caught somewhere between real life, simple faith, & raw emotion
Michelle Obama Invaded My Church
First Lady Michelle Obama is invading my church (North Point Community Church) today. Okay, that was a bit of an overstatement (and it sounds like I am trying to stir up controversy). Today is the 1-year anniversary of Michelle Obama’s Let’s Move initiative and she asked if she could come talk about it and celebrate the program at our church. From their own website it is: America’s Move To Raise a Healthier Generation of Kids. Of course, our church said yes. I probably shouldn’t comment on this, but, well, you know me…
Am I going? No.
And it’s not because I have to work today. I am home doing stuff getting ready to welcome our new son (#4) on Friday. And it’s not because I am a fatty or that I feel guilty about raising fat kids (I’m not, by the way. Raising fat kids, that is. But I am a bit of a fatty myself). I could go. So that no is an emphatic one.
I’m not going because I am very uncomfortable with the decision. Now, I love my church. My family has been serving and giving there for 6 years. And we are not going anywhere (ie. not leaving because of this). So this is not a detrimental decision. I am not going to talk trash. I support my church in all their decisions and trust them. It’s probably the right decision, but that doesn’t mean I don’t have some cautionary thoughts or opinions of my own. In fact, this is the first time I’ve ever said anything like this because I love “all things North Point”.
I just don’t like the idea of government officials or representatives coming into churches, especially those with a philosophy of big, centralized government. It creates too many contradictions, too much hypocrisy, breeds corruption (since power attracts the corrupt and the corrupt seek more power), leads to blatant opportunism (since it seeks to sustain it’s control/power) and often not principled (which is built on core values, and if opportunism and control is your desire there is no room for core values).
For example, you know what’s really unhealthy for children? Abortion. That kills kids 100% of the time. In fact, it kills about 1.4 million children every year and has killed about 43 million since it became legal in 1973. I’m just sayin’. [source: whitehouse.gov]
I also don’t like government officials or representatives coming into churches who come from a philosophy that is constantly trying to secularize and sanitize religion from the public square or sector (unless it is politically beneficial, of course).
For example, I wrote about a person in my small group (community group, Bible study, discussion group, or whatever you want to call it) that teaches at a public school up the street. During the holidays the school had to take the decorations off of the Christmas tree because a parent complained. I don’t really get that one (being that Christmas trees are actually pagan and not Christian, or leaving it up bare being an amicable solution). And then there are the anecdotal stories of public school teachers warned not to hand out Christmas cards or say “Merry Christmas”.
So let me get this right, we can’t say Merry Christmas in the public sector more and more, but Michelle can come into churches and say Merry Government? Woo-hoo!
Beyond that, there is often criticism of religious groups trying to affect public policy (like with abortion)–you know, allegedly trying to create a ‘theocracy’. For some reason, faith is an illegitimate source for values. But there is no problem with government coming into churches to influence public policy? Let’s be honest, that’s what this is. I guess government is a legitimate source for values?
You might be thinking, “Jason, you’re so judgmental and jaded. Isn’t this neutral ground? You’re making a big deal out of nothing. We can all agree on making our kids healthier, can’t we?”
Sure, then let’s meet on truly neutral ground–like an event center or something (there are plenty in Atlanta). Then Washington could ask local churches to partner and support the agenda. That way we have a real choice. I mean, how much of a choice do you have when the President’s wife asks to speak at your church? You’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t.
There’s really nothing neutral when it comes to politics. And that’s the point: Politicians use political power to promise policies that will benefit certain people in order to harvest votes. Make no mistake, this initiative is about increasing government regulations and spending. As it is, speculations are that there will be more sin taxes on certain foods, salt limits in food production, and portion control for restaruants. Either way, the government is set to spend over half a BILLION dollars EVERY year on this initiative (and related ones). Read that again…$$$HALF A BILLION DOLLARS EVERY YEAR$$$
In general, this is not a legitimate use of tax-payer dollars (which is in reality being borrowed from China, by the way, so it is not even payed for), especially when we are all broke. It’s not the government’s job to tell us what to eat or what to do. I’m sorry there are so many fat kids sitting around and eating Doritos while playing X-Box. If we’re going to spend money on kids, let’s spend it something useful–like literacy, English, science, math, technical programs, marriage and family classes, etc.
