The Day Everything Changed

Last night I watched along with most of you as over 200,000 people gathered in Grant Park downtown Chicago to celebrate the election of the first African American president in our short history. Regardless of who you voted for, it was a truly historic moment. 

Yesterday an overwhelming majority of minority and young voters cast their ballot for Barack Obama - and we all caught a glimpse of our nation's future. By 2050 the "minorities will be the majority" in this country and those young "millennial" voters will be running it. For better or for worse our nation will never be the same, and the church had better pay attention. 

This morning I was watching the news with my two children, who had both been asleep when their world changed forever. My three-year-old daughter noticed Barack Obama giving his victory speech and asked, "Daddy, who is that?" 

I've got to admit that I had goose-bumps when I answered, "sweetheart, that is the President of the United States of America."

Comments

[George P. Wood]

Um, the day "everything" changed was Passover weekend, A.D. 30. By comparison with that, yesterday's election--however momentous--was just another day.

[Paul Stewart]

Thanks for the friendly reminder George :) Didn't mean to "overstate" things.

Kind of reminds me of the story of the Sunday School teacher who asked her class, "What is small and brown has a long tail and eats acorns?" A little girl said, "Well I know the answer has to be Jesus, but it sure sounds like a squirrel to me!"

[Paul Stewart]

By the way I said, "for better of for worse, our NATION will never be the same."

Do you disagree?

[Chilly]

Oh, come on, George - you know exactly what Paul was saying... I love ya man, but that comment was (regardless of it's truth) so ridiculous! Ha!

Paul, our nation will certainly never be the same again. My church will be filled with children of all colors tonight - it will be thrilling to get down on my knees & look them in the eyes and say, "hey, you can be President of the United States some day!!" - of course I'll say this AFTER I present the "Four defining truths of the Assemblies of God" (wink, George)!!

[Jessica]

i agree with george wood. I am amazed that so many people have been swept away in an emotional euphoria by a man who has been given a messiah-like status by our society and by the media. His following is cult-like. No matter what he says, (sometimes not much, in substantial terms), people come away saying 'how good he made them feel."

And while he is undeniably charismatic, get beyond the amazingly eloquent speeches,and america has elected a president who has is radically leftist, very socially liberal, and has demagogued his way into the white house by deflecting all criticism (jeremiah wright, wealth redistribution, ec.) as politics of the past, fear mongering, etc. He kicks off reporters from his plane that don't disagree with him and will no doubt start working with pelosi on the fairness doctrine to curtail freedom of speech on the airwaves.

The fact that we have neglected reason, discernement etc, for warm fuzzy feelings and charismatic appeal says so much about what our society has come to. Truly, we reap what we sow. (Note: i'm not saying john mccain was our saviour either).

Final thought: No leader or government can offer the HOPE that our country and our people need so much because it is from the lord and thus stems from something intrinsic--not a government.

A predominant strand of thinking from the left says that social and govermental structures are the key to bettering society, but the fact is that these mechanisms can't solve what is most crucial to a healthy society--a correction of our innately sinful human condition...in other words, redemption from the Lord.

Believing that one leader or our goverment is the world's answer to the woes we face is 1)misguided 2)unbiblical.

So i guess you could say that I do not get goosebumps when I think of Obama being our next president. Instead, I get concerned.

[Jessica]

he kicks off reporters on his plane that don't agree with him. =) sorry for the typo. =)

[Paul Stewart]

Jessica,

I totally agree that “government structures” are not the key to “bettering of society” - but I certainly don’t think that this is a view that only the “left” shares. Otherwise, why would people on the “right” be so “concerned” about who we just elected?

I have heard so many doom and gloom messages if Barack Obama gets elected - some of them may have merit, others are just ridiculous. But the reality is, as you said, our citizenship is really in heaven. Governments, presidents, senators, and political leaders come and go – but the kingdom of God lasts forever. Our focus should be more on winning people to Jesus than winning elections.

We need to be more “concerned” about the progress of the Kingdom than the progress of a political party.

So while I agree that “no leader or government can offer the HOPE that our country and our people need” neither can they destroy that HOPE.

The purpose of my post was to point out how the demographics of our nation have shifted. As Christians we must BE AWARE and we must always BE HOPEFUL.

I also want to echo what Chilly said - I don’t care if you’re a Democrat or Republican, when you reflect on the centuries of bondage and abuse blacks endured as slaves and when you consider the extraordinary illegal and immoral ways white politicians changed all the rules to keep blacks out of power following the civil war, you can’t help but celebrate the day Americans elected a black man to lead them. All politics aside, there is still reason to have a little HOPE for this nation too.

Paul

[Jessica]

thanks, and i totally agree that both parties have become 'saviours' to their specific constituencies, and if we all started praying a little more and helping others within our sphere of influence a little more,(those in need, in poverty, etc). more would be accomplished. And besides that, that's what God has called us to do.

I understand your point (and agree) that this was by all means a historic election, and slavery and segregation were an appalling party of our history (especially since the founders spoke so much about freedom and God).

But there was more to it than race. (Can you imagine a pro-life black man getting the same amount of attention)? That would be a no. Obama is a liberal and is postmodern in his thinking.

My point is that far too many people are swept away by flowery words and feelings. And if you look at history, these kind of societies are most in danger of losing liberty.

And as christians, yes, we must be aware, as you said. And this is precisely why I don't get goosebumps just because obama's skin is black. I look at his record and the issues, and I see a lot of things that I think are unfortunate.

My point was that this hysteria is ridiculous, and you are right, george bush shouldn't have given us any more hope or taken it away.

