Bob Schieffer is a TCU alum and former moderator of CBS’s Sunday morning show Face the Nation. While he excelled at rarely revealing his biases, April 1st,2009 will remain the exception. TCU’s Schieffer School of Journalism hosted a Symposium entitled, “Obama and the Press: Is the media doing its job?” The subject matter originally was what drew me into wanting to go to this symposium; I had very little interest in the guests panelists, especially PBS’s Gwen Iffil and MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell, two journalists who are openly biased and show no qualms about it. If I have not expressed my thoughts on the media’s adoration of Barack Obama; let me pull no punches. I always thought that the worst brand of hypocrisy came from churches here in the United States; that is, until, journalism, news, and media outlets, which are trained in academia to be unbiased and fair, took the historic opportunities before them in the 2008 election, as well their liberal political preferences to bash the presidential campaigns of Hillary Rodham Clinton and John McCain at every turn they could. Perhaps the most glaring piece of evidence came every time the cable news networks would show a McCain supporter or a member of PUMA interview in one segment, and then in the very next, go on to show an entire Obama speech live. McCain speeches, while not as inspiring or exciting or as articulate as Obama’s, did not get even half the coverage Obama’s speeches and townhalls received.
Andrea Mitchell was not able to make it to the Schieffer Symposium because MSNBC assigned her to London to cover the G20 summit. CNBC’s Trish Regan replaced Mitchell. At the symposium, the case was made by all five panelists, over and over again, that blogs were evil, and that newspapers were necessary to filter out the truth. I would like to ask, “Whose truth are you referring to?” The truth where only a select group of facts are chosen to give to the masses for liberal, mainstream propaganda? Is this the same truth that consistently puts racial minorities (besides BHO) on the front page as criminals despite only making up one-quarter of the population and even a smaller percentage of its drug-related crimes? Is it this very same truth that perpetuates the stereotype that Christians are uneducated and Republican? Tell me, Schieffer Symposium panelists, were you all making the case for a bailout of the newspaper industry in front of our eyes? If you all were, it was pretty pathetic.
Newspaper corporations, in comparison, are like John McCain to Barack Obama, in Barack Obama’s mind, who said in the DNC nomination acceptance speech, that John McCain just did not understand (economics, that is), and neither do the pushers of newspapers. The newspaper industry will go the way of General Motors, AIG, and the horse-drawn carriage: extinction, relics in the new economy in the 21st century. There is nothing new under the sun, as the writer of Preacher in the book of Koheleth wrote. There is a time for everything, a time for to build and a time to tear down. No institution that is made with human hands is eternal; all is temporal and everything has a beginning and an end, an Alpha and an Omega.
Showing posts with label liberalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label liberalism. Show all posts
Apr 2, 2009
Mar 1, 2009
Some thoughts at the conclusion Black History Month and CNN’s Black In America
Answer: Yes, I do believe that it is important to recognize the uniqueness of the African-American or Black American experience here in the United States of America. Yes, enslavement and legal segregation were death dealing institutions which America has yet to repent from.
However, as I was glancing on CNN the other night, I came across Soledad O’Brien’s documentary series on being “Black in America.” It was frustrating for me, as an African American, to watch this so called documentary because although I realize that racial oppression is still very real, and that institutional racism continues to raise its ugly head, many of the people’s problems in “Black in America” was due in large part to bad INDIVIDUAL choices. For instance, there was one particular dead beat dad who had fathered a child of an ex-girlfriend; all of the blame was places on the father but the documentarian did not even question his ex-girlfriend about the fathers of her other children. I am not trying to get on my moral high horse here but I feel that this poor guy was being scape-goated, as well as other members of society blamed for the lack of well being of the girlfriend without even a small examination of this woman’s moral agency.