I can’t help but also think that Michelle is trying to indirectly muster support for her husband with one base that is not supporting him all that much right now. Who’s that? White evangelicals. I’m just being honest, because that’s the main demographic at my church. It seems manipulative. Make no mistake, the election cycle has begun.
Our church is now officially on the radar of the government. That makes me uncomfortable. It should make everyone uncomfortable, both the religious and irreligious. This all begs the question, what will my church say when President Barack Obama calls and asks to speak when he is campaigning for president again? It probably won’t happen. But if it does, what do you say? Again, you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t. Plus, I can’t help but worry if this is a jump-the-shark moment for my church with regard to political influences. It’s hard to resist the exposure, for sure.
And this tension is really what the First Amendment was all about:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It was meant to protect the religious citizens from government, not to sanitize the government of religion or religious citizens.
Just some thoughts from a ‘religious’ fatty.
>>>
25 comments
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
[…] Houston, USA You can also read the following related post: http://jasonberggren.com/2011/02/09/blog/michelle-obama-lets-move-anniversary-north-point-community-… […]
Yes. “The Drift” – the last half of the sermon in particular. I listened online. When you get to the part that says “controversy brewing” begin to take special note. Don’t miss: “relevant for where we are today,” “huge takeaways for leaders of modern church,” “it is my judgement, we are bringing this CONVERSATION to a conclusion, here’s what I have decided,” “this is so subtle,” and also the four times that members/Christians of 10+ years are spoken of in a negative light. The part about “no policies” was particularly telling, given the Guardrail series.
My first take on the sermon was that it proved our reason for hosting the event was outreach and a tremendous anguish for the unchurched. Then I was “blinded by the light,” “fell off my donkey,” and “all of a sudden went from one direction to another.”
Correction… Plumber, not Plummer.
Did you mean the Feb. 6th sermon? Our car broke down so we didn’t make it to church that day. So I can make no comment on it.
If Joe the Plummer was attacked for justing asking a question, it can be said NPCCers were indirectly dressed down in the Sept. 6 sermon before they even had the chance to question anything.
If we disagree, we are… pharisaical, complainers, likely the old guard (members for 10+ years), interested only in preserving church as we like it, not interested in advancing the kingdom, not bold, not on the side of grace, not welcoming, not willing to take risks, weird, building walls, erecting barriers, not open-minded, insiders, not interested in dodging the split-church bullet, hung up on the law, not remembering the day we were saved, making it difficult for others to come to church, hypocrites, not getting it right, and last, but certainly not least, resisting the will of God.
Thank you, Jason, for providing a place for “conversation” about this decision that violates no policies, because, you know, we “don’t have policies.”
I really need to proofread!
FWIW I have honestly never seen Zeitgeist movie and on watched part of Fahrenheit 9/11. My views on Iraq were from the moment her announced it. It just never made sense to me. Believe I was a minority in my view. I couldn’t understand why people thought it was a good idea.
I never even heard of Zeitgeist. Now you make me want to see what it is.
FWIW that military budget does not include all the suplemental funding.
In any case thank you for debating. I always like to see things from another point of view.
I guess what bothers me the most is that is seems OK for a Republican President to start a COMPLETELY unnecessary war that has cost us trillions of dollars. Who also dramatically grew government and turned a Democratic surplus into a deficient and yet Republican’s never said a bad word against him. He lost me when he invaded Iraq. It NEVER made sense. 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudi, Osama Bin Ladin is Saudi, Osama operated out of Afghanistan, but we invade Iraq? WTH?! Could it have anything to do with the fact the Bush’s being in business with them for 30 plus years? I have NO IDEA, but it made question it from DAY 1.
Let’s also not forget how much of our taxes dollars are sent to support other countries.
Now we have Democratic President who actually wants to invest money in THIS country instead of it being sent abroad and the GOP is up in arms.