But it goes the same way with obama.

[George P. Wood]

Chilly:

I stand by my statement. The election of Obama is momentous, but it doesn't change "everything." Shall I list some of the things it hasn't changed? The war on terror, the financial crisis, Russian depredations in Georgia, Chinese designs on Taiwan, the divisions of the American people into culture war categories, the debates over abortion and gay marriage, climate change, world poverty, etc., etc., etc.

Obama may provide partial solutions to these problems, or he may exacerbate them through ill-chosen policies, but they do not magically change simply because of his election. To suggest otherwise is ridiculous.

The one thing that has changed is the palpable demonstration that America is not a racist nation. Parts of it, here and there, may be; but the great collective is not. And that, as I hinted above, is momentous.

George

[George P. Wood]

Paul:

"For better or worse, our nation will never be the same."

But that could be said of any election, couldn't it? It would've been true had McCain-Palin been elected.

What needs specification is what change has taken place. I think it's the demise of racism as a real force in national politics. And that's a pretty good change.

As for the rest, I think Obama supporters are going to be sorely disappointed when Obama gets down to governing. Why? Because either he is going to govern from the Left (which his evident selection of Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff portends), or he is going to have to moderate in office as he faces the realities of the economy and the war on terror. If he does the former, he'll alienate the independents who voted for him because of his post-partisanship. If he does the latter, he'll alienate his base which expected progressive politics.

That's not a problem unique to him, by the way. It's the problem facing every person who becomes president. It's one thing to win an election. It's another thing to govern a country. If you're Obama, you win an election by turning out your base and center-left independents. But if you're president, you're president of center, left, and right.

George

[Paul Stewart]

George,

You are focusing much more on the "man" which was never the intent of my original post. I was simply reflecting on the changing demographics which elected him. Of course McCain/Palin would have been a change (although you and I could certainly agree that it would not have been as drastic).

But regardless of whether or not Obama proves to be a good or bad president, the politics and more importantly the people of our nation have changed. I can understand your frustration of Obama being elected, but do not let that distract you from what is happening in our culture.

America is no longer "Joe the Plumber" as McCain found out last night. We are not RED vs. BLUE. We are something very different.

What does that mean for my church? your church? for the Assembly of God? How do we communicate the Gospel in the most ethnically and religiously diverse moment in our history?

Obama has become a beacon of HOPE for my generation. He will fall short. He will disappoint. But the church has an opportunity to learn from him and his campaign.

How can we communicate Christ as the TRUE beacon of HOPE to the minority and young voter? How could we rally the kind of enthusiasm and passion Obama did during his campaign?

It's not enough to just say, "these people were fooled," "they will be disappointed." Sure. We know the TRUTH. But Obama was able to get his version of HOPE out there yesterday, he ran a flawless 21st century campaign, and I want to learn how he did it so I can take the Gospel to the masses!

ecclesia semper reformada!

Paul

[George P. Wood]

Paul:

Without the man, there would've been no changing demographics to elect him. Do you really believe Hilary would've inspired this much enthusiasm? I don't think so. If she had inspired that much enthusiasm, she would've won the Democratic primary. So, the man created the changing demographic, such as is it, not vice versa.

Frankly, I think you're putting way too much weight on this election. Is it momentous? Yes, if only because Obama is our first African-American president. If you think, however, that it portends some great shift in policy, I think you're absolutely wrong. To the extent that we know what Obama would do policy-wise, he's conventionally liberal, and this country has not yet become conventionally liberal. Statistically, it's still a center-right nation according to self-identification polls.

George

[George P. Wood]

Paul:

I guess what I don't understand--old man that I am--is why you young whippersnappers are so gaga over Obama. Aside from being an utterly brilliant orator, I can't see a single original thought in his policy proposals. His voting rhetoric is conventionally liberal when not (as in the case of abortion) extreme.

So what is it with Obama that makes you guys so excited and filled with hope? I just don't get it.

George

[Paul Stewart]

George,

We seem to be communicating on different wavelengths. You keep referring to "Obama the man" and I am referring to "Obama the movement." I realize that you can't have one without the other, but let me explain.

"Obama the man" is a fairly inexperienced, somewhat flawed, liberal politician who gives excellent speeches and ran a brilliant campaign. He may turn out to be a great president or an awful one, we just don't know.

"Obama the movement" is different. As many critics point out, Obama is like a political Rorschach inkblot test -- everyone sees in him what they want to see. But to the majority of his voters, Obama represents CHANGE and HOPE. Change because he is the anti-Bush: brilliant orator and writer, intellectual, and nuanced. Hope because he is the first African-American president, he comes from a broken home, his father was Kenyan, and he grew up overseas. Also because his speeches transcend politics-as-usual and make people believe that the country can really be united again.

What "Obama the man" did, in my opinion, was tap into this movement, which had already begun before him but was somewhat unrecognizable, because they did not have a leader and were disconnected. He identified this "Tribe" that was searching for leadership and connection and stepped into that role.

I am not sure that I explaining myself well, but what I am trying to say is that people don't love Obama as much as you think they do. They love what he represents.

By the way, I think Sarah Palin did the same thing, just not as well and it turns out her "Tribe" is not as big as it used to be.

Paul

[George P. Wood]

My problem, Paul, is that the young whippersnappers of the Obama Movement have failed to adequately interrogate Obama the Man.

