Today I went home during lunch so i could watch the inauguration of President Obama with my family. It was truly a monumental day for our nation, and it's really quite incredible in a couple of ways. First, of course it is evidence that we are a better nation today than we were a hundred years ago with respect to race and unity. Second, it is an amazing thing that we are able to peaceably redistribute power like this on a regular basis. A nation is pretty divided when 54% of the vote is considered a landslide. And yet with a million plus in attendance, power was exchanged with no riots, bullets, bloodshed or uprisings. Considering how unpopular President Bush has been for quite sometime, it should probably be considered historically anomalous that he wasn't ousted earlier by some sort of violent coup or rabid mob on the white house lawn months ago. All in all, we're a remarkable nation when we function according to our principles and ideals.
Additionally, I am dually perplexed. Tuning in to some conservative blogs, and broadcasts I've been "hormusified" (it's a new term I've coined to express the sensation of being simultaneously horrified and amused, or the sensation one experiences when one's president spontaneously invents new terminology during public discourse) by the criticism that is already being leveled at Obama. I have no problem with the Hannity and Limbaugh types getting critical. It's all part of the delicately balanced dysfunction that makes the two party system somewhat workable. I do find the recent level and nature of the criticism curious given a simple fact: HE HASN'T DONE ANYTHING YET. At least let the guy make a mistake first. geesh. Equally as "hormusifying" to me is the level of adulation and veneration Obama seems to be receiving from the mainstream media and his supporting public generally. The only thing I've ever seen that compares is the response of many in St Louis when the Pope came to town in January of 99. Now I've got no problem with being incredibly enthusiastic about one's president. But heres the thing: HE HASN'T DONE ANYTHING YET.
How about we settle for some reserved optimism?
8 comments:
Au contraire, he has done plenty. He has a sizable record as a U.S. and state senator. The results: 100% rating from NARAL based on his votes. He's spoken at pro-abortion events and encouraged the building of new abortion clinics. NARAL and Planned Parenthood will continue to cut their checks to politicians like Obama to keep their blood money safe.
He also supports the same big government Keynesianism that has ended in our country's financial bankruptcy ($75-100 trillion in unpayable debt). He's a gun control proponent. He supports hate crime legislation that will be eventually used against the church. I could go on but the point is this: the man has a long record that he hasn't repented of, especially on abortion.
Jer 13:23 Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then also you can do good who are
accustomed to do evil.
I sympathize with you. I too am pro-life and as such I am disturbed by Obama's positions on that issue. it is completely legitimate to critique a President's (or president-elect) positions. But so far, his positions have yet to become actions. So it's difficult to build a credible case that Obama is a terrible President if he hasn't done anything yet as President. Even the examples you offer venture into a discussion of what he "supports" and what he is a "proponent" of (neither of which imply action) and even to speculation about what you are certain will "eventually" happen in the future. It seems to me that such arguments do little to establish your credibility with the people you might most want to persuade.
When a person only offers criticism and never affirms the good in his ideological opponents and their views, it gives people less reason to take the criticisms seriously and even gives the impression of unreasonableness.
Christians especially ought to be as intentional to look for and affirm the good as they are to identify and oppose the bad. Generally speaking, we're really good at the latter. Not so much, the former. You might call it a big blind spot. But I have hope even this spot can change. Afterall, God is in the spot removal business. (Jeremiah 31:31 & following as God's answer to the question he asks in 13:23!).
But voting IS an action.
I dare you to find something to commend. ; )
Well, I guess one can commend him for being the husband of one wife, but there is really nothing commendable in his public record. And that's what we're talking about here. Based on his voting record and fundraising -- his actions, not theories -- he has shown himself to be an evil man. As such, don't we need more Nathans and Stephens to rebuke his wickedness rather than connive at it?
A guy who posted over on Baylyblog put it well:
"Was John wrong to call people vipers (Matt. 3:7)? Was Jesus wrong to call us evil (Matt. 7:11)? Apparently we can no longer refer to people as murderers, thieves, liars or adulterers either because certainly these are stronger terms than “scum”. The temptation perpetually is to coat ourselves with Teflon so that nothing that makes us “appear” to be harsh would stick to us. In the eyes of the world Jesus, the Prophets and Apostles were harsh men. May we be willing to be counted amongst them."
Nothing commendable about his public record?
He did publically oppose the invasion of Iraq, a war begun by preemptive invasion and for reasons now established to have been mistaken, and in which it is estimated that nearly 100,000 non-combatant Iraqi civilians have been killed (see http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/).
Additionally, he sponsored, or co-sponsored the following bills (or amendments to bills) which I'm guessing you would be able to commend:
Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006
Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act
Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act
Obama, McCaskill Legislation to Provide Safety Net for Families of Wounded Service Members
And lastly... There are fellow Christians with whom I have a great deal of theological affinity, but with whom I differ greatly concerning tone and emphasis. There are those who seem to believe that being "harsh" is a duty. That offense caused by tone and rhetoric is a badge of honor for the Christian. That somehow it means he's been uncompromising, when in reality it may only mean he's been ungracious. My experience has most often been that the rhetoric and harsh tone is then leveled even at those who refuse to adopt the same rhetoric and tone. And frankly, no I don't think what we need are more Nathans and Stephens to rebuke people's wickedness- at least not in the sense that you seem to suggest. Titus 2:11 tells us it's the GRACE of God that teaches us to say no to ungodliness. I mean, really- how did you come to Christ? Did someone harangue you and call you "scum" and say the only thing commendable about you is that you're a husband of one wife, but that's it? Was it someone's harshness towards you- even in your sin- that caused you to think that maybe there is a God and maybe Jesus is him and maybe he loves you and is calling you to turn from your sin to put faith in him? Was it that some Christian was really harsh and critical of you (or someone you admired) and then that made you say "Wow, that Christian is really mean and he called me names. I want to worship THAT guy's God"?
