Christian Worldview Today. Visit Dr. Beam’s website at www.tonybeam.com.

Dr. Tony Beam is Vice-President for Student Services and the Director of the Christian Worldview Center at North Greenville University in Tigerville, South Carolina, Dr. Tony Beam received his Master of Divinity from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, North Carolina, and his Doctor of Ministry from The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky.

By Dr. Tony Beam.

Addressing AIPAC during a Monday evening Gala celebration, Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) proposed a bold new policy concerning Iran. “If Iran at anytime begins to enrich uranium to weapons grade or goes forward with a nuclear weapons program then the United States will use overwhelming military force to end that program.”

The statement represents a clear escalation in the political war between Republicans and the Administration over the current policy toward Iran that emphasizes crippling sanctions and a wait and see posture.

Senator McConnell’s new proposal was met with thunderous applause from the 13,000 plus attendees at the AIPAC Gala. He called President Obama’s repeated announcement that the administration keeps “all options on the table” a talking point not a policy. He called for a “straightforward, deliberate plan” that would force Tehran to negotiate to preserve its survival.

McConnell also said that if the U.S. intelligence, at any time informs Congress that Iran has begun to enrich uranium to weapons-grade standards or decided to develop a nuclear weapon, he would consult with the president and the joint congressional leadership on legislation authorizing the use of American military force. These statements by McConnell brought the first new idea of the table in the ongoing debate over how to deal with Iran. Yesterday, President Obama rehashed his Administration’s accomplishments but offered nothing new. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi rehashed the Obama Administration’s accomplishments but offered nothing new or even anything mildly interesting. Against this backdrop, Senator McConnell’s proposal shines in bright contrast to the pale policies of the past.

McConnell said the authorization for U.S. military force against Iran would make clear that if Iran or its proxies retaliate against the United States or its interests, they would face overwhelming response. His rhetoric may be bold but he may face a tough fight getting a war resolution through a war-weary congress. Washington state Representative Adam Smith, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, released a statement saying that while Obama has been correct in holding out the option of military force, sanctions should be given enough time to work. “Taking unilateral military action at this point is unnecessary and would only serve to undermine International consensus,” Smith said.

McConnell concluded his remarks by calling Iran, “a self-described revolutionary state that is determined to shift the balance of power in the Middle East.” He talked of a “day of reckoning” being approached by Israel and the United States where, “We either do what it takes to preserve the balance of power within the broader Middle East or risk a nuclear arms race across the region that’s almost certain to upend it.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who echoed his own words that were spoken to President Obama just a few hours earlier, followed Senator McConnell. Concerning the support of the United States he expressed his gratitude. Concerning Israel’s path he said, “We must always remain the masters of our own fate.” He said, “We have waited for diplomacy to work. We have waited for sanctions to work. We cannot afford to wait much longer.”

Will fellow Republicans embrace Senator McConnell’s bold new plan? No one knows but one thing is for sure…they had better buckle-up for the debate!

You can hear Dr. Tony Beam live on Christian Talk 660 weekday mornings from 7:00-9:00 AM (EST) as he is the host of Christian Worldview Today. Visit Dr. Beam’s website at www.tonybeam.com.

Dr. Tony Beam is Vice-President for Student Services and the Director of the Christian Worldview Center at North Greenville University in Tigerville, South Carolina, Dr. Tony Beam received his Master of Divinity from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, North Carolina, and his Doctor of Ministry from The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky.

By Dr. Tony Beam.

Jane Harman, former democratic congresswoman from California’s 36th district, and Liz Cheney, republican columnist and political commentator, opened AIPAC 2012 by squiring off over Iran during a panel discussion.

The discussion began in a cordial fashion but sparks began to fly when Cheney, commenting on the quality of U.S. intelligence said, “When U.S. Intelligence says X and Israeli intelligence says Y we should remember the U.S. has a poor track record on predicting a state’s ability to acquire nuclear weapons.” Harmon countered saying, “Our intelligence capability is good and is getting better.” She said there is agreement between Israel and the United States that Iran is a year away from getting full nuclear weapons capability and two years away from putting a nuclear warhead on a rocket.

