Post Election Response
There are many "liberal Christians" and non-believers who are understandibly confused by the response of Christ-followers to Obama's election.
Many of us who are sensitive to the content of the Scriptures found it impossible to vote for Obama (although some didn't, obviously) if, for no other reason, because he supports infanticide, didn't lay out any concrete plans, and was supported by people who would have the Church and its activities erased from our culture.
But many, like Matt at Mattr Of Fact, have been acknowledging that God chose Obama. I believe this too. He chose Obama for the office of President of the United States for his purpose. This confuses those who don't understand the sovereignty of God or the fact that He is authoring a larger meta-story that we aren't always meant to understand.
Here is my comment from Matt's blog slightly edited:
The same God that ordained Saul and installed every Pharaoh and every ruler of Rome... The same God that chooses Popes, presidents, Church leaders, and dictators. The same God that chooses some for salvation and doesn't choose others has swayed the hearts of Americans toward Obama for reasons that are His own.Let me know what you think on this subject!
I think what many are confused by is that, of course, no matter how the election turned out we Christ-followers would acknowledge the hand of God in it. The point is that just because God may have raised up a man who stands for many things that are an abomination to Him to fulfill His meta-story as Author of all creation, that doesn't mean God wants ME to support that man's candidacy or celebrate when he wins the election.
God frequently allows good AND evil men to prosper. I leave it to you to decide which Obama is. It's not for me to decide that for anyone else. That doesn't excuse supporting someone just because they won or are going to win.
I will, however, continue to respect the Office of the presidency as long as my inalienable rights are not being accosted from that Office.
Posts
10 comments:
I think it's an interesting take, but I'm still waiting for someone to show me what was so biblical and Christian-minded about George W. Bush's 8 years.
Politicians have agendas, and frankly, I rarely see God or the Word of God in what they do in office. On either side.
Nor, frankly, do I expect God to be in the mix except for the person in charge to be praying for guidance and wisdom.
This is a pluralistic nation, and the government is secular.
Simple as that. I don't want a president to lead a Christian charge because that's not the role of this government.
You can debate the merits of the Bush Administration. I'm personally not a fan of either Bush administration.
The point is not whether or not each politician is perfect or a Christ-follower or not.
The point is that as believers we must make political choices based on Biblical values. I don't believe we should live a dualistic life.
That being said, I don't expect office holders to lead televised Bible studies or anything. I simply want a president that champions a culture that is healthy and respects liberty. The problem is that when left-of-center groups are more tolerated, right-of-center groups are not tolerated. It's happened in Canada, Britain, Australia, etc as has been explored on this blog before in relation to homosexual agendas. There's never more tolerance. Intolerance just shifts from one demographic to another. It's a sad reality.
SO I refuse to be fooled by pro-choice tolerance-pushers. We need to wake up and admit that people seeking public office are either attention-whores, secular humanists, or Christians. Generally speaking. The latter two are both religions. Pick one you want to lead us.
And when right-of-center folks are in power, liberals are largely told to shut up, too...at least that's been the case for much of the past two terms, and during parts of the Reagan era, as I recall.
I'm still of the opinion that there is virtually no candidate that you can vote for with a completely clear Christian conscience.
I know you disagree with me on this. As I recall from past posts and commentary, you would argue that environmental legislation is largely claptrap and that universal healthcare and higher taxes for the rich are socialism.
And yet, the life that Jesus and his followers and the early Christians led was a communal, even "communist" lifestyle. Yet how many fundmantalist Christians chafe when the government wants to work toward healthcare for all or the concept that those who have more have a responsibility to give more?
That's all I'm saying, and I don't think it's as simple as choosing secular humanism or Christianity in a candidate (or the third party of media whoredom). You can diasagree with me, and it's your blog after all.
But all of use have a tendency to blind ourselves to our own double-standards. I try not to. I know I have double-standards and I attempt to acknowlege them where I can. But between fundmantalist Christians and secular humanists/secular progressives, I see precious little ability to admit to a tendency to criticize the other side and ignore ones own foibles,
I generally agree with your last comment.
I am, however an environmentalist that tends to disagree with many conservatives on the issue (I'm just not buying into the Global Warming hoax).
I also don't think any candidate is perfect. I just tend to vote conservative because they are less inclined to advocate for public policy that desensitizes culture to spiritually and physically unhealthy lifestyles and are less likely to strip me of basic liberties(freedom of religion, 2nd amendment, etc.)
I acknowledge that the early Church lived communally. But they didn't expect govt. to do anything for them. They took care of their own. I advocate for that. Liberals don't.
Thanks for the discussion. I appreciate your viewpoints.
Your post and our back and forth here sparked a post at my own blog today. As I mentioned in a comment to my own blog, disparaging comments I might have aren't directed at you specifically, or Shane, whom I've also disagreed with this political season.
More of a general irritation with some blowback I get in general.
Just wanted you to know.
"There's never more tolerance. Intolerance just shifts from one demographic to another. It's a sad reality."
Profound, Eric.
Are you teasing me, Amy? :)
The logic of the sovereignty doctrine a la C**vin suggests that you made no choice at all. For that matter, if sovereignty is wholly true, then God ordained abortion.
Dorsey - you know I love you but you have some fundamental misconceptions about Calvinism. You reminded me that I never finished my posts on TULIP.
People keep telling me that, but no one has really explained. I've read Calvin. My impression is that he was trying to make the reformation more accessible to people who were too lazy to wade through Martin Luther. In so doing, he abandoned the nuance that made Luther's Theology of the Cross so powerful. TULIP, in my opinion, is merely the Johnny Cochran version of Luther's reformation.
You know I love you, too, right? This isn't personal. Just my take. Have you read "The Shack?" I'd be interested in your opinion of that book as a Calvinist. It comes about as close to illuminating my perspective on sovereignty as anything I've read.
Post a Comment