This selectivity in hiding some points of the truth without highlighting other is part of the problem with being an historian. For example, I have always noticed that whenever certain scholars claim to be uncovering the historical Jesus, Jesus always seems to be reconstructed into someone who looks and acts just like us. All one has to do a concrete example of the worst kind is the German liberal Protestant New Testament scholarship in the early twentieth century where Jesus (in the gospel of John apparently) was really Aryan and more like a German citizen. Last year, Marcus Borg lectured at Brite Divinity School for Minister’s Week. He claimed that the real Jesus was a Palestinian Jewish peasant who lived in Galilee, and who lived in opposition to the Roman Empire and legalistic religious authorities. Borg, when asked if the Bible had something to say about racial conflict, answered that the Bible has nothing to say about race, and that he was surprised Christians could ever maintain a racist ideology (of course, pointing to the segregationist Christians in the South). Maybe Borg meant to say that our idea of race and race relations is not found in Scripture. Whatever he meant, he was wrong. The curse of Ham was utilized as one of the many passages in the Bible to justify African enslavement here in America. Basically, Borg ignored a concrete historical fact such as this, to hold onto a convenient white liberal opinion that people do not have to see race to recognize another person as a human being (color blindness). Faulty logic used by both liberals and conservatives.
Biased understandings of history are not limited to liberals such as Borg or aspiring documentarians such as Soledad O’Brien. I have noticed that many African Americans have an interpretation of Black History month that is limited to a select few political activists of the liberal and/or socialist persuasion. I have yet to hear (from anyone other than me) Lemuel Haynes named alongside Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. or for historians to examine the conservatism of Malcolm X. I guess what I am trying to say is that there is no such thing as an objective examination of history and if anyone tells you anything to the contrary, let them in the words of the apostle Paul, be an anathema! We all come to texts, films, artwork, and classrooms with our own biases, and therefore there are boundaries on what we as human beings can know. Black History Month is beneficial when the truth is considered and then reconsidered once more; once BHM becomes nothing more than 28 days of regurgitating myths constantly perpetuated by Black Americans on the far left of society, it has lost its original purpose. We must celebrate the achievements of all Black Americans, and not just those few who fit into the metanarrative of so-called progressive socialist politics. Let us always remember, as the great apostle of freedom once said, that “now we see in the mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known” (1 Corinthians 13:12). We will only know the entire truth when the greatest of all, Love, includes children of God from every nation, tribe, and every walk of life.
However, as I was glancing on CNN the other night, I came across Soledad O’Brien’s documentary series on being “Black in America.” It was frustrating for me, as an African American, to watch this so called documentary because although I realize that racial oppression is still very real, and that institutional racism continues to raise its ugly head, many of the people’s problems in “Black in America” was due in large part to bad INDIVIDUAL choices. For instance, there was one particular dead beat dad who had fathered a child of an ex-girlfriend; all of the blame was places on the father but the documentarian did not even question his ex-girlfriend about the fathers of her other children. I am not trying to get on my moral high horse here but I feel that this poor guy was being scape-goated, as well as other members of society blamed for the lack of well being of the girlfriend without even a small examination of this woman’s moral agency.
This selectivity in hiding some points of the truth without highlighting other is part of the problem with being an historian. For example, I have always noticed that whenever certain scholars claim to be uncovering the historical Jesus, Jesus always seems to be reconstructed into someone who looks and acts just like us. All one has to do a concrete example of the worst kind is the German liberal Protestant New Testament scholarship in the early twentieth century where Jesus (in the gospel of John apparently) was really Aryan and more like a German citizen. Last year, Marcus Borg lectured at Brite Divinity School for Minister’s Week. He claimed that the real Jesus was a Palestinian Jewish peasant who lived in Galilee, and who lived in opposition to the Roman Empire and legalistic religious authorities. Borg, when asked if the Bible had something to say about racial conflict, answered that the Bible has nothing to say about race, and that he was surprised Christians could ever maintain a racist ideology (of course, pointing to the segregationist Christians in the South). Maybe Borg meant to say that our idea of race and race relations is not found in Scripture. Whatever he meant, he was wrong. The curse of Ham was utilized as one of the many passages in the Bible to justify African enslavement here in America. Basically, Borg ignored a concrete historical fact such as this, to hold onto a convenient white liberal opinion that people do not have to see race to recognize another person as a human being (color blindness). Faulty logic used by both liberals and conservatives.