The moderator tried to redirect the discussion toward the Syrian situation but both Harmon and Cheney were content to continue their debate over the effectiveness, or lack thereof ,of the Obama Administration’s dealings with Iran. When asked about Syria Cheney replied that the sanctions being pressed against Iran are affecting the Iranian people but not affecting the military establishment or their development of a nuclear weapon. Cheney said, “Anyone who says they (Iran) hasn’t decided whether or not to weaponize must ask why they are enduring economic sanctions and why they are continuing to turn international inspectors away.” She emphasized the fact that the redline on the Iranian nuclear program is not the date they might actually possess a working nuclear weapon, but rather the date they are capable of doing so.

Liz Cheney was the only conservative voice heard from the platform on Monday. Israeli President Shimon Peres followed the panel discussion and was warmly received by the 13,000 plus in attendance. He immediately praised President Obama for “being such a good friend to Israel.” He spoke of the historic miracle of the Jewish state. “For Israel,” he said, “The pursuit of peace is not a passing opportunity. It is a moral imperative.” When he spoke of Iran his comments were biting as he described Iran as “an evil, cold, morally corrupt regime based on destruction and an affront to human dignity.”

President Obama was greeted by a respectful and mostly warm response from the crowd. Early in his remarks he announced that Israeli President Peres has been invited to the White House later this spring to receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest honor the President can bestow on a civilian. This announcement was met with the most enthusiastic response of the crowd during the speech.

The President spent most of the rest of the speech trying to shore up his support of the Jewish community. All of the candidates for the Republican presidential nomination have painted the president as being weak in his response to the Iranian threat. In response, President Obama said, “When it comes to preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon all options are on the table. A political effort, an economic effort, a diplomatic effort, and yes, a military effort,” are being employed. President Obama rejected the conservative characterization that he believes Iran can simply be contained. “I do not have a policy of containment. I have policy of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon,” the president said.

The president scolded many on the right who are calling for a more substantial and perhaps, a military option for Iran. Speaking directly to his rivals for the presidency he said, “Already there is too much loose talk of war. There has already been too much of this. Now is not the time for bluster. Now is the time to let our increased pressure sink in.” He concluded his remarks by resurrecting Teddy Roosevelt’s “speak softly and carry a big stick”

Two things stand out from the opening session of AIPAC 2012. First, President Obama realizes he has a problem with the Jewish community. From his treatment of Prime Minister Netanyahu as a problem child rather than a precious friend by shunning him at the White House to his unannounced announcement of a call for Israel to consider a return to pre-1967 borders President Obama has opened a gap between the U.S. and Israel. That gap may not exist in his own mind but it certainly exists in the minds of many Jews as was evidenced by the somewhat tepid overall response he received during his speech. The President was forced to list what he believes are his many acts of support for Israel. He touted the record level of financial aid and military support his Administration has provided. He spoke specifically of $200 million in support of the “Iron Dome” program and of the unprecedented cooperation between the U.S. and Israeli military intelligence agencies.

While true, these “accomplishments” touted by the president could be compared to a president touting his attendance at cabinet meetings as a sign of his commitment to being a good president. What President Obama has done represents the minimum of what any president would do and, while doing the minimum, the president has maximized tension with Israel by conducting an aggressive outreach to Israel’s enemies and reacting naïvely to the alarming rise of the Muslim Brotherhood as a consequence of the Arab spring.

Finally, it will be interesting to see how Prime Minister Netanyahu responds to the president’s address when he takes the podium at AIPAC. President Peres adoration for President Obama is nice and it makes sense politically for someone in his position to come out in strong support of President Obama’s leadership. But with all due respect to President Peres the person with the most on the line is the Prime Minister. He can’t afford to ignore or downplay President Obama’s attempt to placate Israel’s enemies. The economic sanctions and diplomatic efforts of the Obama Administration have fallen far short of the promised results with Iran. The real question is will President Obama do whatever is necessary to stop Iran from reaching the capability of making a nuclear weapon? The jury is out on this question and Israel may believe they cannot afford to wait for a clea

You can hear Dr. Tony Beam live on Christian Talk 660 weekday mornings from 7:00-9:00 AM (EST) as he is the host of Christian Worldview Today. Visit Dr. Beam’s website at www.tonybeam.com.

