On Tuesday, a majority of the people in the United States of America went to the polls and elected Barak Obama as the 44th President of this country. For many Christians where I live, this was a sad, sad day and one that has driven them to despair and lamentation about the next four years. For some it's God's judgement on our country for the moral state we've allowed to take hold. For others this is evidence of sin and the falleness of the world in which we live. I've heard a lot over the past 48 hours from Christians about the trajedy of it all, but what I haven't heard a lot of is praising God for his sovereignty and absolute will that was done on Tuesday, November 4th.
See, here's the thing: Romans 13:1-7 is pretty clear on this subject, and keep in mind, Paul was writing to Christians who were living under a government that fed them to lions for sport. "what God has appointed," "God's servant," "minster of God," these are the phrases the Bible uses to describe President-Elect Obama. From before the foundation of the world, God the Father, put into motion things which would lead to what happened this past Tuesday. His plan for Barak Obama was for him to become our president, and his plan for our country was that Barak Obama would be our president at this time.
So often I accept God's sovereignty as a kind of "parting gift" for not winning the real prize: what I want. It's like I just chalk all the crap that happens, everything contrary to my will, to God's sovereignty and resign to live under it. Instead, I should see God as always, in all things, working to spread his glory and the fame of his name, and view his sovereignty as an integral component of that.
If that's the case, then not only is President-Elect Obama God's sovereign will, but his being president is the most glorifying to God over anything else that could have happened last Tuesday! I need to be able to look at the big picture, and see this election for what it really is: God bringing his will to pass and glorifying himself in amazing ways. Then, I need to get with the program and glorify him myself.
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
A Bigger Box
Next Tuesday, November 4, the citizens of the United States of America will go to the polls and vote for the person they believe will be best next president of the country. And, presumably, barring any kind of weird 2000 stuff, when you wake up on Wednesday morning (or for those like me who won't go to bed until a winner's announced!) the anchors will be telling us who we elected.
I was thinking today about next Tuesday and here's the things that popped into my head:
I was thinking today about next Tuesday and here's the things that popped into my head:
- Heaven will be no different on Wednesday morning than it is today or was the day the Red Sea was parted.
- God has already ordained who will be elected. (Notice I didn't say "allowed." I said "ordained." God is not a passive observer of the affairs of men. He is active, always bringing about his will.)
- Depending on who wins, there will be some people who will feel a stronger need to pray for America on Wednesday than they do today, and that just seems odd to me.
The election, in fact politics in general, is very important. I think Christians should be active and involved, as a part of our Genesis 2 mandate and our desire to see every part of the world redeemed. I just hope we don't trade our theology for it.
Friday, October 3, 2008
90 Mintues That Maybe Mattered
It might have been the most hyped VP debate since 1984, and were it not for the economic issues that have been going on, the speculation and expectation would have been even more extreme. I watched the Vice Presidential debate last night between Sen. Joe Biden and Gov. Sarah Palin, and even though I'm not an expert on anything, here's how each shaped up, in my opinion.
Senator Joe Biden
It was no big surprise to me that Senator Biden had the more calming, steady presence on the stage. He's older and, for better or for worse, has been a politician for more than 30 years, so his discussion of issues comes across as passion mixed with history. For example, when he talked about issues John McCain, Barak Obama, or himself had voted for or against, he did it from the perspective of someone who was there. Where Sarah Palin could say, "Barak Obama voted against funding the troops." Joe Biden could say, "No, it was a procedural vote. . . " and then go on to explain what the heck a procedural vote is!
The highlight of Biden's time on stage, for me, came when he talked about knowing what the average American is going through. He shared a little from his life, and told stories about being a single parent, etc., even getting choked up at one point. I thought his line about just because he's a man he doesn't know about raising kids was pure genius, and whomever came up with that should be named ambassador to a very sunny country if they're elected.