Biased understandings of history are not limited to liberals such as Borg or aspiring documentarians such as Soledad O’Brien. I have noticed that many African Americans have an interpretation of Black History month that is limited to a select few political activists of the liberal and/or socialist persuasion. I have yet to hear (from anyone other than me) Lemuel Haynes named alongside Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. or for historians to examine the conservatism of Malcolm X. I guess what I am trying to say is that there is no such thing as an objective examination of history and if anyone tells you anything to the contrary, let them in the words of the apostle Paul, be an anathema! We all come to texts, films, artwork, and classrooms with our own biases, and therefore there are boundaries on what we as human beings can know. Black History Month is beneficial when the truth is considered and then reconsidered once more; once BHM becomes nothing more than 28 days of regurgitating myths constantly perpetuated by Black Americans on the far left of society, it has lost its original purpose. We must celebrate the achievements of all Black Americans, and not just those few who fit into the metanarrative of so-called progressive socialist politics. Let us always remember, as the great apostle of freedom once said, that “now we see in the mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known” (1 Corinthians 13:12). We will only know the entire truth when the greatest of all, Love, includes children of God from every nation, tribe, and every walk of life.
Feb 5, 2009
Limited Government, part 2: Some further reflections on the Trinity
(From a submitted paper 2 years ago)
*start*
Generally, our view of authority is always interrelated with our view of a Higher Power. We experience the Triune God’s omnipotence when we encounter God’s grace; God’s almighty power revealed in the vulnerability that The Messiah felt at Golgotha. Through the use of godly notions of power, the Black church can undermine modern sinful realities of racism, classism, and sexism. The oppressive relationships reinforced by sinful social and political systems in America can be disrupted by imitating the liberating relationships Christians should have with God, each other, and the community. Ideal power relationships are best conceived by imitating the Trinity: the relationships between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Dr. Kelly Brown Douglas notes, “[The] Trinitarian doctrine avows a God who is internally and externally relational. God, in Godself, the Godhead, is in a relationship of mutuality and reciprocity as creator, redeemer, and sustainer.”(Kelly Brown Douglas. Sexuality and the Black Church: A Womanist Perspective. (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 2003), 119) A Trinitarian vision of power relationships would be grounded in reciprocity, equality, and self-transcendence as well as undermine worldly and oppressive social structures dependent upon inequality and imposed unjust relationships.
Jesus The Messiah the titles of King of Kings, Lord of Lords, and Prince of Peace (Revelation 19:16, Isaiah 9:6). These political images demonstrate the Christian desire to recognize the sovereignty and graciousness of the Triune God. At the crucifixion, Jesus is crowned with thorns and labeled “The King of the Jews” by the Roman authorities because he was viewed as both a religious and political threat to the dominant cultural and political system of that time, the Roman Empire. Jesus’ declaration of the coming of the Kingdom of God served as a condemnation of the prevailing religious and political principalities of his day. He began his earthly ministry declaring, “The time has come. The Kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the Good News” (Mark 1:15). Jesus prophesied Good News to people who suffered from human wickedness and social oppression. His declaration was a reversal of the world order; he advocated God’s reign over and against the rule of sinful humanity. Jesus rebuked the pagan definition of honor, the means of greatness and power in the 2nd century when he answered who had the right to sit at his right and left in his kingdom:
“You know the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave—just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as ransom for many.” (Matthew 20:25-28.)
The Messiah’s view of power is the power to serve, to freely give oneself for the sake of others. Throughout the Hebrew Bible, the prophets, judges, kings and priests recognized the Spirit of God as the source of their strength. The prophet Micah declared, “But as for me, I am filled with power, the Spirit of the Lord [.]” (Micah 3:8) True power, in godly terms, begins with the Triune God sharing Godself with humanity. Throughout Scripture, God is referred to as the Almighty because God has all power. God is omnipotent because God possesses all logically possible powers which it is logically possible for a being with the attributes of God to possess (John Bowden and Alan Richardson. The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1983, 414). Therefore, God can never contradict God in se, including acting contrary to His goodness. In other words, unlike fallen human beings, God does not abuse power; God shares it.
The power of God is not an object that should be fought over, but a person to be shared, namely His Son, Jesus The Messiah. The apostle Paul confessed, “[We] preach The Messiah Crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, The Messiah the power and wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength” (1st Corinthians 1: 23-25). The Christian concept of power is when one allows Jesus’ power to be made perfect in one’s weakness as s/he depends upon God’s grace. Holy Ghost power means embodying both God’s power and presence as one is conformed to the image of the Crucified Immanuel, God with us. Divine omnipotence and human empowerment are inextricably linked because it is the Spirit of The Messiah, the Holy Spirit, who is responsible for changing us into the image of our Risen Lord (2nd Corinthians 12:9).