If we really read the gospels carefully, we see that Jesus' harshest words are reserved for whom? (I know you know this) His harshest words are reserved for the religiously prideful! The guys who studied theology and blogged about it! (I made that last part up, but you see where I'm goiong with this).
James says of the tongue what we could apply to the blogger's keyboard "with it we bless our Lord and Father and with it we curse people who are made in the likeness of God... My brothers these things ought not to be so." (Jms 3:9-10)
Like it or not, as Christians we have very little crediblity in the eyes of people in our culture and our city. I'm a pastor as well and so I have even less credibility with people! It takes a lot of work just to earn a fair hearing for the gospel these days, to demonstrate that being a Christian is a liberating, horizon expanding, step into a life of deep satisfaction, peace and joy. Most of what I do is damage control. You know what's really frustrating? People who read my blog are going to come along and see your comments and then click over to read your blog and if it's content and tone are anything like your comments here, some of them are going to see it as confirmation of what they inwardly suspected: becoming a Christian is a step towards becoming more harsh, critical, and self righteous rather than a step towards becoming more loving, more humble, and more affirming of what is good and beautiful.
But if you think what the world needs most to hear from Christians is a harsher tone, and a more critical spirit, then I guess you've got to follow your convictions. If that's what you're hoping to find in the blogs you frequent, you'll seldom find it here.
I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree about much of this. I'm ok with that. Our unity is not in tone and emphasis. It's in Christ. And for now it's all through a glass darkly.
Peace.
I wasn’t a supporter of the war. However, the Iraqi body count you cite, if accepted, is about one month's worth of abortion in the US alone. Overseas abortions, which the US will also be funding, account for far more.
I don’t agree w/some of the legislation above you find useful, but in any event the things he has supported are 10 times worse. His active advocacy of abortion is a hundred times worse. Frankly, though, this seems a silly exercise: If I condemn Hitler actions, do I need to speak of his kindness to animals and his staff first?
"I don't think what we need are more Nathans and Stephens to rebuke people's wickedness- at least not in the sense that you seem to suggest. Titus 2:11 tells us it's the GRACE of God that teaches us to say no to ungodliness."
Titus 2:11 is true, and God imparts his grace through means. We present the law in its fury and force, and then the sweetness of the gospel. It’s not through our clever words, but by presenting the truth of Scripture that people are saved. It’s the pastor in particular’s duty to present that truth, and God works through that to bring others to salvation.
"I mean, really- how did you come to Christ? Did someone harangue you and call you scum… "
Straight liquor, courtesy of D. James Kennedy and others! However, “harangue” is a straw man. Other than from an oddball street preacher here and there, I’ve never seen anyone “harangued” unless you consider it haranguing to tell a sodomite that he is committing a grave sin that God will judge, that will condemn his soul if he fails to repent, and that the universalist gospel of grace without repentance (which is what almost every gay person I’ve talked to believes) will lead their soul to hell. It is a joy when homosexuals repent. Love and softness aren’t always synonyms. It doesn’t mean you don’t talk about lunch and work and music and act kindly to one another, of course you do, but the entire drift of evangelizing in the New Testament is Christ and the Apostles peacefully but forcefully telling people the straight dope, and those people getting very offended and trying to kill them.
Now, you might say that a thousand other sins condemn us too, to which I would reply: 1) correct, but we're not talking about those 2) homosexuality is a sin people are actively denying is sin, it is politically incorrect to speak against it, and thus using Luther's example we should speak against exactly that breach in the wall. 3) homosexuality is called out numerous times as something especially vile. This isn't me judging others (my judgment doesn't matter), it's GOD judging them in His word. Our job isn't to figure out how to soften the blow as much as possible, it's to proclaim the truth, especially in an era where so much of the church actively downplays it.
“If we really read the gospels carefully, we see that Jesus' harshest words are reserved for whom?”
Well, that was his audience. In Revelation His words toward the church were rather blunt too. As were Paul's words to the churches under his care. I’m sure it’s hard to be a pastor and to balance things. I would feel very unworthy of the calling, and for good reason, because I am unworthy. But that’s not a pass to avoid speaking the truth candidly. God calls sinners to do that just as he called the “chief of sinners” (Paul) to do so.
“Like it or not, as Christians we have very little credibility in the eyes of people in our culture...It takes a lot of work just to earn a fair hearing for the gospel these days, to demonstrate that being a Christian is a liberating, horizon expanding, step into a life of deep satisfaction, peace and joy. Most of what I do is damage control...."
Christians have no credibility because the world is perishing. You’re never going to be popular because the gospel isn’t popular. If you’re doing things right you’re going to offend a lot of people and a lot won’t give you the time of day. It's a narrow gate, but God knows and brings in His people via faithful proclamation of His word.
Credibility and popularity aren't the same. A good reputation with outsiders is a requirement for eldership. Popularity is not.
"walk in wisdom towards outsiders, making the best use of time. Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person"
Colossians 4:5-6
I admire and share your resolute convictions regarding the sinfulness of all people and the good news of redemption found only in the gospel of Christ.
It is my opinion that your words and demeanor with respect to outsiders, lack both wisdom and grace.
I have no interest in continuing this conversation in the comments section of a blog. If you're interested in continued dialogue, my contact info is relatively easy to track down. Peace.
Post a Comment