Where Biden faltered was when he talked about Barak Obama. When he's attacking McCain, he's good. When he's talking about his own record, he's golden. But when he talks about the Barak Obama's being ready to be president and that they agree on the substance of every issue, it's sometimes hard to tell who he's trying to convince, us or himself. At times during the debate, he came off sounding a little like, "No, we really do agree. . . honest. I mean, we might disagree on the how of things, but really, I like him, he's gonna be a great president. We agree." And the whole time he's doing this, he's reinforcing what I think is a so far unexposed issue with the Democrats. They want the White House back, and they're excited because they think they have a shot, but the men and women who have been in Washington for a while, are just not sure at all about the young guy from Illinois, and away from the big crowds, it shows.
Sarah Palin
Anyone who was surprised that Sarah Palin did a good job last night, shouldn't have been. She has done this before, after all. Maybe not on this scale, but it's not like she's never debated anyone, and she came out ready to prove that she is learning as she goes. (By the way, if you go back and look at footage of Barak Obama in 2007, when this whole thing got started, you'll see many similarities between him and Palin in terms of growth. She's just having to do it much quicker.) Palin is Everywoman, and that's who came through last night. Her polling data, folks she's talked to on the soccer field, and how about her appealing to working and middle class to make sure that a) they aren't taken advantage of by corporate America again and b) that they learn to live inside their means?! A Republican candidate rallying the middle class?! If they could figure out how to tap into that more, it could be a huge asset.
The highlight of Palin's time on stage, for me, came when she talked about the Democrats' constant pointing back to the policies of the Bush administration, and said this is not looking ahead for change. It wasn't a glib remark, and I think, much like Biden's list of ways John McCain has not been a maverick, really got at the heart of one of the major parts of the Democrats' strategy.
Many might site Palin's lack of depth on certain issues as her biggest weakness last night, but I don't think that was it. I mean, it should be expected that she wouldn't have wide breath and/or depth at this point. For me, her biggest snag was not coming across as serious enough. It seemed very important to her to let America know that she doesn't always do things the way she's expected to, and there's nothing really wrong with that, but it came across as sometimes glib. Almost as if she doesn't get that the White House isn't a place to just "be different." I don't have anything against folks who want to shake things up, but I did come away from the debate with the feeling that I'm just not sure she gets the seriousness of the presidency. I mean, I like catchy phrases and an outside-the-box mentality as much as anyone, but the image of her, in the Oval Office, having to make the decisions in a moment of crisis isn't one I'm totally comfortable with, and last night didn't resolve that for me.
Here's the thing: I was telling my roommate the other night that debates are a little like standardized tests. You don't really have to know the material well to take and pass a standardized test, you just have to be good at taking standardized tests, and that's pretty much how debates work too. Problem is, it's really the only, nationwide evaluation we have for our candidates, and fair or not, you gotta know how to play. And, at the end of the day, no matter how much spin is tried to put on it, we don't vote for the Vice President. Who that person is, might help us make our decision, true enough, but that cannot ultimately be why we vote for a certain candidate.
Senator Joe Biden
It was no big surprise to me that Senator Biden had the more calming, steady presence on the stage. He's older and, for better or for worse, has been a politician for more than 30 years, so his discussion of issues comes across as passion mixed with history. For example, when he talked about issues John McCain, Barak Obama, or himself had voted for or against, he did it from the perspective of someone who was there. Where Sarah Palin could say, "Barak Obama voted against funding the troops." Joe Biden could say, "No, it was a procedural vote. . . " and then go on to explain what the heck a procedural vote is!
The highlight of Biden's time on stage, for me, came when he talked about knowing what the average American is going through. He shared a little from his life, and told stories about being a single parent, etc., even getting choked up at one point. I thought his line about just because he's a man he doesn't know about raising kids was pure genius, and whomever came up with that should be named ambassador to a very sunny country if they're elected.
