Rachel Held Evans

Confessions of a Recovering Obama-Maniac

Jesus for President by Shane Claiborne and Chris Haw has challenged me on so many levels, it’s hard to know where to start. I guess it’s not so much the book itself that has inspired me, but the way the author’s continually refer to Jesus’ teachings on the Sermon on the Mount, teachings which no one in their right mind can truly contemplate without trembling at the sort of life changes it demands.

I chose Jesus for President (Zondervan, 2008) for our book club discussions, not because I agreed with all of the authors’ conclusions, but because never before have I so deeply questioned whether or not I really take Jesus seriously.

Did Jesus really mean it when he said “love your enemies” and “turn the other cheek”? Does that apply to all enemies, even terrorists and enemy combatants? Did Jesus really mean it when he said, “blessed are the poor” and “woe to you who are rich”? What does that mean for me and my closet full of clothes and cabinets full of food? When Jesus follows His sermon by asking, “Why do you cal me ‘Lord, Lord’ and do not do what I say?” does He mean that intellectual ascent to his lordship isn’t enough? Does He actually expect me to follow through with what He asks?

These are just a few of the questions we will be dealing with over the next few weeks.

(Note: I would challenge those of you who want to participate in these upcoming conversations to re-read the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5 and in Luke 6. I’ve committed to reading it every day for a month and it is really messing with my head. It always does.)

We will get to the most controversial part of the book (the subject of pacifism) later. Today I want to focus on a few of the authors’ main points.

Kings and Kingdoms of This World

Claiborne and Haw begin the book with a broad look at what the Bible has to say about kings and kingdoms. They remind readers that the reason God allowed Israel to have a king in the first place was because the people insisted on “being like other nations.” It clearly wasn’t the ideal, and not exactly a fulfillment of God’s desire that they be a “set apart” people. (See God’s warning about the ramifications of kings and kingdoms in I Samuel 8: 11-16, and then His gentle “I told you so” in Hosea 13:10)

“One thing that is consistent throughout the Hebrew Scriptures is that God was deconstructing, redefining, and reclaiming kingship,” write Claiborne and Haw (p. 37).

The Kingdom of Heaven

This redefining reaches a climax in the life and teachings of Jesus Christ concerning the Kingdom of Heaven. And interestingly, the political language of Jesus, “doesn’t harmonize with the contemporary church project of ‘reclaiming America for God.’ Precisely the opposite: Jesus was urging his followers to be the unique, peculiar, and set-apart people that began with Abraham. He didn’t pray for the world in order to make governments more religious: he called Israel to be the light of the world…” (71)

Jesus wasn’t interested in running the world via the government. In fact, he rejected Satan’s offer to give Him all the kingdoms of the world. Instead, “Jesus would enter his people’s story, tears, sweat, and hunger and show them a way out that doesn’t require the financial, military, and political powers of kings and presidents and cabinets.” (86)

Jesus outlines the nature of His strange Kingdom in the Sermon on the Mount. I love this paragraph on page 86 of Jesus for President:

“Jesus would make for a bad president. It’s hard to imagine Jesus wearing a ‘God Bless Rome’ T-shirt and promoting his campaign with stickers and buttons and a hundred-million-dollar campaign. And he would be considerably uncomfortable as commander-in-chief of the largest military in the world. Nevertheless, he was political. All of his titles granted him political authority. Calling him Messiah or Lord is like acclaiming him-unlikely as it is-as president. He was the president who did not want to be the president. His politics aspired to something different from state power.”

I Pledge Allegiance To…

As citizens of this Kingdom, followers of Christ are to play by these rules. According to Claiborne and Haw, “to claim that one’s citizenship in heaven is to say that you pledge allegiance not to any of the kingdom of the world but to Jesus and the body of those who take on his suffering, enemy-loving posture toward the world. This is what Peter meant when he called the church ‘a holly nation, a people set apart, a people who are supposed to live as ‘aliens and strangers in this land.’” (107)

Now, there are some who might say that one should not compare the United States of America with Rome, that America is a “Christian nation,” and so it is not at all a conflict of interest to claim allegiance to both Jesus Christ and the good ole’ U.S. of A. However, Claiborne and Haw remind readers that if “Christian” literally means “little Christ,” then “the United States is Christian inasmuch as it looks like Christ.” Clearly, that’s not the case. Sure our leaders and politicians promote the ideas of “freedom” and “justice,” and they even sprinkle their speeches with biblical references. But when “freedom” and “justice” are supposed to be achieved via death and retribution, they are not the same virtues of which Jesus speaks.