How does an "a fairly inexperienced, somewhat flawed, liberal politician" go on to "transcend politics-as-usual and make people believe that the country can really be united again"? How can the country be united when 46% of us didn't vote for him and in varying degrees (sometimes viscerally, as on abortion) disagree with what few policy positions he has consistently staked out? Indeed, if Obama carries out his promise to Planned Parenthood to sign the Freedom of Choice Act if Congress sends it to him, and if FOCA will invalidate legal restrictions on abortion in all 50 states, how can he not end up igniting a second round of culture wars?

Honestly, I think the Obama Movement has been enchanted by what Hamlet called "Words, words, words." If you push beyond the biographical narrative, if you question the rhetoric (and why hasn't the Evangelical Left been "prophetic" in speaking truth to Democratic power?), is there any substance to Obama that isn't conventionally liberal? Any examples of post-partisanship? Anything that indicates he'll be able to transcend our country's divide?

No.

I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, since every president, especially one whose election is so momentous for race relations in our country, deserves a honeymoon period. But if he begins to govern from the left rather than from the center-left, then--since dissent is patriotic--I plan on being quite patriotic.

[chrish]

Paul, I really appreciate your sensitivity on this issue. This is the type of conversation that I hope continues to deepen within the Church.

If we believe that God is sovereign, how can we NOT think that He is working in and through the election - and upcoming presidency - of Barack Obama? Given America's shameful and tumultuous history of racism... I'm wondering if God is up to something very significant here.

I know a guy who's loving people in the name of Jesus over in France. He's an African American. He thoughtfully shares his realizations of the election results here: http://followhim.typepad.com/follow/2008/11/i-wish-you-coul.html

Thought it might be a good read for everyone.

[Tim]

" How do we communicate the Gospel in the most ethnically and religiously diverse moment in our history?"

The same way we've always done it. Jesus hasn't changed nor will he.

You gave your kids incorrect information. Obama is the President elect. George W Bush is the President.

So is it safe to say you voted for Obama?

[George P. Wood]

God's sovereignty over political practices is not the same thing as his endorsement of them. Nero is an obvious example, here. He was the caesar when Paul wrote Romans 13, the authority whom Paul claimed God had established. That doesn't mean God condoned Nero's practices; only that he somehow used them to accomplish his greater glory.

The same may very well be true of Obama. Does Obama's election represent an enormous leap forward in America's tortured race relations? Yes. Does that license Obama's abortion extremism? No. How God is sovereignly using Obama is something God only knows.

[Paul Stewart]

George,

You asked “why hasn’t the Evangelical Left been "prophetic" in speaking truth to Democratic power?”

First of all, Democratic power doesn’t come to the White House until January, 20th. Second of all, why hasn’t the Evangelical Right been “prophetic” in speaking truth to Republican power, which has been in the White House for the last eight years?

Where were we when Republican power launched into an unjust war with Iraq? Where were we when this administration broke away from the Geneva conventions and started torturing prisoners of war? Where were the church leaders who challenged their bankers, realtors, mortgage agents, & businessmen to avoid greed and corruption? When did we hear church leaders stand up to people in their congregations and challenge them to avoid luxury and extravagance and buy homes that they could actually afford? Why haven't we stood up for more environmental issues and called on our people to be good "stewards" of God's creation?

By the way, the major reason this “Obama movement” began was because our current “Evangelical” president was such an abysmal failure, and the church lost its prophetic voice because we just blindly supported him.

I think the only injustice of this White House that the church did “prophetically” speak truth to was the disastrous handling of Hurricane Katrina. We didn’t do it by criticizing Bush, but by packing up trucks and heading down there to help. In my opinion, this is when the church’s “prophetic” voice is the clearest.

Secondly, you asked that if Obama signs the Freedom of Choice Act “how can he not end up igniting a second round of culture wars?” When did the first round end? It seems to me that we’ve been fighting that battle politically for 30 years and we just keep losing.

In my opinion, politicians (Republican or Democrat) are not going to do anything to overturn Roe v. Wade. This means it is up to us, as the church, to figure out ways to reduce abortions in this country. Let’s double our efforts to reduce poverty in the inner city (where the majority of abortions occur), let’s do more to assist single moms (before and after the birth) and let’s lead the charge on a national adoption movement. The church has got to wake up and stop relying on politicians to do the work only we can do!

Paul

[George P. Wood]

Paul:

You make a fair point in your first two paragraphs.

I disagree with so many particulars in your third paragraph that I don't even know where to start. (The vote to authorize war in Iraq was bipartisan. The Iraq War was not unjust, at least not on just war principles. Guantanamo detainees are not, strictly speaking, prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions since (a) they're irregular combatants and (b) they're fighting for non-state actors, while Geneva covers the uniformed troops of nation states.

I partially agree with you that pastors weren't advising their monied people to avoid greed, but every pastor I know has preached a sermon on financial stewardship, including a strong point to live within one's means.

Frankly, I think you've bought into the myths of Katrina, which was primarily a failure of local and state governments, not the federal government. Indeed, the Navy and Coast Guard were flying rescue flights almost immediately after the storm had passed. And one of the reasons the levies had broken was because federal money to fix them had been siphoned off elsewhere by a corrupt politicians in the city and the state. http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/2315076.html?page=1

Regarding abortion, you may be right that Roe v. Wade will not be overturned. (Although I might ask how you know this. All it would take is the replacement of one pro-choice judge--Stevens, Ginsburg, Souter, Kennedy, or ???--by one anti-Roe judge. That was within arm's reach with a McCain presidency, since the next president will in all likelihood appoint at least one justice. But forget about all that, pro-lifers have been patiently working for 35 years to get into place incremental legislation to restrict access to abortion. FOCA will do away with that in an instant.