Dr. Tony Beam is Vice-President for Student Services and the Director of the Christian Worldview Center at North Greenville University in Tigerville, South Carolina, Dr. Tony Beam received his Master of Divinity from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, North Carolina, and his Doctor of Ministry from The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky.

By Dr. Tony Beam.

The January 28th edition of World Magazine trumpeted a year of success across America for the pro-life movement. The tea party led conservative takeover of the United States Congress in 2010 overshadowed an even more significant political event that same year. Across the country state legislature after state legislature moved from left to right as conservatives gained legislative majorities. Election week 2010 began with 60 state legislature chambers controlled by Democrats and just 36 controlled by Republicans. When the dust settled after the 2010 mid-term Republicans had taken control of 19 legislatures for a total of 55 compared to just 38 under Democrat control. The last time Republicans controlled this many state house chambers Herbert Hoover was president.

How historic were conservative state house wins in 2010? Consider the fact that the state of Alabama switched from Democrat to Republican control for the first time since reconstruction. In Minnesota Republicans won the Senate for the first time ever. From sea to shining sea state houses changed from blue to red in a historic election that will have a profound effect on the political landscape in America for years to come. It was the night conservatism swept the country like a flood!

The problem is, someone forgot to open the floodgates in South Carolina. In state after state pro-life legislation was brought up for a vote, passed into law, and signed by the governor. In the 12 months since the conservative landslide 65 new laws protecting the unborn have passed in 27 states. In 27 states, Pro-life laws were strengthened, the lives of babies are being saved, and more women are being exposed to the truth about abortion.

During the same time period the South Carolina House of Representatives passed three strong pro-life bills by substantial majorities and sent them to the Senate. The Senate stalled all three bills and now all three are in danger of becoming the victim of Senate inaction. South Carolina’s legislative calendar is based on a two-year cycle. Bills that pass one chamber in the first year of the cycle must pass the other chamber before the end of the second year in the cycle. Two of the three pro-life bills passed by the House are mired in the mud of the South Carolina Senate’s arcane rules. One of the bills, the Freedom of Conscience Act, failed to pass the Medical Affairs Committee by a seven to seven tie. That vote sent the bill from the full committee back to the sub-committee where it will likely die at the end of this legislative session. There are eight Republicans and seven Democrats on the committee. So how could there be a seven to seven tie? It’s what happens when one Republican votes with the Democrats (Sen. Raymond Cleary of Georgetown) and one conservative Republican doesn’t attend the meeting.

So now, people working in the health care industry in South Carolina who don’t want to sell out their pro-life principles and be forced to participate in abortions will have no recourse. All because one Republican decided to join the Democrats and one decided, for some reason, not so show up. The other two bills also face uphill battles if they are going to pass before they become victims of the senate graveyard. S102, the bill that would prevent South Carolina from using taxpayer dollars to perform abortions under Obamacare, made it to the Senate floor but will have to be set for special order (the calling up of a bill that has been sent to the bottom of the stack) to have a chance to pass. So far, that bill has not been called up and therefore languishes in the Senate.

The final bill is the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. It simply states that if a baby survives an abortion it cannot be left to die even if the obvious intent of the mother was to end the child’s life. That is a bill that should have passed both chambers of the legislature without opposition since it deals with preventing infanticide. But at this writing the bill is stuck in a committee in the Senate.

The National Republican Party platform affirms the dignity of all human life. It reads in part, “We assert the inherent dignity and sanctity of all human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental, individual right to life which cannot be infringed.” There can be no doubt as to the meaning of this statement. So I am left with one, simple and somewhat troubling question. How can three pro-life bills face extinction at the end of this legislative session in a state where Republicans have a 76 to 46 advantage in the House and a 27 to 19 advantage in the Senate and where they hold every statewide constitutional office, including the Governor?

Nationwide, is has been a year of progress for conservatives. In South Carolina it has been a year of politics as usual.

You can hear Dr. Tony Beam live on Christian Talk 660 weekday mornings from 7:00-9:00 AM (EST) as he is the host of Christian Worldview Today. Visit Dr. Beam’s website at www.tonybeam.com.