Rather, “the church is a people called of the world to embody a social alternative that the world cannot know on its own terms. We are not simply asking the government to be what God has commissioned the church to be. After all, even the best government can’t legislate love. We can build hundreds of units of affordable housing (a good thing by the way) and people still might not have homes. We can provide universal health care and keep folks breathing longer (another nice move), but people can be breathing and still not truly be alive. We can create laws to enforce good behavior, but no law has ever changed a human heart or reconciled a broken relationship. The church is not simply suggesting political alternatives. The church is embodying one.” (228)

Election Year Politics

The whole thing makes me think twice about Obama’s claim that America is the “last great hope for humanity.” (Isn’t that supposed to be Jesus?) And as y’all know, I’m a pretty avid Obama supporter.

…Or at least I was. This book has served as such a great reminder that no earthly king or president is responsible for building the Kingdom of Heaven. As soon as we start relying on a democrat or republican to accomplish God’s will, the Church loses its calling to be set apart, to change the world not by power or might, but by the Spirit. As soon as we "get political," we lose our imagination.

While Jesus’ name won’t appear on the ballot this fall, I imagine that every time I care for the poor, attempt to live more simply, turn the other cheek, and love my enemies, I’m casting a vote for Jesus, who will one day return to rule His Kingdom in person.

I’ll probably check the box next to Barack Obama on election day, but I’ll do it knowing that he does not have my first allegiance. I'll do it knowing that we don't need his social reforms (as nice as some of them may be) to change the world.

What do you think?

So, is it unpatriotic to think of yourself as a citizen of the Kingdom of Heaven before a citizen of the United States? Do you think it is a conflict of interest to pledge allegiance to the American flag in a church service? Is it a conflict of interest to pledge allegiance to an earthly kingdom at all?

Do you support Christians holding public office? Do you think of America as being a “Christian nation?”

Did you only read this blog because you thought I’d seen the light and become a republican? (Go ahead! Admit it!)

Scott

Jesus for President
Reply #1 on : Mon August 04, 2008, 19:57:42

Amen sister. Our first allegiance should always be for the Kingdom of God, then our earthly Kingdom. God's interests do not always line up with American interests (which is probably another blog entry).

I also like Obama, but I am still undecided whom to vote for. My pastor calls the Sermon on the Mount - the Jesus Manifesto (radical, revolutionary, and other worldly).

Tim

Obama for president
Reply #2 on : Mon August 04, 2008, 21:42:07

As a quick disclaimer, this point of view does not come from a Christian, though I value the lessons of Christ.

I don't know that I agree that we should vote with our God(s). So many evils have been done in the name of religion and it just doesn't make sense. When holy books get into policy, it does more to destroy a nation than to help it. I think it would be a great day when politicians didn't publicize their religious affiliations to gain a vote. Shouldn't it be about good policies and the greater good of all? I don't mean the greater good of God fearing Christians, but also Muslims, Buddhists, atheists and pagans. The founders of our nation knew what they were doing by separating church and state. I mean, under a strict Christian government, I would probably be locked up somewhere for my crimes as a liberal gay non-Christian. Theocracy is simply terrifying to me. While I love the great teachings of Christ, I don't trust humans to do his work. Live as good and loyal Christians and love your God, but find good public servants to try and make this world less terrible.

Brent Bain

Obama, really?
Reply #3 on : Mon August 04, 2008, 22:23:07

Obama supporter? How can anyone call themselves a Christian and support pro-choice candidates? I've heard all the excuses about the evil repulicans invading other countries and raping our planet. I do not consider myself a republican or democrat. But, truly, how a Christian can support a candidate who supports the right to kill defenseless unborn children is inconceivable to me. I am greatly disappointed and greatly suspect of anything else you write now. I'm sure I've labeled myself as a right-wing, pro choice cook to many people, but I would welcome any defense anyone would care to give on supporting this kind of cadidate.(*step step...climbing of my stump*)

Rachel

Response to Tim/ Clarification
Reply #4 on : Mon August 04, 2008, 22:34:51

I absolutely agree! Separation of church and state is the best thing for both the state and the church, and I think that the authors of "Jesus for President" would agree. As soon as religion and power get mixed up together, things tend to go South.