I agree with you on helping the poor, single mothers, and adoption.

George

[Elwin Mack]

Paul, while I respect you, the more you write, the less I find myself agreeing with you. I would prefer more independently thought out points and less liberal left talking points. Instead of, what appears to me, nearly blindly defending the Obama Movement, let's just pray for God's help and work to correct the unjustices around us.

[George P. Wood]

Paul:

You'll be glad to know that I've decided to give President-Elect Obama the benefit of the doubt and refrain from any more political comments.

Back to work at AGThinkTank.

George

[chrish]

"How God is sovereignly using Obama is something God only knows."

Truly.

And I won't venture to guess the extent of it... but from what I've observed throughout the last couple of days, I think it's worth keeping our eyes, ears, and hearts open. I don't want to presume that the only valid (and valuable) perspective is based on my western, white, and evangelical christian experience.

[Paul Stewart]

George Elwin,

I am tired of being forced to defend a movement of which I am not a part of. I am simply trying to explain the forces at work behind this year’s election. I am not defending the Obama movement, I am just attempting to understand and explain it. You both appear to be so frustrated with the outcome you cannot even take a step back to recognize the forces at work behind it.

I honestly hope that as believers we will have the humility and wisdom needed to influence this nation for good. Of course it’s easier to just blame the “liberal media” and assume that no one else has the ability to “think independently” except for all of the people who think just like you - but this is not what the church is called to do.

The church must always be willing to stand up to ALL injustice - which includes the slaughtering of the unborn as well as the treatment of prisoners of war. If we only concern ourselves with one issue, like abortion, and only support one political party, then we end up having to justify wars, unethical treatment of prisoners and other failures of a “fallen system”

If we blindly support only one political party we should not be surprised when our “prophetic” voice is silenced.

Parenthetically - the principles of a just war include the following:

- A just war may only be waged as a last resort (this, the most important requirement, is the one so clearly violated in the case of the Iraq war).
- A war is just only if waged by a legitimate authority.
- A just war can only be fought to redress an injury (also violated by the pre-emptive war on Iraq).
- A war can only be just if there is a reasonable chance of success.
- The ultimate goal of a just war must be to re-establish peace (this goal was first voiced by the Bush administration long after the Iraq invasion, and only after the initial rationales for the war had been discredited).
- The violence used in a just war must be limited, in proportion to the injury suffered.
- The weapons used in a just war must discriminate between combatants and noncombatants -- every effort must be made to avoid injuring or killing civilians.

[George P. Wood]

Paul:

I know what just war doctrine teaches. . And as I go down the list, I check off each one in favor of the war in Iraq.

Last resort: The Bush Administration led a multinational invasion of Iraq after 12 years of Iraqi noncompliance with at least 16 UN Security Council resolutions, including UNSC Resolution 1441, which warned of serious consequences for further Iraqi noncompliance. And lets not forget the yearlong debate within the American political context about the Congressional resolution to authorize war in Iraq.

Legitimate authority: Under international law, a sovereign state is a legitimate authority. That includes the US, obviously. When coupled with UNSC Resolution 1441 as well as Americas and Britains longstanding interest in Iraq as the primary enforcers of the 16 previous UNSC resolutions, America had full legal authority to act as it did.

Redress of injury: UNSC Resolution 1441 was rooted in Iraqs twelve years of noncompliance with UNSC resolutions stemming from the end of Gulf War I. Americas rationale in invading Iraq was finally enforcing those resolutions. What gave the situation added gravity was, in the post-9/11 environment, the fact that rogue states like Iraq could provide haven, material assistance, and WMDs or WMD technologies.

Reasonable chance of succes: After badly mismanaging the war in the middle years, Bush finally adopted the right strategy (surge) at the right time (the Anbar Awakening), and we are now winning the war in Iraq.

Re-establishment of peace: The only rationale for the war that has been discredited is the WMD one, but no one knew that the Hussein regime in fact did not have WMDs at the time of the invasion. And if memory serves, the whole point of removing Hussein from the region was to make sure he didnt bully his neighbors again.

Proportionality: Im not sure youve stated proportionality correctly. According to the Encyclopedia of Philosophy, proportionality is the notion that A state must, prior to initiating a war, weigh the universal goods expected to result from it, such as securing the just cause, against the universal evils expected to result, notably casualties. Only if the benefits are proportional to, or worth, the costs may the war action proceed. This is quite a different notion of proportionality than what you stated. On your line of reasoning, Americas war against Japan (1941-1945) would be unjust because far more Japanese were killed by Americans in the course of the war than Americans were killed by the Japanese at Pearl harbor.

Noncombatant immunity: The American military has done about as good a job here as can be expected. One key thing you must keep in mind is the difference between the intentional targeting of civilians, which American forces have not done, with collateral damage (unintentional harm done to civilians), which has undoubtedly occurred.

So, for the reasons outlined above, I believe the war in Iraq satisfied just war criteria.

After having re-read your posts and all your comments, I have to admit that I simply dont understand the forces behind Obamas election. I dont understand how the mantras of change, hope, and post-partisanship apply to such a conventionally liberal guy. Id like to say thats because Ive been around the block long enough to sniff out dishonest political rhetoric, but maybe I am clueless about this emerging social trend.

And for the record, I have strong political opinions, but I have always argued that those should be expressed in fora other than the pulpit. So, while I recognize that some preachers confuse the kingdom of God with Republican policy, Im not one of them. For me, I think conservative principles are a better application of biblical principles, but I recognize that they are not the only possible application.

George

[Tim]

By your criteria wouldnt fighting the Germans not qualify as a just war? They never attacked us.