Dr. Tony Beam is Vice-President for Student Services and the Director of the Christian Worldview Center at North Greenville University in Tigerville, South Carolina, Dr. Tony Beam received his Master of Divinity from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, North Carolina, and his Doctor of Ministry from The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky.

By Dr. Tony Beam.

The Obama Administration’s answer to the outrage expressed by the Catholic over his contraceptive mandate is to change the conversation from a freedom of religion issue to a plain freedom issue. In announcing his “compromise” over the contraceptive mandate announced by Kathleen Sebelius on January 20, the President employed the tried and true “bait an switch” technique. Since Christians can be a sympathetic group especially when their constitutional rights are being violated the president decided to shift his mandate to the hated insurance companies. Surely no one in their right mind will dare stand up for their rights. So the President simply rewrites his edict forcing the bad guy insurance companies to hand out free contraceptives while the good guy religious groups are let off the hook. The problem is the hook in this case is the weapon of a government mandate that this President pulls like a gun.

The president is attempting to use a technicality to mask an executive branch power grab. Instead of facing and fixing the problem of mandating a service that is reprehensible to many Christians, President Obama has decided to make the problem worse by cheapening and then dismissing the core complaint by using an accounting trick. Chris Stillwell, writing for Fox News said, “One doesn’t prescribe a placebo unless he or she believes the problem is in the patient’s head.” Freedom is a foreign concept to the president. He truly believes that he is justified in handing down edicts from on high that are designed to curtail the base instincts of the great-unwashed masses. To him, conservatives really are nothing more than a group of misguided souls who cling to their God and their guns. That is why White House Press Secretary Jay Carney can respond with a smug turn of the head and a shrug of the shoulders when pressed about the so-called compromise. He simply paints all who disagree with the president’s new plan as extremists who have a political axe to grind.

Our founders had a right understanding of the separation of the church and state. They would never affirm the modern definition with its strict prohibition on any religious expression by agents of the state. What they would support is an understanding of this great truth as a liberating force for the church. The first amendment was never intended to curtail or corral the activity of the church. It was designed to protect the activity of the church from an overreaching, over regulating federal monster. In his book We Hold These Truths, Matthew Spalding writes, “What the separation of church and state does, then, is liberate America’s religions… in respect to their moral forms and teaching… to exercise unprecedented influence over private and public opinion by shaping citizens mores, cultivating their virtues, and in general, providing a pure and independent source of moral reasoning and authority.”

Take a long look at that last phrase… “A pure and independent source of moral reasoning and authority.” The phrase serves as a warning and a wake-up call for people who love liberty. Any source of moral reason and authority that is diluted by the whim of a leader who doesn’t recognize or respect true liberty must be rejected. Only someone who believes supremely in their own superiority could possibly set forth a mandate for houses of worship or houses of commerce. The right to act according to the dictates of our own conscience under God is a right for which generations of Americans have been wiling to fight and die. President Obama doesn’t understand this and that is why he is baffled by our reluctance to simply bow before his supposed wisdom. If Solomon had possessed the wisdom of President Obama he would have cut the mothers in half so the baby in the famous dispute could have enough of each to be pacified.

This squabble has never been about birth control. For the president, it has always been about ultimate control. It has been and continues to be a debate about whether this or any president can direct by fiat the actions of free, independent citizens apart from any action of the legislature. It we lose that debate we will lose more than our right to respond to God as we see fit. We will lose our right to respond to anything without the government’s approval.

You can hear Dr. Tony Beam live on Christian Talk 660 weekday mornings from 7:00-9:00 AM (EST) as he is the host of Christian Worldview Today. Visit Dr. Beam’s website at www.tonybeam.com.

Dr. Tony Beam is Vice-President for Student Services and the Director of the Christian Worldview Center at North Greenville University in Tigerville, South Carolina, Dr. Tony Beam received his Master of Divinity from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, North Carolina, and his Doctor of Ministry from The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky.

By Dr. Tony Beam.