What they are trying to say is those who call themselves Christians should follow the example of Jesus by NOT seeking to change the world through governmental/institutional power, but by their own enemy-love, mercy, and kindness. (It's not so much about voting your values; it's about living your values)

I'm guessing that part of the motivation behind their writing the book is to call out the love affair between evangelicals and the Republican party that has blossomed over the years. If Christians would divert the same amount of energy and money that they spend on politics toward feeding the hungry, caring for the poor, working for peace, etc. (as Jesus taught), then the world would be a better, kinder place even without the help of the government. In the meantime, we can always vote for public servants who make our country better for Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, pagans, African Americans, Native Americans, Caucasian, gays, straights, and so on. (Am i beginning to sound like Obama again or what!?)

They are not arguing for a theocracy. They are simply urging those who call themselves Christians to act more like Jesus.

Tim

Re: Obama, really?
Reply #5 on : Mon August 04, 2008, 22:39:02

Supporting a pro-choice candidate doesn't mean that someone is pro-choice. You are voting on a whole package, not one issue. Actually, correction, you SHOULD be voting on a whole package and not just one issue. Besides, don't most Christians believe that a death before the age of responsibility goes to heaven anyway? You would rather vote someone into office who wants to keep us in a 100 year war, killing millions of people? Just plain math should solve that. I mean, if you're just looking at a simple number of lives, Obama is the choice. But I guess the lives of those out of the womb are not as important to pro-lifers. Maybe I'm totally off-base with this. Sure, it's probably a bad thing that people die. But if death is death, go for the smaller number.

Rachel

pro-life
Reply #6 on : Mon August 04, 2008, 22:54:51

I consider myself pro-ALL-life. This means I support the right to life for both unborn children and Iraqi civilians, for those with health insurance and those without health insurance, for those on death row, and for innocent children caught in the genocide in Darfur.

I don't think any presidential candidate can rightly claim to be pro-life. Voting is perhaps always a matter of choosing between the lesser of two evils.

We can pass laws until we are blue in the face and abortion will continue and war will continue and the death penalty will continue and genocide will continue. Laws don't change hearts. The gospel does.

Last Edit: August 04, 2008, 23:02:57 by Rachel

Brent Bain

Re: Confessions of a Recovering Obama-Maniac
Reply #7 on : Mon August 04, 2008, 23:34:29

I completely agree that laws don't change hearts. I will not, however, let that thought allow me to vote for a candidate who supports such a base practice. As for the war, we should be out as quickly as things can be stabilized...withdrawal before that would result in many more dead. Christians, where are your spines? Either support a candidate you can believe in, or don't vote for either. Don't give me "well, I know he supports the right to kill the unborn, but he's got a great health care package...I guess that makes up for it." I challenge you to genuinely put your vote in writting and say "I support the killing of unborn babies with my vote this year because the other issues are more important to me and I opt to pick the lesser of two evils rather than take a stand and vote for someone who doesn't have a chance or no one at all."

Rachel

Jesus Isn't Running for President
Reply #8 on : Tue August 05, 2008, 01:18:35

Brent,

The whole point of the book and the post is to remind Christians that their identity need not get all wrapped up in a political party, candidate, or position.

I could no more say that my vote for Barack Obama is a vote in support of killing unborn babies than I could say that a vote for John McCain is a vote in support of killing Iraqi civilians. (And the only difference between the two is that in an abortion, a child dies because the mother thought his or her life was disposable. In this war, Iraqi children have died because the U.S. military thought their lives were disposable.)

It would be like saying that when I pledge allegiance to the American flag, I’m pledging allegiance to slavery or abortion or war or pollution or to any number of our nation’s vices - past, present, and future.

If our identities as Christians are dependent on our votes (or our parties or even our countries), then none of us can “call ourselves Christians,” because no candidate (or party or country) has ever or will ever completely embody the teachings of our Savior. The tongue-in-cheek title of the book is meant to point this out. Jesus isn’t running for president!

Your logic would leave any self-respecting Christian no choice but to stay home on election day until Jesus returns, (which by the time this endless election season is over, may seem like an appealing option)!