Where Biden faltered was when he talked about Barak Obama. When he's attacking McCain, he's good. When he's talking about his own record, he's golden. But when he talks about the Barak Obama's being ready to be president and that they agree on the substance of every issue, it's sometimes hard to tell who he's trying to convince, us or himself. At times during the debate, he came off sounding a little like, "No, we really do agree. . . honest. I mean, we might disagree on the how of things, but really, I like him, he's gonna be a great president. We agree." And the whole time he's doing this, he's reinforcing what I think is a so far unexposed issue with the Democrats. They want the White House back, and they're excited because they think they have a shot, but the men and women who have been in Washington for a while, are just not sure at all about the young guy from Illinois, and away from the big crowds, it shows.
Sarah Palin
Anyone who was surprised that Sarah Palin did a good job last night, shouldn't have been. She has done this before, after all. Maybe not on this scale, but it's not like she's never debated anyone, and she came out ready to prove that she is learning as she goes. (By the way, if you go back and look at footage of Barak Obama in 2007, when this whole thing got started, you'll see many similarities between him and Palin in terms of growth. She's just having to do it much quicker.) Palin is Everywoman, and that's who came through last night. Her polling data, folks she's talked to on the soccer field, and how about her appealing to working and middle class to make sure that a) they aren't taken advantage of by corporate America again and b) that they learn to live inside their means?! A Republican candidate rallying the middle class?! If they could figure out how to tap into that more, it could be a huge asset.
The highlight of Palin's time on stage, for me, came when she talked about the Democrats' constant pointing back to the policies of the Bush administration, and said this is not looking ahead for change. It wasn't a glib remark, and I think, much like Biden's list of ways John McCain has not been a maverick, really got at the heart of one of the major parts of the Democrats' strategy.
Many might site Palin's lack of depth on certain issues as her biggest weakness last night, but I don't think that was it. I mean, it should be expected that she wouldn't have wide breath and/or depth at this point. For me, her biggest snag was not coming across as serious enough. It seemed very important to her to let America know that she doesn't always do things the way she's expected to, and there's nothing really wrong with that, but it came across as sometimes glib. Almost as if she doesn't get that the White House isn't a place to just "be different." I don't have anything against folks who want to shake things up, but I did come away from the debate with the feeling that I'm just not sure she gets the seriousness of the presidency. I mean, I like catchy phrases and an outside-the-box mentality as much as anyone, but the image of her, in the Oval Office, having to make the decisions in a moment of crisis isn't one I'm totally comfortable with, and last night didn't resolve that for me.
Here's the thing: I was telling my roommate the other night that debates are a little like standardized tests. You don't really have to know the material well to take and pass a standardized test, you just have to be good at taking standardized tests, and that's pretty much how debates work too. Problem is, it's really the only, nationwide evaluation we have for our candidates, and fair or not, you gotta know how to play. And, at the end of the day, no matter how much spin is tried to put on it, we don't vote for the Vice President. Who that person is, might help us make our decision, true enough, but that cannot ultimately be why we vote for a certain candidate.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Something In Common
Morgan is one of my friends. He's a guy I respect and really enjoy talking too. We mostly agree on all the stuff that really matters (faith and people) and mostly disagree on all that stuff that doesn't (politics). In light of things going on in the economy right now, here' s a discussion we had today (it was on gchat, so forgive misspellings, bad punctuation, etc.):
Morgan: Wow, Obama and McCain have been throwing out the 1-3 sentence memorable quotes the last three days like they are going out of style
Me: That's because they don't know what the hell's going on with the economy either. They both thought Iraq was going to be the main issue. Both campaigns were and continue to be so unprepared for how to react and deal with this mess.
Morgan: Where is FDR or Harry Truman when you need him?
Me: Lincoln, Eisenhower, JFK, Reagan, or Jefferson? Jefferson or Reagan I'd take right now for sure, because they both would have the sense to keep the federal governmnet out of something like this! FDR and Lincoln, not so much. They were way too involved and, in my opinion overstepped their bounds. I know, I know, everyone loves them, but it's the truth!
Morgan: True, but you need someone who is going to do something extreme, whether it is a hands off aproach or whether it is a economically revolutionary approach
Me: Buying all the debt in the country is pretty extreme. . . extremely wrong!!!!