I fear in an effort to make Jesus cool to the obamanites the church is starting to lean left. Hopefully, you arent part of that swing leftward.

[Paul Stewart]

Tim - its not my criteria. The first philosophers of just war were Aristotle and Cicero, and the first theologians St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. You should read about it... its pretty cool.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_War

[Reed]

I see Obamas election as an opportunity for the Republican party to reinvent itself after the Bush years. History has taught us the American political system operates in cycles—this isnt the end of conservatism in America for goodness sake! The GOP is suffering from the identity crisis the Dems have endured the last few years. The Reagan Coalition (Gun Nuts, Anti-Immigration, Big Business, and Evangelicals) have finally realized they have far less in common than they were led to believe.

The Republicans have the opportunity to put up a serious challenge in 2012 if they can reinvent themselves the way the Dems did behind Obama during the Bush years. (You think our President-Elect is going to live up to all these high expectations? Look at Englands Messiah Tony Blair in 97—the same thing is coming for Obama.)

As a starter, Republicans can:

- Reflect Americas growing Ethnic Diversity in their candidates. (I forget the precise numbers but I think its somewhere around thirty years when America will no longer be a majority white. Theres no inherent reason for non-whites to vote Republican. How come none of them are running for office?)

- Recommit to their central message of small government. (The Republicans have lost track of their most powerful weapon- that is hands off fiscal policy grows economies! Appealing to the all-mighty market to fix many of our problems works, I believe it! Where was that message this last election?) The Patriot Act is NOT small government.

- Dont let Social Conservatism dominate the Party (this one is hard but its true. Evangelicals vote according to 2 issues, Gay Rights and Abortion, and it isolates other members of the party that have other things on their priority list. This goes back to the small government issue. LEGISLATING MORALITY DOES NOT WORK. The United States is not an extended arm of the Church! I find it ironic that Evangelicals are guilty of the precise silly faith in Government that they accuse Democrats of. Except, instead of trusting Government to fairly redistribute wealth or operate a National Health Care system, they expect it to do an adequate job legislating morality for them!

In conclusion, the Republicans need John McCain..... the moderate John McCain who ran against Bush in 2000 who shouldve picked Joe Lieberman as his running mate this time around.

(One last thought. Im sick of people saying Obama is going to turn America into a Socialist nation. Have you ever been to a Socialist Nation? Ive lived in one (UK) and theyre not even strictly Socialist. First of all, America will never be Socialist. Second of all, lets make sure were using the right titles here. Socialist nations mean free health care and cheap school for everyone, thats not so bad. The problem is, I think by Socialist, many people mean Communism. I think some people have trouble telling the difference.)

[George P. Wood]

Reed:

Youre right that Obama wont turn American into a socialist nation. Youre wrong about socialism, however. Socialism classically was defined as the state ownership of the means of production. Capitalism, by contrast, was the private ownership of the means of production. Socialist nations mean free health care and cheap school for everyone, thats not so bad. Free health care and universal public education are typically socialist policies, but not necessarily socialist ones. The first welfare state, after all, was in Otto Bismarcks very right-wing Germany.

As for the relationship between socialism and communism, communism was a variant of socialism. Remember, the USSR was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

George

[George P. Wood]

Oh, and Reed:

In California, Proposition 8, that piece of legislated morality banning same-sex marriages, passed with 70+ percent of the African-American vote, which voted 90% percent for Obama. Social conservatism and politico-economic liberalism actually seem to be a winning combination among African-American and Hispanic minorities.

George

[Reed]

Its all true.

Shame on you California.

[Anna Marie McLellan]

George Wood? Are you still out there? Not all of us young whippersnappers were caught up with the Obama movement. I recently watched a documentary on Nazism and was really intrigued by how that political party came into being. In the 1920s the Nazis received 2% of the vote and were seen as a joke. In the 1930s their message remained the same (Versaille was unfair, get rid of the Jews), yet because the German economy was in crisis due to short-term credit and banks closing, the Germans began to rally around the communists and Nazis(the two radical parties). The funny thing is the Nazis message was still exactly the same but because Hitler had flowery speeches and promised to get Germany out of the economic crisis, he gained support. People generally thought he was just going to rearm the military and reunite Germany and Austria and no one expected Hitler to go to the extremes that he did, even authorizing 7 year old mentally disabled Germans to be killed. Obviously, I an in no way comparing Obama to Hitler, but I am making the point that in history when people have become to feel desperate they will be swept away by all kinds of men OR movements that offer hope. Its funny because I see alot of your philosophy Paul comes from books that are popular right now in the Christian sector. I definitely think that one can be a Christian and vote for Obama-its a matter of what moral values one is placing as their primary concern. However, what I see is many disgruntled young Christian leaders griping and not really doing anything themselves.They cry,Where was the church when such and such happened? Ok, yeah I agree, but my question is where was I and where were you? Its so easy to shift the blame without looking into ourselves. Id like to see our pastors, lay people and Christian leaders actually volunteering in the community on their own time. I work at Orchard Place and please feel free to give me a call if you or someone else would like to volunteer. Originally it was the church who took care of the poor-not government-so lets go for it!

[Paul Stewart]

I always smile when people compare Obama to Hitler and then say, obviously, I am no way comparing Obama to Hitler. Sure a lot of awful movements have started with the youth, but so have revivals. The Assembly of God was originally a youth movement.

I do think its a little unfair to classify my philosophy as coming from popular books and being swept away by a movement that offers hope. Which books are you referring to? Which books do you read to ensure you dont get swept away?