Last Edit: August 05, 2008, 01:21:32 by Rachel

Brent Bain

I disagree
Reply #9 on : Tue August 05, 2008, 07:44:35

Christians need not feel like they have to stay home on election day if there is a candidate they feel is genuinely trying to do the right thing. I'm not talking about whether to drill or save the arctic tern. I'm talking about real meat issues. If you feel Obama's support for abortion is not a big deal, you should vote for him. To me, its a huge, glaring sign of an immoral "political Christian" and not a genuine, decent man. I am not stumping for John McCain(I truly have not decided how to cast my vote this fall). Our identities most certainly should not be dependent on our votes, but everything we do, including our votes should be dependent on our Christian identity. If not, we just sway in the wind waiting for the next silver-tongued political sensation.

Tim

Bad choices
Reply #10 on : Tue August 05, 2008, 09:33:03

Just as a reminder to Brent, one-issue voting is what made the last 8 years of madness possible. People couldn't look past one-issue topics and vote on a real candidate, so they voted their prejudices and sentenced us to 8 years of Bush hell.

kristen

Re: Confessions of a Recovering Obama-Maniac
Reply #11 on : Tue August 05, 2008, 10:40:30

as a steward of this earth, i actually consider arctic drilling a meat issue, just so you know. i would like to point back to something i believe rachel said as a comment on another blog i read a while back: "the republicans have had 8 years to get rid of abortion and they haven't done it." (forgive me if that is a misquote). i find abortion horrific, yes, but i also find war and poverty and the outrageous cost of healthcare horrific. it is very difficult that you consider the life of an unborn child more important than that of my mother, who cannot afford healthcare. who are you to make that choice? if we are following the words of Christ, did he not say 'give to the poor'?

that said, i agree that a political party and a religious group should not be united. the ills of one get blamed on the other. my identity should first and be with the God of Heaven (though it is hard to say what that means), not with an earthly group.

however, i do not at all think that means we should not try to accomplish so-called christian values through the political process. if the church was perfect, we would not need to do so, but it is not. the poor are not being cared for by the church. it is not wrong to attempt such things politically.

so, to answer rachel's questions:
no, i do not think it unpatriotic to be a citizen of heaven, but i do think one should be careful about claiming to fully understand what that means.
yes, i do see it as a conflict of interest to pledge allegiance to the flag of the us in a church. what does that say about the christians of other nations? what is its purpose in a church service? (check out the wiki article on the pledge, if you don't know its history).
however, i do not think it is necessarily a conflict of interest to pledge allegiance to an earthly kingdom at all. i don't have a problem with a government promoting loyalty. i have a problem with the church promoting loyalty to a government.
i do support christians holding public office; i see no need to leave all public office to non-christians. i do not support people using their christianity as a platform. i know there is a fine line here.
i do not see this as a christian nation. at all. i see this as a nation in which God has granted us the freedom to explore religions. i believe that claiming to be a christian nation and claiming to be a nation with a mostly christian population are two different things. i think that to claim to be the christian nation is arrogant and demeaning to christians all over the world. i also think it makes all wars waged by our nation take on the flavor of religious wars and i disagree with religious wars on principle.

i haven't read the book yet. its on the way. but i am somehow surprised that pacifism is controversial. i guess that's a little naive?

Richie "Rich" Merritt

What do you think?
Reply #12 on : Tue August 05, 2008, 11:56:06

"So, is it unpatriotic to think of yourself as a citizen of the Kingdom of Heaven before a citizen of the United States?" - NO WAY! Our allegiance is to HIM who created us! Jesus would probably be killed/assasinated if He ran anyway; and it would probably be pharasitical "christians" leading the way. Oooops...., did I just say that??

"Do you think it is a conflict of interest to pledge allegiance to the American flag in a church service?" - YES I do. In fact the only time a flag should be present in a church is if it is represented as a group of flags representing the nations of the world as a whole. We serve ONE God, and His goal is to redeem all things - not just one nation.

"Is it a conflict of interest to pledge allegiance to an earthly kingdom at all?"
YES - ditto to aforementioned.

"Do you support Christians holding public office?"
I am not necessarily for or against that per say..., however, if they are using Christ as a way to push their agenda to sway votes, etc...., I have a little problem with that. For instance, issues of morality - I agree with many of the stances that evangelicals stand for; but...., government is not the way to change that. God and the Holy Spirit are the way to change that via the renewing of the heart and renewing of the mind, i.e., Transformed People. Besides, people will be led by someone who is sincere, honest, and has integrity; are those not supposed to be the attributes of a "Christ-Follower"?