Critiquing a speech that is delivered by the President of the United States that serves as a statement of deeply held beliefs is a task that should be carried out with respect. A quick search of the columns I have written about Senator and now President Obama will attest to the depth of my profound differences and difficulties with his policies and his core values. Because I know where the president stands on issues such as a the sanctity of life (he is a fervent supporter of abortion), the sacredness of marriage (he has instructed his Attorney General to refuse to defend the Defense of Marriage Act), and the cherished right of religious freedom (Obamacare tramples the conscious of those who are opposed to abortion); I am reluctant to give him any benefit of the doubt when it comes to his address at the National Prayer Breakfast.

However, before I discuss the areas where I believe the president demonstrated a poor understanding of hermeneutics I want to point out some areas where I resonate with what he had to say. He opened by saying:

“At a time when it’s easy to lose ourselves in the rush and clamor of our own lives, or get caught up in the noise and rancor that too often passes as politics today, these moments of prayer slow us down. They humble us. They remind us that no matter how much responsibility we have, how fancy our titles, how much power we think we hold, we are imperfect vessels. We can all benefit from turning to our Creator, listening to Him.”

It is certainly easy to lose ourselves in the cacophony of life. Voices cry out from all directions, some encouraging but many bring stinging words of rebuke and pain. When Jesus wanted to teach His disciples He would lead them away to a quite place away from the noise of the world where they could hear His voice and focus on His words. God’s Word tells us when He called the twelve, “He went up the mountain and summoned those He wanted, and they came to Him” (Mark 3:13). Later, when Jesus wanted His disciples to understand the parables He used in His teaching Mark tells us, “He did not speak to them without a parable. Privately, however, He would explain everything to His own disciples”(Mark 4:34).

We all need to find a place where our time with God is a special time of speaking and listening to Him.

Another point of resonance comes where President Obama acknowledged, “We can’t leave our values at the door. If we leave our values at the door, we abandon much of the moral glue that had held our nation together for centuries, and allowed us to become somewhat more perfect a union.”

That’s true as far as it goes but it falls far short of the ideal. Our founders spoke often about this “moral glue” that holds our nation together. But leaders like Benjamin Rush went far beyond the neutral idea of values to the bedrock foundation of morality that flows from the Word of God. Rush wrote, “The only foundation for useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object of life of all republican governments.” The president needs to understand that just any set of values will not do. Americas’ values, the kind that have the power to hold a society together cannot be thrust upon a people after being crafted in the mind of man. They must spring from the living water of Truth that pours forth from God through His Word and through our relationship with Christ.

President Obama would place the values and teachings of Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, and the writings of Plato on the same level with the Truth of God. That might work in a make believe world where truth is a concept determined by the majority but it fails miserably in the real world where Truth both is and is found in Christ.

The president quoted Proverbs 31:11, which says, “Speak up for those who have no voice, for the justice of all who are dispossessed.” I would ask President Obama if he believes this passage why he refuses to speak up for justice for the voiceless unborn who die daily at the hand of the abortionist. None are more dispossessed than these who are most innocent and deserving of life.

Finally, the president spoke of being willing to give up some of his tax breaks in order to help those who are less fortunate. But having the government take our income and give it those who meet the governments definition of needy removes any reward we might gain from our generosity. If President Obama wants to help the needy, he might want begin by setting the example of personal giving to the poor rather than waiting for the government to force the gift for the poor from his hand.

Quoting a portion of Luke 12:48 the president said, “For unto whom much is given much shall be required.” The full context of Luke 12 tells the story of unfaithful slaves who ignored the will of their master even though they had full knowledge of what he wanted them to do. It is a story about knowing and doing the will of God and has nothing to do with material possessions. Jesus was not calling His disciples at this point to take from others in order to have more to give away but was calling them to be prepared in the day of His coming by knowing and doing His will.

If the president would like to use a bible story that parallels his idea of how government treats other people’s money he would have done well to chose a well-known story from John 12. Six days before the Passover, Jesus was in Bethany with Lazarus when Mary took a pound of very costly perfume and anointed the feet of Jesus and then wiped His feet with her hair. John then tells us that Judas Iscariot protested saying, “Why was this perfume not sold for three hundred denarii and given to poor people?” But John tells us the real reason for the piety of Judas. “He didn’t say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief. He was in charge of the money-bag and would steal part of what was put in it.”