*end*
Although this piece was submitted for an essay competition a couple of years ago, and despite the many ideological changes that have taken place within myself, I still hold the Trinitarian doctrine of Divine omnipotence suggested by this work. However, I would like to reflect on the political implications for a Trinitarian doctrine of Divine omnipotence. I uphold God God in se (as defined in the Christian tradition) as the standard for all human relationships, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and communal. God’s freedom to rule the world as God chooses is a key tenet for those that believe in the sovereignty of God; for Christians in particular, God intervenes in human history to redeem the world (in traditional Christianity). The Christian God, as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit exists as three different persons, yet one divine essence. God the Father, according to the apostle Paul, delivers up the Son to die for our salvation, The Triune God does reveal Himself for his own glory; He shares himself in order to save humankind. In the same manner, human governments conformed in the image of the Imago Trinitas, should be limited in that no one single faction’s interests should not be held over other factions. This may call for shared power, which sounds INSANE in a country where corporations, the military industrial complex, and the prison industrial complex take priority when GOP holds the majority in the federal government, much like when unions and other special interest groups “win” when the Democrats are in power. Many would argue that America could not be changed constitutionally, say for instance, to a more participatory structure because of our long history as a 2 party system. I would contend, however, that maybe it is time to go back to the first days of the Republic. There was a tradition that the person (at that time, a white male who owned property), who lost the presidential election would become vice president. It was not until almost a half century later that political parties formally nominated a presidential and vice presidential candidate for the general election. We may need to consider returning to this tradition to liberate ourselves from the winner-take-all partisan politics that we continue to see in Washington, D.C. President Ronald Wilson Reagan, in his farewell address said , “But as long as we remember our first principles and believe in ourselves, the future will always be ours. And something else we learned: Once you begin a great movement, there's no telling where it will end. We meant to change a nation, and instead, we changed a world.” Reagan's farewell
Let us remember the traditions of the first days of the Republic and strive to be the most free, just, and peaceful nation that we can be.
*start*
Generally, our view of authority is always interrelated with our view of a Higher Power. We experience the Triune God’s omnipotence when we encounter God’s grace; God’s almighty power revealed in the vulnerability that The Messiah felt at Golgotha. Through the use of godly notions of power, the Black church can undermine modern sinful realities of racism, classism, and sexism. The oppressive relationships reinforced by sinful social and political systems in America can be disrupted by imitating the liberating relationships Christians should have with God, each other, and the community. Ideal power relationships are best conceived by imitating the Trinity: the relationships between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Dr. Kelly Brown Douglas notes, “[The] Trinitarian doctrine avows a God who is internally and externally relational. God, in Godself, the Godhead, is in a relationship of mutuality and reciprocity as creator, redeemer, and sustainer.”(Kelly Brown Douglas. Sexuality and the Black Church: A Womanist Perspective. (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 2003), 119) A Trinitarian vision of power relationships would be grounded in reciprocity, equality, and self-transcendence as well as undermine worldly and oppressive social structures dependent upon inequality and imposed unjust relationships.
Jesus The Messiah the titles of King of Kings, Lord of Lords, and Prince of Peace (Revelation 19:16, Isaiah 9:6). These political images demonstrate the Christian desire to recognize the sovereignty and graciousness of the Triune God. At the crucifixion, Jesus is crowned with thorns and labeled “The King of the Jews” by the Roman authorities because he was viewed as both a religious and political threat to the dominant cultural and political system of that time, the Roman Empire. Jesus’ declaration of the coming of the Kingdom of God served as a condemnation of the prevailing religious and political principalities of his day. He began his earthly ministry declaring, “The time has come. The Kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the Good News” (Mark 1:15). Jesus prophesied Good News to people who suffered from human wickedness and social oppression. His declaration was a reversal of the world order; he advocated God’s reign over and against the rule of sinful humanity. Jesus rebuked the pagan definition of honor, the means of greatness and power in the 2nd century when he answered who had the right to sit at his right and left in his kingdom:
“You know the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave—just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as ransom for many.” (Matthew 20:25-28.)
The Messiah’s view of power is the power to serve, to freely give oneself for the sake of others. Throughout the Hebrew Bible, the prophets, judges, kings and priests recognized the Spirit of God as the source of their strength. The prophet Micah declared, “But as for me, I am filled with power, the Spirit of the Lord [.]” (Micah 3:8) True power, in godly terms, begins with the Triune God sharing Godself with humanity. Throughout Scripture, God is referred to as the Almighty because God has all power. God is omnipotent because God possesses all logically possible powers which it is logically possible for a being with the attributes of God to possess (John Bowden and Alan Richardson. The Westminster Dictionary of Christian Theology. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1983, 414). Therefore, God can never contradict God in se, including acting contrary to His goodness. In other words, unlike fallen human beings, God does not abuse power; God shares it.