Morgan: Hmmm....why would it be wrong? By the way, I think it is probably wrong as well, but I just want to know your reasoning
Me: Well, one thing is, I'm not sure things are really as bad as we think or are being led to believe they are.The free market got us into this, so shouldn't the free market be allowed to run it's course and eventually correct itself? I mean, did those banks have the right to give people mortgages and credit that was outrageous? Yes. Did those individuals have the right to apply for loans they couldn't afford? Yes. So, should we have to ride this out and go through the crap, because of it? Plus, on a constitutional/philosophical level I just don't think the government should be the escape clause and answer to every problem. I don't think it was designed that way. Morgan: You are probably right, people invested more than what they should have, this is an important lesson that hard currency that is immediately available is something that will always be needed for a free market economy. Too much credit and investment can in a way slow the economy. Things are bad in that people are losing jobs, people are going into more debt, people are not able to save for the future, but is the government responsible for saving people? in a way...the government is supposed to protect its people, but here is the key....the a republican democracy is a reflection of its people, we give the government the power to "save" us, so in this situation....instead of doing things to help, we are sitting back and expecting government to save us, so do I blame the government necessarily? No. Should we blame ourselves? Yes. I apologize, the government is at fault, but their fault lies in us.
Me: But, it's just built into our DNA, and for that I blame FDR and the New Deal. Once you start expecting the government to give you money if you're out of work, and give you money when you're old, and give you healthcare if you can't afford it (okay that one lies at Johnson's feet), where does that mentality end?
Morgan: Ah...but I do not think the fault lied in FDR, the fault lied in the people of the 1920's who used credit and investing to prosper, then the backbone of the economy crashed.
Me: I get that in the moment of crisis all those programs were designed to "protect the people," like you're talking about, but we're reaping the effects of that mentality.
Here's the thing: at the end of the day, as you can see, we don't always agree on every point, but we are able to have meaningful, historically based discussions about things. Let's just hope our elected representatives follow suit. (By the way, if there's enough interest, we might pick a topic and do this kind of thing from time to time. If not, oh well.)
Morgan: Wow, Obama and McCain have been throwing out the 1-3 sentence memorable quotes the last three days like they are going out of style
Me: That's because they don't know what the hell's going on with the economy either. They both thought Iraq was going to be the main issue. Both campaigns were and continue to be so unprepared for how to react and deal with this mess.
Morgan: Where is FDR or Harry Truman when you need him?
Me: Lincoln, Eisenhower, JFK, Reagan, or Jefferson? Jefferson or Reagan I'd take right now for sure, because they both would have the sense to keep the federal governmnet out of something like this! FDR and Lincoln, not so much. They were way too involved and, in my opinion overstepped their bounds. I know, I know, everyone loves them, but it's the truth!
Morgan: True, but you need someone who is going to do something extreme, whether it is a hands off aproach or whether it is a economically revolutionary approach
Me: Buying all the debt in the country is pretty extreme. . . extremely wrong!!!!
Morgan: Hmmm....why would it be wrong? By the way, I think it is probably wrong as well, but I just want to know your reasoning
Me: Well, one thing is, I'm not sure things are really as bad as we think or are being led to believe they are.The free market got us into this, so shouldn't the free market be allowed to run it's course and eventually correct itself? I mean, did those banks have the right to give people mortgages and credit that was outrageous? Yes. Did those individuals have the right to apply for loans they couldn't afford? Yes. So, should we have to ride this out and go through the crap, because of it? Plus, on a constitutional/philosophical level I just don't think the government should be the escape clause and answer to every problem. I don't think it was designed that way. Morgan: You are probably right, people invested more than what they should have, this is an important lesson that hard currency that is immediately available is something that will always be needed for a free market economy. Too much credit and investment can in a way slow the economy. Things are bad in that people are losing jobs, people are going into more debt, people are not able to save for the future, but is the government responsible for saving people? in a way...the government is supposed to protect its people, but here is the key....the a republican democracy is a reflection of its people, we give the government the power to "save" us, so in this situation....instead of doing things to help, we are sitting back and expecting government to save us, so do I blame the government necessarily? No. Should we blame ourselves? Yes. I apologize, the government is at fault, but their fault lies in us.