I totally agree that its up to the church to take care of the poor - and many church leaders have dropped the ball. We have also dropped the ball in confronting many unjust socioeconomic conditions which helped to create poverty.

[George P. Wood]

Reed:

If you think its a shame California voted against same-sex marriage, Id be very interested in seeing you make a Christian case for same-sex marriage. Perhaps you could develop a Wesleyan Quadrilateral argument of Scripture, tradition, reason and experience. Id be particularly interested in seeing how you handled Scripture and tradition.

George

[George P. Wood]

Reed:

One other question regarding your statement, LEGISLATING MORALITY DOES NOT WORK. There are any number of problems with this: (1) Legislating morality is unavoidable, if only because the law exists to prevent the use of force and fraud in human relationships. (2) Politics is an inherently moral enterprise, which outlines the shape of our common life together. And our common life includes shoulds and should nots. (3) Youre quite right that the US government is not an extended arm of the church. But why do you make the equally fallacious assumption that morality is limited to church teaching and practices? The church catholic has a long tradition of natural law thinking on matters both moral and political. While youre quite right that the church should not expect the state to enforce church prerogatives, why do you assume marriage is a church teaching and practice rather than a teaching and practice of the natural law?

George

[George P. Wood]

Reed:

Why cant the church use its influence to make the state more humane? I think of 17th and 18th Century American Baptists who pressed for the repeal of established churches, not because of an Enlightenment commitment to religious tolerance but out of spiritual concern for the believers church. Isnt that an interesting example of a theologically motivated group of people legislating their idea of morality in such a way that was of broad social benefit? What, precisely, was wrong with that?

George

[Tony]

I do not know if there is a Christian case for gay-marriage, but there certainly is an American case for gay-marriage. All the arguments against it are easy enough to dismiss. As Christians we have Amendment rights to be able to judge how we should react to it in our churches, and that is good enough for me. The more we try and manipulate laws to religious-specific viewpoints the more we damage our ability to say anything of value to those around us.

I have to admit to being enfurriated with professional clergy and lifelong Evangelicals, for decades disconnected from real non-Christians - their hopes and fears, their needs and desires - who seem to think that what is best for them is to enforce the Will of God on a pluralistic society. How many steps away are we really from Sharia Law when we attempt to do such things?

[Tim]

Reed:

Free health care and free education arent really free. Ive been to the UK many times and the taxes they pay are far from free. Also, look at the quality of their health care. How many people a year die from dirty hospital rooms in the US and compare that to the number in the UK.

Since you shame California does that mean you support gay marriage?

[George P. Wood]

Tony:

Why do you assume that the case for heterosexual marriage is tied to religious-specific viewpoints? I could make any number of arguments--natural law, sociological, economic, evolutionary, etc.--for why heterosexual marriage is normative, without ever cracking open the Torah, New Testament, or Koran.

Furthermore, in a democratic polity such as Americas, why should religious viewpoints be automatically excluded from the public square? Indeed, if Christianity is a total world-and-life view, as opposed to some private spiritual sentiment, how can Christians fail to develop a point of view on cultural, social, and political issues? People who bury their heads in the sand like that generally make an easy target for getting kicked in the butt.

The more we try and manipulate laws to religious-specific viewpoints the more we damage our ability to say anything of value to those around us. Really? So Christians cannot have any opinions on issues of pressing moment--abortion, same-sex marriage, the environment, poverty, business ethics, political corruption, the slave trade?--lest they offend someone? Surely youre kidding! How can the church be prophetic under such circumstances?

Finally, your crack about enforcing the Will of God on a pluralistic society: The question is not whether we enforce Gods will on society, but which aspects of Gods will we work to enforce. God wills that people be protected from murder, theft, perjury, and slander (among the other 10 Commandments). Surely youre not suggesting that its wrong to enforce those provisions on society! Youre uncomfortable with enforcing sex laws, but I assume you dont have a problem with the government enforcing laws against rape, incest, and other forms of sexual assault, not to mention laws regulating divorce and inheritance, which are intimately tied to sexual issues.

Unless you are an anarchist, you believe in laws. Laws reflect moral values. Religion is a primary (although not the sole) source of moral values. Consequently, religion will always be implicated in law, if only through a cultures moral values. This doesnt entail Sharia, by any means, and its ridiculous of you to suggest otherwise.

George

[Tony]

Hi George!

I have yet to hear a solid non-religious reason to ban gay-marriage. Certainly the prevailing views on evolution exclude any arguments from natural law or from evolution itself. Natural Law is seen as a progressive cultural construct based on survival of the fittest and a primitive theistic cosmology.

With the advent of birth control a sociological or economic case is void. Hetero-marriages do not always provide offspring, and often, those who dont make more money, and are actually paying more taxes rather than less as well as spending more in the market.

And sociological viewpoints are a) completely relative, and b) generally based on false assumptions about homosexuals and rose-colored views on heterosexuals and their ability to provide a loving and stable home. Just because heterosexual marriage is normative does not mean it must be so, or that it should be so. As a side note, since gay-marriages can be stable and loving, to ban them and/or not allow them to adopt frustrates a significant avenue for reducing abortions.

The problem with these kind of conversations is that they instantly get into muddy waters when what we need is clarity. I was here talking about gay-marriage. I was not talking about an overall strategy outlining how involved or uninvolved a Christian should be. Note: I never said that Christians cannot have any opinions or that they should not speak prophetically to situations like the slave trade, political corruption, etc... Neither did I say that we cannot develop a point of view on cultural, social, and political issues. I feel that you are reducing my argument ad absurdum and so charicature what I was actually saying.