The power of God is not an object that should be fought over, but a person to be shared, namely His Son, Jesus The Messiah. The apostle Paul confessed, “[We] preach The Messiah Crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, The Messiah the power and wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength” (1st Corinthians 1: 23-25). The Christian concept of power is when one allows Jesus’ power to be made perfect in one’s weakness as s/he depends upon God’s grace. Holy Ghost power means embodying both God’s power and presence as one is conformed to the image of the Crucified Immanuel, God with us. Divine omnipotence and human empowerment are inextricably linked because it is the Spirit of The Messiah, the Holy Spirit, who is responsible for changing us into the image of our Risen Lord (2nd Corinthians 12:9).
*end*
Although this piece was submitted for an essay competition a couple of years ago, and despite the many ideological changes that have taken place within myself, I still hold the Trinitarian doctrine of Divine omnipotence suggested by this work. However, I would like to reflect on the political implications for a Trinitarian doctrine of Divine omnipotence. I uphold God God in se (as defined in the Christian tradition) as the standard for all human relationships, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and communal. God’s freedom to rule the world as God chooses is a key tenet for those that believe in the sovereignty of God; for Christians in particular, God intervenes in human history to redeem the world (in traditional Christianity). The Christian God, as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit exists as three different persons, yet one divine essence. God the Father, according to the apostle Paul, delivers up the Son to die for our salvation, The Triune God does reveal Himself for his own glory; He shares himself in order to save humankind. In the same manner, human governments conformed in the image of the Imago Trinitas, should be limited in that no one single faction’s interests should not be held over other factions. This may call for shared power, which sounds INSANE in a country where corporations, the military industrial complex, and the prison industrial complex take priority when GOP holds the majority in the federal government, much like when unions and other special interest groups “win” when the Democrats are in power. Many would argue that America could not be changed constitutionally, say for instance, to a more participatory structure because of our long history as a 2 party system. I would contend, however, that maybe it is time to go back to the first days of the Republic. There was a tradition that the person (at that time, a white male who owned property), who lost the presidential election would become vice president. It was not until almost a half century later that political parties formally nominated a presidential and vice presidential candidate for the general election. We may need to consider returning to this tradition to liberate ourselves from the winner-take-all partisan politics that we continue to see in Washington, D.C. President Ronald Wilson Reagan, in his farewell address said , “But as long as we remember our first principles and believe in ourselves, the future will always be ours. And something else we learned: Once you begin a great movement, there's no telling where it will end. We meant to change a nation, and instead, we changed a world.” Reagan's farewell
Let us remember the traditions of the first days of the Republic and strive to be the most free, just, and peaceful nation that we can be.
Oct 30, 2008
Limited Government, Part 1: Some Initial Thoughts concerning the Incarnation
A recent SURVEY taken by the Faith in Public Life and Mercer University found that only 28 percent of American Christians relied on Christian doctrine to determine their views on torture. In general, it seems to be the case the North American Christians prefer to rely on their life experiences, logic and “common sense” in order to determine their positions on political issues. Lately, the campaign trail has heated up again with political rhetoric from the Cold War Era as well as the Civil Rights movement. Senator John McCain and Governor Sarah Palin are insisting that Senator Barack Obama is a socialist (circa 1950s Joseph McCarthy) while Georgia Representative John Lewis uses the racist scarecrow of the now deceased George Wallace (of Alabama fame) in order to compare McCain and some of his angriest supporters.