Most of those who would like to have the government play Robin Hood and rob the rich to give to the poor like this arrangement for same reason Judas liked it. Once the money is in the bag (or in the government coffers) it is easy pickings for those who would use it for their own gain.

That is a much better match for what happens when government decides to “spread the wealth around.”

You can hear Dr. Tony Beam live on Christian Talk 660 weekday mornings from 7:00-9:00 AM (EST) as he is the host of Christian Worldview Today. Visit Dr. Beam’s website at www.tonybeam.com.

Dr. Tony Beam is Vice-President for Student Services and the Director of the Christian Worldview Center at North Greenville University in Tigerville, South Carolina, Dr. Tony Beam received his Master of Divinity from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, North Carolina, and his Doctor of Ministry from The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky.

By Dr. Tony Beam.

The eyes of the nation have been on our fair state for the past couple of weeks, as the Republican candidates for President crisscrossed from I-95 to I-26 to I-85, shaking the hands of every voter they could find along the way. South Carolina turned out to be a make-or-break state for a few of the candidates, and our primary was a great opportunity for our citizens to influence the future direction of our state and our nation.

Looking at the instability we see around the world today, one thing I want the fine men still running for President to not forget is their fundamental responsibility to ensure the United States remains a leader on the global stage. The fact is American global leadership is essential to our national security, our economic prosperity, and our most central values.

Our top military leaders have made clear that by investing a small amount – just over one percent of our overall budget – in development and diplomacy programs, we can prevent conflicts before they start, fight terrorism and international crime, promote stability, and thereby keep our service members out of harms’ way. The best war is the one we never have to fight, and in today’s dangerous world, that means utilizing all the foreign policy and national security tools we have available in order to keep our country safe.

There is another issue on voters’ minds this election season, though. In addition to keeping our families safe, Americans are looking for leaders who can get our economy moving again. It may sound surprising to some, but American engagement abroad helps create jobs here at home. In the Upstate, we know the value of international investment as companies like BMW and Michelin have brought in millions of dollars and thousands of job right here in our community. Local businesses here depend on access to the 95 percent of consumers who live outside the U.S. in order to grow and create new jobs, and in fact, one in five jobs in South Carolina depends on international trade. Considering the world’s fastest-growing markets are in the developing world, our economic growth depends on our investment there.

So while we know U.S. global leadership helps keep us safe and creates jobs here at home, it produces something deeper and more fundamental for all Americans. The United States is at its best when we are sharing our values of freedom, liberty, and democracy with the world. Our development and diplomacy programs communicate these values and save lives in all corners of the globe. One only has to look at the devastating famine currently ravaging the Horn of Africa to see the critical importance of American leadership. Some 13 million men, women and children are at risk of starvation – that’s about three times the entire population of our state. I take seriously the admonition to care “for the least of these” and believe our life-saving intervention in this strategically critical region is nothing less than a moral obligation.

These days, everyone is looking for places to cut back, but even in difficult economic times, America’s values endure. The world must see that our basic principles cannot be eroded by recession, and that we must allocate adequate resources to continue our successful global development and anti-poverty efforts abroad.

President Reagan described America as a shining city on a hill, a beacon of freedom and democracy for the entire world to see. This was more than just rhetoric to him – it was a deep-seeded belief in America’s role as an engaged global leader. President Reagan took action by signing international security and foreign assistance legislation into law, saying at the time, “The ultimate importance to the United States of our security and development assistance programs cannot be exaggerated.”

No matter which candidate takes the oath of office next January, it is my deep belief that he should continue this proud legacy by standing up for U.S global engagement. When America is a leader in the world, we are stronger and safer here at home – and that is a platform we can all get behind.

You can hear Dr. Tony Beam live on Christian Talk 660 weekday mornings from 7:00-9:00 AM (EST) as he is the host of Christian Worldview Today. Visit Dr. Beam’s website at www.tonybeam.com.

Dr. Tony Beam is Vice-President for Student Services and the Director of the Christian Worldview Center at North Greenville University in Tigerville, South Carolina, Dr. Tony Beam received his Master of Divinity from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, North Carolina, and his Doctor of Ministry from The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky.