What WOULD Jesus say?

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she believes she must pursue public policies "in keeping with the values" of Jesus Christ, "The Word made Flesh."

CNS (Cybercast News Service) news reported yesterday that Pelosi, a Catholic, said at a May 6, Catholic Community Conference on Capitol Hill that she is asked all the time "What is your favorite this?" "What is your favorite that?" She said one time she was asked "What is your favorite word?" Her answer to that question was "My favorite word is the Word, is the Word," making an obvious reference to Jesus Christ who is called The Word in the Book of John.

How Baffling.

First, Pelosi favors legalized abortion and voted against the ban on partial birth abortion that was enacted into law in 2003. Psalm 127:3 highlights the value God places on children,saying, "Truly children are a gift from the Lord, the fruit of the womb is a reward." With that in mind, it would seem that Pelosi misunderstands what the term "The Word" means in John 1. The "Word" was Jesus, and Jesus was/is God. As outlined in Psalm 127, God loves children. Clearly, Ms. Pelosi does not.

Likewise, her comments at the Catholic Community Conference also included her saying that "we have to give voice to what that (the Word) means in light of public policy that would be in keeping with the values of the Word.

Huh? "that?" The Word is a "Who" not a "That"

Did God really intend a reference to His Son to be a vehicle for political debate over 2000 years after it was written? Of course not. Was Pelosi really twisting scripture to suggest that the biblical reference to "The Word" was somehow a protection for the pro-choice values she supports? Likely. Is the Speaker really so naive that she thinks using (or misusing in this case) scripture at a Catholic Conference will somehow win her votes in the next election? She clearly does not get it. Most of us who truly claim Christianity as the basis for our faith, have read the Bible and we understand that Jesus Christ was not sent to earth to support any political agenda, let alone one that so obviously contradicts His Father's teachings.

Perhaps even more shocking was Pelosi's comment that you could "Fill it in with anything you want" making reference that non-Christians could use the term "Word" to mean anything.

Excuse me?

As someone who respects all faiths, and all people's right to choose what or who they want to believe in, I would ask that if our Speaker is going to quote the Bible she needs to understand that "The Word" only means one thing. Jesus. It is a Christian reference. I don't quote the Koran when trying to make a Christian point, and it is only respectful that Ms. Pelosi not quote the Bible when trying to win points with a conservative group while clinging to her liberal values that suggest God is whoever man wants Him to be. He is not.

It is almost laughable when misinformed politicians choose to throw around Biblical truths for the sake of their own personal gain. I say almost laughable because it is so bizarre. It is also scary that someone who has been given so much, so arrogantly cheapens the word of the God she claims to follow. Pelosi's comments remind me of the liberal mantra from a few years ago, that asked "what would Jesus drive," in reference to an attempted boycott on SUV's. As a lifelong Christian, I can't imagine that Christ would have engaged anyone in a debate about the American Auto Industry and the environmental argument. I also can't imagine He would champion anyone using His message to further their own agenda. In fact, the Bible calls that pride, which is the greatest sin of all. As a champion for separation of church and state, Ms. Pelosi needs to remember her viewpoint and keep Jesus out of her bid for more votes. It's disgusting and truly informed people of the faith won't buy it.

Finally, all politicians who continually stomp all over Christianity need to learn from Pelosi's pathetic attempt to reach out to a group she knows nothing about. They want God out of our culture. They want Him out of our government. They want to make it so no one has any public connection to the faith and values our country was founded on. Fine. As Christians we'll press on, but as a group of voting Americans we ask that you don't disrespect us or the God we follow, by twisting His word to mean everything but what it was intended to mean. We don't like that, and if you insist on doing it, it may cost you big time at the polls.

Saying "No" is Better than Doing Nothing

Another war of words has been launched in Washington, this time from Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Speaking yesterday, Gates said that US military officers and civilians advising President Obama on Afghanistan should keep their views private. The AFP News Service reports that in referring to White House discussions on the war, Gates said that it is imperative that all who take part should be candid with the president, but should do so privately. While he did not mention his name, Gates remarks seemed to be directed at General Stanley McChrystal who made his views on strategy known in a London speech last week.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and the president's national security advisor, retired General James Jones have also joined in the criticism of General McChrystal. Jones told CNN over the weekend that he thought McChrystal was guilty of not going through the proper chains of command when discussing military strategy.

While the chain of command is important, and perhaps General McChrystal should have kept quiet until he could meet with the president, one can understand the frustration that caused him to speak out. As reported last week, the general has only met with the president once in the past seventy days and has been snubbed in his request for more troops to be sent to Afghanistan.

Time is running out and if the U.S. is going to win the war there, more troops are needed now. The wait and see policy that Mr. Obama has adopted can only mean one thing: "a bigger chance for failure with each passing day."

While the president has spent the last week preparing for and attending the Olympic Committee meeting in Copenhagen, that ultimately brought him nothing but embarassment, General McChrystal's request for more troops has been left on the table with no regard for his position or expertise.

This game of cat and mouse is uncalled for, and by refusing to address the general's request, President Obama is appearing to be stubborn and unable to make a decision. While he has been very vocal about not wanting more troops in the region, his refusal to address the issue with the general has obviously left many on both sides frustrated.

Leadership requires that the person in command is willing to put their own viewpoints aside while listening to everyone who has been given the right to speak. It also requires the ability to make a final decision even if that decision is not popular or correct.

The president should send in the troops that have been requested, and his avoidance of the issue is causing a rift between the very people who need to ban together to make our efforts in Afghanistan work.

The problem lies in the waiting, and it seems that General McChrystal is trying to get the president's attention by making his comments public. Frustration can cause one to do things that may go against their beliefs or position, so it's time for the president to call a meeting.

Even if he's convinced that the general is wrong, it's time to speak up and give his advisor an answer. Even if troops are not deployed, the decision will have been made and the general can move on. This is what we need from you Mr. President: "Effective Leadership."

So, hold the meeting with the general Sir. While we hope you make the right decision, remember, it is within the scope of your power to "just say no."