This brand of fear mongering is ideological in nature and tries to make the accuser seems more “mainstream” than the accused; fear-mongering is more a pitch to independent, undecided voters who want to vote for the most credible candidate, i.e., the most objective-looking. The myth of unbiased politicians who work for the common good died long ago, and this year, Election of 2008 marked the death of a false myth in journalism that a reporter can be objective in the coverage of political candidates. Just ask Governor Mike Huckabee and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Lately, as I have been reflecting on how a Christian should approach politics and a republican-democratic system, it dawned on me that maybe Christians ought to prioritize Christian teaching as they participate in public affairs. For many Christians, Jesus Christ is the king of the universe, as the King of Kings and LORD of Lords. The Body of Christ has to look no further than the reign of God that was disclosed in God’s Son Jesus Christ. God did not reveal God’s sovereignty over the nations in Christ through over powering them with military force or by leading a revolution. As Jesus was being arrested, he asked his opponents, “Am I leading a rebellion, that you come against me with swords and clubs?” (Matt 26:55; Mark 14:48; Luke 22:52). Jesus was not leading a political revolution in the sense that he was fully participating in the Roman Empire’s way of life. His revolution was one where he declared the Empire of God over and against all human governments; it was a revolution based on prayer and knowledge of Israel’s story about the creator God.
If Jesus is God Incarnate (John 1), who dwells among his own people, and we know from the story of Israel that the same creator God of Genesis is the very same Warrior God of the Exodus, then Jesus Christ’s example is one where the LORD of the world freely chooses to limit himself (having mercy on sinners and being in solidarity with the outcast). In the same manner then, followers of Christ should advocate limited government intervention in ALL aspects of life. The single most important event in God’s disclosure of God’s reign here on earth in the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ according to the Christian narrative (Revelation 12). God does not rule with the powerful and the authorities of this world, but God choose to reign through with those who are powerless.
Therefore, Christ followers (I believe), should reject the bloodthirsty and imperialist foreign policy of someone like Senator McCain who uses atonement language (‘American blood sacrificed around the world saving western civilization”) to justify warmongering and empire building abroad. While defense spending is a necessity, the expansion of American territory overseas as well as the loss of human life is not necessary. Christ followers (in my opinion) should also avoid irresponsible domestic policies promoted by Barack Obama and the Christian Left who seem to think that Jesus and the church at Pentecost serve as models for a primitive form of Christian socialism. .Fiscal responsibility and balanced government need to be achieved. There was a day when frugality was looked upon as a virtue; however, it has been forgotten in this consumer society. Massive government intervention has never been the solution to our problems; to highlight the shining example of President FDR’s Good Deal policies only to forget that wars (for better or for worse), drive the economy or to ignore the fact that legal racial segregation still existed (and we have certain people still benefitting from it) is a pipe dream.
The problem I have with supporting either candidate in this election, if I give primacy to the doctrine of the Incarnation, is that both candidates promote activist government policies; for
Senator John McCain, the area of foreign policy; and for Senator Barack Obama, domestic policies. I look to King Jesus and His Government first, and then measure politicians accordingly. While I know that no politician or senator or prime minister can ever equal or serve as an imitation of Christ, rulers and representatives can share some of the same principles and virtues of God’s reign (such as self-discipline and truthfulness). Since the Incarnation for me, points to Christ’s Crucifixion, which then implies his resurrection, I must also say a word on two issues of life. God chose to first become incarnate in a vulnerable, Jewish baby during the time of Pax Romana (a very dangerous situation for infants at that time). God, therefore, identifies with the humiliated of the world, including the unborn; thus, I respectfully disagree with Senator Obama’s relative silence when it comes to confronting the pro-abortion movement.
The crucifixion and resurrection, as a doctrine taken literally, and if we believe the Gospel texts, we recognize that God is condemning the Roman form of political execution; that is why Christ is justified and glorified over Caesar in the Christian Testament (or NT), particularly in the Revelation of John. Perhaps the political implications are the creator God, God the Father of all of Creation, rebukes the use of political torture on any human being and maybe even the use of the death penalty. It is just something to think about.
Those are some initial ideas about the Incarnation and political preferences for the moment. Sometime, I may be able to go through all of the political implication of the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ; then again, maybe not!
“Grace and peace to you from him who is, and who was, and who is to come, and from the Seven-fold Spirit before his throne, and from Jesus the Messiah, who is the Faithful Witness, the Firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth.
To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, 6and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father—to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.
Look, he is coming with the clouds,
and every eye will see him,
even those who pierced him;
and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him. So shall it be! Amen.
"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty." Revelation 1:4-8
This brand of fear mongering is ideological in nature and tries to make the accuser seems more “mainstream” than the accused; fear-mongering is more a pitch to independent, undecided voters who want to vote for the most credible candidate, i.e., the most objective-looking. The myth of unbiased politicians who work for the common good died long ago, and this year, Election of 2008 marked the death of a false myth in journalism that a reporter can be objective in the coverage of political candidates. Just ask Governor Mike Huckabee and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Lately, as I have been reflecting on how a Christian should approach politics and a republican-democratic system, it dawned on me that maybe Christians ought to prioritize Christian teaching as they participate in public affairs. For many Christians, Jesus Christ is the king of the universe, as the King of Kings and LORD of Lords. The Body of Christ has to look no further than the reign of God that was disclosed in God’s Son Jesus Christ. God did not reveal God’s sovereignty over the nations in Christ through over powering them with military force or by leading a revolution. As Jesus was being arrested, he asked his opponents, “Am I leading a rebellion, that you come against me with swords and clubs?” (Matt 26:55; Mark 14:48; Luke 22:52). Jesus was not leading a political revolution in the sense that he was fully participating in the Roman Empire’s way of life. His revolution was one where he declared the Empire of God over and against all human governments; it was a revolution based on prayer and knowledge of Israel’s story about the creator God.
If Jesus is God Incarnate (John 1), who dwells among his own people, and we know from the story of Israel that the same creator God of Genesis is the very same Warrior God of the Exodus, then Jesus Christ’s example is one where the LORD of the world freely chooses to limit himself (having mercy on sinners and being in solidarity with the outcast). In the same manner then, followers of Christ should advocate limited government intervention in ALL aspects of life. The single most important event in God’s disclosure of God’s reign here on earth in the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ according to the Christian narrative (Revelation 12). God does not rule with the powerful and the authorities of this world, but God choose to reign through with those who are powerless.
Therefore, Christ followers (I believe), should reject the bloodthirsty and imperialist foreign policy of someone like Senator McCain who uses atonement language (‘American blood sacrificed around the world saving western civilization”) to justify warmongering and empire building abroad. While defense spending is a necessity, the expansion of American territory overseas as well as the loss of human life is not necessary. Christ followers (in my opinion) should also avoid irresponsible domestic policies promoted by Barack Obama and the Christian Left who seem to think that Jesus and the church at Pentecost serve as models for a primitive form of Christian socialism. .Fiscal responsibility and balanced government need to be achieved. There was a day when frugality was looked upon as a virtue; however, it has been forgotten in this consumer society. Massive government intervention has never been the solution to our problems; to highlight the shining example of President FDR’s Good Deal policies only to forget that wars (for better or for worse), drive the economy or to ignore the fact that legal racial segregation still existed (and we have certain people still benefitting from it) is a pipe dream.
The problem I have with supporting either candidate in this election, if I give primacy to the doctrine of the Incarnation, is that both candidates promote activist government policies; for
Senator John McCain, the area of foreign policy; and for Senator Barack Obama, domestic policies. I look to King Jesus and His Government first, and then measure politicians accordingly. While I know that no politician or senator or prime minister can ever equal or serve as an imitation of Christ, rulers and representatives can share some of the same principles and virtues of God’s reign (such as self-discipline and truthfulness). Since the Incarnation for me, points to Christ’s Crucifixion, which then implies his resurrection, I must also say a word on two issues of life. God chose to first become incarnate in a vulnerable, Jewish baby during the time of Pax Romana (a very dangerous situation for infants at that time). God, therefore, identifies with the humiliated of the world, including the unborn; thus, I respectfully disagree with Senator Obama’s relative silence when it comes to confronting the pro-abortion movement.
The crucifixion and resurrection, as a doctrine taken literally, and if we believe the Gospel texts, we recognize that God is condemning the Roman form of political execution; that is why Christ is justified and glorified over Caesar in the Christian Testament (or NT), particularly in the Revelation of John. Perhaps the political implications are the creator God, God the Father of all of Creation, rebukes the use of political torture on any human being and maybe even the use of the death penalty. It is just something to think about.
Those are some initial ideas about the Incarnation and political preferences for the moment. Sometime, I may be able to go through all of the political implication of the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ; then again, maybe not!
“Grace and peace to you from him who is, and who was, and who is to come, and from the Seven-fold Spirit before his throne, and from Jesus the Messiah, who is the Faithful Witness, the Firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth.
To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood, 6and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father—to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.
Look, he is coming with the clouds,
and every eye will see him,
even those who pierced him;
and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him. So shall it be! Amen.
"I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty." Revelation 1:4-8
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)