Me: But, it's just built into our DNA, and for that I blame FDR and the New Deal. Once you start expecting the government to give you money if you're out of work, and give you money when you're old, and give you healthcare if you can't afford it (okay that one lies at Johnson's feet), where does that mentality end?
Morgan: Ah...but I do not think the fault lied in FDR, the fault lied in the people of the 1920's who used credit and investing to prosper, then the backbone of the economy crashed.
Me: I get that in the moment of crisis all those programs were designed to "protect the people," like you're talking about, but we're reaping the effects of that mentality.
Here's the thing: at the end of the day, as you can see, we don't always agree on every point, but we are able to have meaningful, historically based discussions about things. Let's just hope our elected representatives follow suit. (By the way, if there's enough interest, we might pick a topic and do this kind of thing from time to time. If not, oh well.)
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Point of View
Last night my roommate and I were watching something on a cable news channel, and they were contrasting the visit that John and Cindy McCain recently made to The View, with the times that Barak and Michelle Obama were on (the Obamas appeared at separate times.) It's pretty obvious, if you watch even excerpts of the video, that the Obamas were given a much warmer welcome and easier time than the McCains were. Even the wives of the candidates, who are usually viewed in a much better light than their husbands by people on both ends of the political spectrum, were related to in strikingly different ways. What was interesting about the show we were watching and what I've heard from others who saw particularly the McCain interview, was the amount of surprise that was expressed that something like this happened. As if what people were expecting was as fair, balanced, and objective interview. Really?
See, here's the thing: I think this speaks to a real problem in our society. Somehow, over the course of time, as Americans increasingly turn away from hard news programs and get used to the opinionated cable hosts, we've come to regard programs like The View as news media, and in doing so our expectations of them have risen to the same level as those for NBC Nightly News or The Wall Street Journal. Here's a thought, just because The View does a segment at the beginning of each show called "Hot Topics," where they might bring up a news item or two, doesn't make them a news program, and just because Barbara Walters is on the show, doesn't make it a reputable source for objective coverage of events and issues. It's a talk show, folks. These women were chosen in part because they have strong opinions on things, which can create heated discussions and conflict, which creates ratings.
Both candidates want women to vote for them, and the audience of The View is mostly women, and that's why they went on the show. Now, all of a sudden, there's great surprise that women who have made no qualms about their political leanings for years, treated the liberal candidate better than they did the conservative. I mean, it wasn't Walter Cronkite or Tom Brokaw out there, it was Whoopi Goldberg! Their goal is not to present both sides of the issue, and if you are turning to these kinds of programs to help shape your thinking on politics and society, don't be surprised if you start seeing things from a definite point of view.
See, here's the thing: I think this speaks to a real problem in our society. Somehow, over the course of time, as Americans increasingly turn away from hard news programs and get used to the opinionated cable hosts, we've come to regard programs like The View as news media, and in doing so our expectations of them have risen to the same level as those for NBC Nightly News or The Wall Street Journal. Here's a thought, just because The View does a segment at the beginning of each show called "Hot Topics," where they might bring up a news item or two, doesn't make them a news program, and just because Barbara Walters is on the show, doesn't make it a reputable source for objective coverage of events and issues. It's a talk show, folks. These women were chosen in part because they have strong opinions on things, which can create heated discussions and conflict, which creates ratings.
Both candidates want women to vote for them, and the audience of The View is mostly women, and that's why they went on the show. Now, all of a sudden, there's great surprise that women who have made no qualms about their political leanings for years, treated the liberal candidate better than they did the conservative. I mean, it wasn't Walter Cronkite or Tom Brokaw out there, it was Whoopi Goldberg! Their goal is not to present both sides of the issue, and if you are turning to these kinds of programs to help shape your thinking on politics and society, don't be surprised if you start seeing things from a definite point of view.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)