You again muddy the waters when you ask if is it Gods will that people be protected from murder, theft, etc.... While that is true, it is not the basis for our law and justice system. Unless of course you want to make some lame and uneducated case that we are a Christian Nation or that the founding fathers were just creating laws and government based purely off Judeo-Christian beliefs and the Bible. And so while WE may interpret laws against murder through a Christian worldview, not all do, indeed, our government does not. We do not look to God to authenticate our laws, we do it for the good order and protection of our citizens.

I was not saying that we cannot enforce sex laws. You again overexagerate with high rhetoric but low accuracy. I think that gay-marriage should be allowed, that is very specific and very different than what your crude statements make room for.

I certainly do not see myself sticking my head in the sand, but neither do I have my pulpit in the Senate.

[Reed]

Gosh. I leave for work and come home and the post EXPLODED. Ill do my best here, have some grace.

ON GAY MARRIAGE
Ultimately, I do not feel that my marriage is threatened by what the state wants to call marriage. You might call this my being for gay marriage, but its hardly my number one issue and I dont claim that label for myself. Tony and I have had long conversations concerning this topic. I dont feel its necessary to add to his more than adequate post above

ON THE FOUR SOURCES OF AUTHORITY
To be honest, your response sounds sarcastic to me, but I cant tell. The Wesleyan Quadrilateral is a foundational paradigm in Protestantism. If you have a problem with my utilizing it to wrestle with my questions, perhaps you could suggest a better alternative?

ON SOCIALISM
Its not Communism. Its not Capitalism. Obama will never make us into a Socialist state. Thats really all I want to say about it.

ON LEGISLATING MORALITY
To be honest, Tony captures my heart above. I might add:

‘You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you.

‘You have heard that it was said, “You shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy.” But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax-collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers and sisters, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Matt 5:38-48

The early church existed for almost three centuries under a secular, persecuting state before Constantine. Elements in the early church interpreted these parts of the Sermon on the mount as teaching about their attitude towards secular government. These were words to live by—not good principles, or a picture of the eschatological ideal, but actual commandments from Jesus, the new Torah.

Im not going to pretend that this passage is saying much of anything about Abortion or Gay Marriage. (I dont recall Jesus teaching about either of those topics now that I think about it.) But I think the American Church could take a lesson from the early church on this one. We no longer live in a Christian Nation (if we ever did). We cannot expect non-Christians to act with the moral of character of Christ. Ultimately, the Church was not called to influence by overpowering, but by taking up our cross and dying like Christ.

ON OBAMA
Regardless of who you voted for, this is an exciting time for America. Many people are optimistic about Government for the first time in years—some even in their lives! The Church would be foolish to try to rob that joy and goodwill.

[George P. Wood]

Tony:

You wrote, The more we try and manipulate laws to religious-specific viewpoints the more we damage our ability to say anything of value to those around us. I took this as a generalized statement about the fatuity of legislating morality. You seem to be replying that you only meant it in application to same-sex marriage. Have I correctly understood you this time?

If I have, then it seems that your application of this principle solely to same-sex marriage is arbitrary. What makes marriage alone incapable of legislation? You batted down natural law, evolutionary, sociological, and economic arguments when applied to same-sex marriage. But with just a little effort, I could use the same type of rebuttals to bat down natural law, evolutionary, sociological, and economic arguments for just about any moral issue or piece of legislation. So, to me, it seems that your stuck between the Scylla of abritrariness and the Charybis of relativism.

And yes, I was intentionally trying to reduce your argument to absurdity because of what I thought were the implications of the sentence I quoted at the top of this post. So, please enlighten me as to what you meant in that sentence, and explain why I shouldnt have taken it in the way I did. As a smart guy, Im sure you understand that general principles have broad applicability in cases, and while you may want to limit the application of your stated principle to same-sex marriage, I dont see how thats possible.

George

P.S. I have yet to hear a solid natural law, evolutionary, sociological, or economic case for gay marriage. Thats the funny thing about arguments, isnt it?

[George P. Wood]

Reed:

I think the Quadrilateral is good theological methodology. Applied to same-sex marriage, I dont think Scripture, tradition, reason, or experience legitimate the Christian support of same-sex marriage, especially not the first two. Since we agree on the methological question, I was simply interested in seeing how you--with your self-professed appreciation for church history and the liturgical Christian tradition--would handle the question. You can still take a stab at it, if you want.

You wrote, We no longer live in a Christian Nation (if we ever did). We cannot expect non-Christians to act with the moral of character of Christ. Ultimately, the Church was not called to influence by overpowering, but by taking up our cross and dying like Christ.

I agree with the first sentence.

Im confused by the second sentence. I understand what you mean if youre suggesting that Christians cannot expect non-Christians to love their enemies. But are you suggesting that Christians cannot expect non-Christians to refrain from murder or theft or the other crimes outlined in the second table of the Law? There is a vocational ethic that is unique to the church, namely, the duty to love ones enemies for the sake of Christ and with the hope that they will attain to salvation. But by the same token there is a natural law written on the heart of the unbeliever, adjudicated by conscience, according to which even they can be found guilty or non-guilty. What precisely, then, is wrong with Christians legislating that natural law? You pose a dysjunction between overpowering and taking up our cross. Aside from the fact that the term overpowering is prejudicial--why is legislating against murder overpowering rather than a legitimate exercise of authority?--why cant Christians do both?