I get we all want spending to decrease, but I feel making current measures run more efficiently is better then abolishing them altogether.
If we want to decrease spending shouldn’t the people focus on foreign spending first?
We HAVE to invest in our country. Like having a car and never changing the tires or oil and yet expect it to run forever. You to spend some money to maintain it and keep it running.
At the of the ALL politicians are beholden to the big businesses that invested in their election. The “people” will always come second.
For those reasons I refuse to join ANY political party. I truly try to look at the candidate. Too far left or right turns me off.
Sorry, I think I took this topic off track, lol
My whole point is that I want to hear AT LEAST equal amounts of complaining about foreign spending as we do domestic. I NEVER hear the talking heads, or message boards speak of this, only domestic spending.
I would LOVE to know the dollar amount we send out of the country each year!
I’d agree, this is a little off the tracks here. But let me say a few things.
You say you too left or too right turns you off but it sounds like some of your sources may be the Zeitgeist movie or Fahrenheit 9/11? Just sayin’ those are very left.
Foreign aid? We spend about 25 Billion a year. Too much. Needs to be closer to zero.
On military? About 4% of the GDP. Not that much if you ask me. Can we cut? Sure.
I don’t agree with many things Bush did or how they turned out. But that is not really the point of my post.
“I just don’t like the idea of the government officials or representatives coming into churches, especially those with a philosophy of big, centralized government. ”
Another thought, why do you assume the First Lady has the same philosophies as her husband? Many husbands and wives disagree on on political and moral issues. I know many couples where one is a Democrat and the other is a Republican.
For example, Laura Bush has publicly stated the she DOES NOT think Roe v. Wade should be overturned. This is a much more liberal stance than her husband. She also says she supports gay couples and that they should have the same rights as married heterosexual couples.
Just because a couple is married, does not mean the share all the same views. It just feels you are transferring your views against the President and putting them on his wife as if they are identical twins.
Just a thought
I’m not even taking into consideration her husband. Why? Is he a Big Government kind of guy? Kidding on that one.
I assume that because I have read the agenda on the White House website (which I linked) and there is tons of additional regulations and spending.
That=BIG GOVT.
All I keep hearing about is the church’s “opportunity” to “leverage it’s influence” “for the Kingdom.”
The church stated on it’s website that the audience was going to be comprised of parents who are members of both congregations, local faith and community leaders, and Let’s Move! coalition members. I can’t imagine how the “opportunity” with this “captive audience” that seems to be church-goers anyway outwieghs the cost of tens-of-thousands of regular attenders, all the viewers of the local news, etc. associating Andy Stanley and/or NPCC with a polarizing political figure that has a pro-choice, pro gay marriage, pro socialist agenda.
Who or what is next?
I think the “opportunity” is the positive exposure in the greater community in general and the good experience and interaction the Administration has with the church, it’s leadership, and volunteers. If you’re trying to figure out ways to expand your reputation and influence in the community, there isn’t anything better then this. Thanks for the banter.
Jason- I also am a member and volunteer at NP, for almost ten years. I have been a republican my entire life. I agree with your political views but do not agree with your post.
Here’s why.. You do what’s asked when the White House calls, regardless of what “party” the current President represents. It’s just the respectful thing to do. This is why Andy agreed to pray at the inauguration and this is why NP hosted Michelle Obama this afternoon.
Have you considered how the public would have potentially perceived a decision to the contrary?
Andy doesn’t make important decisions without careful consideration by respectable, trustworthy, & disinterested third-party guidance. I believe that Andy and his team made the best decision in this case.
I do not agree with or support Barack Obama. I emphatically disagree with his administration…but in my humble opinion, it was an honor hosting the first lady of the United States of America at our Church today.
David-Thanks for the thoughts. I support and trust Andy fully, especially a grey area like this (which I stated). I also have a great deal of admiration for him. If you asked me to mow his lawn for free, I probably would.
You said, “You do what’s asked when the White House calls..” Really? I certainly don’t agree with that, especially if it contradicts my principles or core values. This President asks me to okay with abortion (as I mentioned), but I’m not.