"Do you think of America as being a “Christian nation?”" - Hahahaha..., ROFL! We may have been founded and much of the founding documents formulated with Christian thought in mind; but man..., we have strayed from the farm mightly. The majority of folks in this country may consider themselves "Christians", but the actions of this country overall; the crap from Hollywood; the excess consumerism; the gluttony; etc...; sure are not "light" for the world to emulate.

"Did you only read this blog because you thought I’d seen the light and become a republican? (Go ahead! Admit it!" - NOPE, sorry your wrong. My brother in law sent me the link (Rob O.) and asked me my thoughts! :-) I did not know your political persuasion - I consider myself Independently Independent with Libertarian leanings.

Eric Z.

a Thinker
Reply #13 on : Tue August 05, 2008, 14:49:14

Hey Rachel,

Great issues to be bringing up. I really want to read Jesus for President sometime in the near future, but until then I will continue to enjoy the discussions. This is the kind of thing that should be happening on Sunday mornings instead of sermons.

Micah

Intriguing
Reply #14 on : Tue August 05, 2008, 15:47:48

I haven't read "Jesus for President" because I was incredibly underwhelmed with "Irresistible Revolution." But Shane is exactly right in this case. I know you liked "Surprised by Hope" so I wonder if you've read any of Wright's stuff on citizenship? It's mind-blowing. I don't know if he's written it up into a book but you can find a little piece of it here:

http://www.ctinquiry.org/publications/wright.htm

I'm glad to know you're recovering. I admit I was a little disappointed a couple of months ago when you wrote something like "Now that I'm a Democrat" or something like that. I'm always glad to see people break out of the "God is a Republican" mindset, but Claiborne's absolutely right here... Obama's just as far off, because he's every bit as bought into the pattern of this world (even if he looks cooler doing it).

Keep fighting the good fight. I just scanned the comments, but it looks like you'll have plenty of stuff to respond to. So I'll let you get back to it.

Brent Bain

misunderstood
Reply #15 on : Tue August 05, 2008, 23:34:13

Just a final response, first to Tim: I do not advocate voting for a candidate based on one issue. I do, however, find some issues important enough to not vote for someone. I will not vote for Obama because abortion is detestable. This does not mean I will vote for McCain. Maybe I will or maybe not, but it will be based on his merits or shortcomings. I do not cast a ballot based on one issue.

To Kristen: I would never preume to chose between your mother's and a baby's life. Don't assume that by not voting for Obama that I am trying to harm such people as your mother. I don't believe Obama has a workable health care plan, and I don't believe socialized medicine(this coming from someone who for a good many years has been to poor to buy health insurance and too "rich" for state assistance if I wanted it}.

Finally, in hopes of concluding this topic, I don't recall Jesus picking the "lesser of two evils" when presented with differing factions of His day. He chose the righteous path, the difficult path. Partly wrong is still wrong. Don't vote for Obama because you think McCain's views are wrong or vice versa, and dont vote for your selfish ends. If you can't support the ideals of either candidate, don't be lukewarm and the "enlightened Christian Obama follower". Follow Christ, and be strong enough to stand up to both sides.

Please don't misunderstand me...all I want is for Christians to stand up for truth and not the flashiest johnny come lately.

Kedric

Kingship
Reply #16 on : Thu August 07, 2008, 00:19:01

I did want to comment on the part of the idea of kingship in Israel. Yes, the problem is that the people were asking for a king "such as all the other nations have." The demand indicated that the people were not willing to wait for God to choose a king. But a king was something that God intended to bring about.

Abraham was told that kings would come from the womb of Sarah (Gen 17:16); Jacob blessed his son by saying the "scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet"; Psalm 89 is chock-full of references to the covenant with David and his line ("I will establish his line forever, his throne as long as the heavens endure" - v. 36).

The troubles came when the king did not follow the directives given the law of God according to Moses in Deuteronomy 17:14-16:

"When he takes the throne of his kingdom, he is to write for himself on a scroll a copy of this law, taken from that of the priests, who are Levites. It is to be with him, and he is to read it all the days of his life so that he may learn to revere the LORD his God and follow carefully all the words of this law and these decrees" (vv 18 & 19).

If the king went out of line, the Lord would "punish him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men with floggings inflicted by men" (1 Sam 7:14; cf Psalm 89:30-32). Over and over in the account of the Kings, the rulers were said to have either done "evil in the sight of the Lord" or "did what was right in the eyes of the Lord." To the kings of Judah it was added, if they did right, it was either "just as his father David had done" or "but not as his father David had done."