You seem to be assuming that the sociological situation of the first three centuries of the church is itself ethically normative, as if all Christians must exercise the ethic of a persecuted minority. Interestingly, the Orthodox, Catholic, and Anglican traditions assume otherwise in their theologies of the state. They assume that since Jesus Christ is Lord, Christians have a duty to use their positions of authority for just ends. This includes using the coercive mechanisms of the state (legislation and force) for just ends. I find it a bit ironic, as a side note, that your evident esteem for high church liturgy is attached to such a low church ecclesiology, but whatever.

It is an exciting time in American history. By the same token, I live in California where thousands of pro-same-sex marriages have been protesting outside the Mormon temple in Santa Monica and running really ugly ads about the Mormons. I dont want to rob anyones joy and good will, but the level of anti-religious bigotry on the opposite side of the Prop 8 question is really startling. They have joy and good will as long as one agrees with them, evidently. If I have to choose between receiving joy and good will at the expense of moral principle, Ill chose moral principle every time.

George

[Anna Marie]

Paul I think you just want to start a guiness book of world records for most comments!hehehe- THe books I am referring to are ones that encourage post-modern philosophy. Some of the books have very good points such as velvet Elvis, but take the pendulum too far in some areas. Why do you find my comment funny when I said obviously I dont compare Obama to Hitler?It wasn;t an unenlightened comment. I was merely saying how often in movements we get caught up and dont want to see what someone really stands for whether it be in the right or left or in communism or socialism.Interestingly, the Germans did not believe that Hitler knew about the massacres occuring. I am saying that on a smaller scale we can learn from history and not be blinded by charisma. It is foolish for us not to see that Obama is blatantly against the beliefs of the Bible. Ok-I dont think a President needs to be a Christian to be a good President.There are many President elects that do not procalim to be CHristians that would have done better than Bush. However, it is not out of the realm of possibility that Christians will be tageted one day-they already are (some of it is our fault I suppose). Thats ok with me if one day were targeted. Im not overly upset about Obama being in office and not being keen on the beliefs I hold. My primary citizenship is in heaven and if we are targeted in the future thats when the Gospel will flourish even more!I suppose some Christians in a sense are upset about the outcome because they feel a sense of loss of power-gees, now we actually cant depend on government to stop partial-birth and gay marriage.We have to do something more and start being radical in our lifestyle! One thing this blog has taught me though is that I will not share my political opinions again, but keep them to myself. I really admire Billy Graham as a pastor because he prayed with the Presidents no matter their political party. I worry that if I share my political party it may alienate others because my religion has now become associated with my party. For many years, sadly the Christians have been associated with the Republican party. Now Im beginning to wonder if the movement that started before Obama that you mentioned is associated with the Democratic party? I never thought of that before until recently. Anyway, I just do what I can in this world to help where I can and now Ill leave this conversation at that. OH yeah, and like you said youth movements can be good too, but even the youth AG movement wasnt perfect;) WE just need to separate the good aspects from the not so good in some movements.

[Anna Marie]

Ummm Btw, let me know when you get published in the Guiness!

[Tony]

Hello again George,

I can see that my initial statement may have had too broad a character. Nonetheless, as it was gay-marriage we were talking about - as the first paragraph bears witness too - that was the context in which it was meant to be taken.

It is only your desire to tease out the implications of my sentence that has led you to your wrong conclusions. I purposely did not use the phrase legislate morality because of its obvious lack of nuance and accuracy. It seems to me that you have likely had many conversations about religion and politics (in our short time knowing each other we have already had two!) and you carry with you all the baggage of past conversations.

As you said above: The question is not whether we enforce Gods will on society, but which aspects of Gods will we work to enforce

This is why I am not arbitrary when I speak of this. This is discernment, that we take time to thoughtfully and prayerfully seek guidance in distinct circumstances. There is a difference between allowing gay marriage and prosecuting rapists.

When you say: I have yet to hear a solid natural law, evolutionary, sociological, or economic case for gay marriage you again miss the point by a mile. I am not arguing a case for gay marriage as if it is a moral imperative. I too believe in the Creator God whose design is for hetero-sexual union. What I am arguing is what (I believe) a Christian in this country should attempt to do or not to do in regards to legislating bans on gay marriage. It is in this way that I would argue that it is not something worthy of our effort, and it may in fact, in this instance, be an abuse of power in this country.

You say: Im sure you understand that general principles have broad applicability in cases

I was not appealing to general principles, and I was not being arbitrary, I was merely suggesting that we should not attempt to prohibit gay marriage by legislation.

[Jeremy]

Anna Marie
you said:
It is foolish for us not to see that Obama is blatantly against the beliefs of the Bible.
This seems to me to be a very limited perspective. It is one thing to argue that Obama does not conform to your views of the Bible. That said, there are many views out there. To say he is unbiblical fails to address the fact the biblical adherancy is relative to ones view of the bible. Jeremiah Wright adheres to what he sees when he reads the bible. The same goes for Billy Graham, George Wood, and many many others who have read this precious book. We as Christians need to be careful not to assume that our view of the bible is the only legitimate one to hold. A cursory view of church history tells a very differant story.

[George P. Wood]

Tony:

Thank you for the clarification! In the interests of further clarity, could you please re-state why you oppose Christians legislating against same-sex marriage in a sentence or two?

George

[Tony]

George,

I know that gay couples can be just as stable and longlasting as heterosexual couples. They can contribute to the society in the same way and to the same extent as heterosexual couples. I fail to see the logic, Christian or otherwise, which says that gay couples are more destructive to the societies well-being than atheist or other non-Christian couples.

Thanks,
Tony

[Tony]

As if Christian couples are perfect! lol