How would the public have responded to a decision to the contrary? Just fine. I suspect they would have never known.
However, I do not agree that Andy being invited to do a prayer at a Washington ceremony is quite the same thing as hosting a policy-pushing event (in your church, nonetheless).
Again, I get why they did and said it would be very hard to say “no” (and probably even wrong). But I still have some cautionary thoughts.
Isn’t that a good thing?
I am just wondering Jason have you had the opportunity to talk to your pastors about this? Did you approach them before posting this blog? I think you are wrestling with something that has often challenged me: How far do we go in submitting to church leadership- when it comes to gray areas like alcohol or movies that are borderline okay- do we submit wholeheartedly or recognize the freedom that we have in Christ. A very enlightening post thanks.
No. This is my blog. I talk about stuff that interests me and that I wrestle with. Do I need permission from my pastors to that?
Of course, i respect the leadership of my church. I serve there and give there and have submitted to the leadership on many occasions. In fact, I used to be a pastor so I understand fully. But that doesn’t mean I can’t muse about relevant issues here, even if they involve my church (and especially on the ‘grey’ areas). I have said nothing disrespectful. Just being honest about something that many people struggle with.
Thank you for stopping by!
The White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives was started in 2001. Have you contacted the religious leaders involved to express your displeasure? Churches and politics are always going to be intertwined.
I think you are over complicating a simple issue and turning it in to a conspiracy theory. She is a wife and mother first. Like every first lady before her has chosen a platform. To encourage healthy eating. She is not forcing anyone to do anything. She also is not saying every single thing you eat has be healthy.
Laura Bush’s platform was literacy and Nancy Regan had Just Say No. When they spoke on their platform, was the underlying purpose to say “Merry Government, or were they just doing something they believed in to help fellow Americans?
Are you against ALL first ladies have a platform or just this one?
Michele–First, let me say that yes, the initiative is certainly compulsory in several aspects. If you read, there is over HALF A BILLION dollars of tax dollars being taken from citizens like you and me every year (that’s forced) to pay for these agendas. In addition, they involve many, many regulations and restrictions of the private sector and citizens (that’s forced, too). You can read that in my sources linked directly the White House’s website.
You make a very fair points. Yes, religion will always be part of politics and vice-versa. I just think we need to be very careful. In the Barbara Bush and Nancy Reagan comparisons you do well. I wrestled with this. This is actually something I talked at length with my wife about. I know this, I wouldn’t support ridiculous (and illegitimate) spending regulations–those outside of the scope of the Constitution and therefore the Federal Gov’ts function–no matter who it was.
Would I attend the event if they were speaking (while their husband’s were still in office) at my church? Perhaps. But nervously, due to the strange intermingling (as stated in the post) of church and state, with the church having everything leveraged and all to lose. To be honest, it would be easier to attend such an event since I do not view those two ladies to have a political philosophy that often lends itself to trying to limit the “free exercise of religion”–and therefore detrimental to the liberty of citizens.
Thanks for the challenge!
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Jason T. Berggren, Jason T. Berggren. Jason T. Berggren said: Michelle Obama Invading My Church Today http://goo.gl/fb/eOKZG […]
As always, Jason, you nailed it.
Brilliant.
Brilliant? Wow! I’m taking that one to my wife. Maybe I can win an argument at home tonight…
Careful, that might backfire on you. 😉
I’m praying for the leadership team at North Point, for wisdom and a clear leading of the Spirit regarding this. It’s gotta be tough when you reach such a size and level of influence.
Personally, I’m not sure God intended local churches to be quite that large, for this very reason. But I could be wrong about that…
Jason,
Thank you for so eloquently putting into words what many of us…who whole heartedly support Andy & Northpoint…are feeling…To God be the Glory!
Thanks Linda. For sure, Andy has been one of the most influential people in my life. I respect and admire him greatly. I consider him a mentor. I’m just a little uncomfortable with this, as I said. I am probably wrong, but I just wanted to air-out some thoughts.