This ultimately culminates in the human kingship of Jesus, the Christ (the anointed king). God was faithful to his promise to have a king sit continually on the throne of David (Luke 1:32) despite the decimation of exile. Ironically, Jesus was flogged as one who, it would seem, was under the punishment of God. Perhaps the text in Isaiah 53:3 speaks of this when it says, "He was despised, and we esteemed him not." How can anyone esteem someone who is proclaimed Messiah, but is under what has to be divine punishment? Unless, it was the Lord's will to crush him and cause him to suffer?

In the case of Jesus, the problem of having I AM as divine king and having a human king, is solved. And he will reign until all his enemies are under his feet. So, when Claiborne and Haw say God was deconstructing, redefining, and reclaiming kingship, this must be seen in the light of the promises given under the Old Covenant and the fulfillment in the New.

Eric Z.

The Perfect Choice
Reply #17 on : Thu August 07, 2008, 14:17:08

I just want to respond to Brent quickly.

I understand where you're coming from when it comes to your belief that a candidate being pro-choice means they have been compromised at very deep levels of their moral code. However, to not cast a vote one way or the other based on this one fact will not change anything. Either Obama or McCain will be the next president, regardless of what Nader does in the next 2 months. So, you have a choice between 2 compromised candidates. Which do you support?

It doesn't come down to picking the righteous path. None of us is, and God raises rulers up among us. Don't forget Solomons admonision to avoid being over-righteous in Ecclesiastes.

There is black, but only Jesus is white. Vote for who you see Jesus revealing as the brightest shade of gray.

Brent Bain

Re: Confessions of a Recovering Obama-Maniac
Reply #18 on : Thu August 07, 2008, 22:39:39

To Eric: That was well put. I completely understand that no one is perfect. I hope you can understand, however, that there are some issues important enough to me that they could cause me to vote for neither candidate. Abortion is one of those for me. I do however disagree that voting for a third, fourth, twentieth party will not change anything. I know that either a Republican or Democrat will be president for the forseeable future, but voting for a third party when you don't agree with either of the big 2 can affect who they nominate next time.

Glen Hentz

Re: Confessions of a Recovering Obama-Maniac
Reply #19 on : Thu August 07, 2008, 23:47:10

Things would be so much easier if we weren't bogged down with "pro-life" or "pro-choice". Call a spade a spade. You're either pro-abortion or anti-abortion. Stop candy coating.

Dan

question for Brent
Reply #20 on : Fri August 08, 2008, 08:45:49

Brent, is there a position on another issue (besides abortion) that would automatically make a candidate off limits for your vote?

Julie

just answering the questions
Reply #21 on : Fri August 08, 2008, 11:46:08

So, is it unpatriotic to think of yourself as a citizen of the Kingdom of Heaven before a citizen of the United States?
NO, I think that is only right.
Do you think it is a conflict of interest to pledge allegiance to the American flag in a church service?
If the "under God" is taken out--well I can't bring myself to say it that way no matter where I am. It's under God weather we like it or believe it or not. I think it's ok to show allegiance to a country you believes values were founded on Biblical principles. Being loyal to any group that is for God's values isn't a conflict of interest. However, as time passes I think I feel the country is more and more against God.

Is it a conflict of interest to pledge allegiance to an earthly kingdom at all?
No.

Do you support Christians holding public office?

Absolutely. God has put Christians/his followers in leadership since the time of Genesis. And he is the one who puts every leader in position. Even those who are against him. That's why we must respect those in power.

Do you think of America as being a “Christian nation?” Not really. Although, I think we are more "Christian" than most nations. And at least in this country we have the freedom and right to be a Christian and vote/fight/work for laws that are consistent with Biblical principles.

Laurie

Re: Confessions of a Recovering Obama-Maniac
Reply #22 on : Fri August 08, 2008, 17:11:12

Glen,

It is patently false that pro-choice equals pro abortion.

Many or most pro choicers simply believe that the individual, rather than the government, should have the right to make complicated reproductive choices.

Maybe we'd get farther on this issue in this country if the pro-life and pro-choice sides of the debate stopped demonizing each others as baby-killers and woman-haters respectively and came together to address some of the issues that underlie a woman's decision to have an abortion.

Glen Hentz

Re: Confessions of a Recovering Obama-Maniac
Reply #23 on : Fri August 08, 2008, 18:51:25

Laurie,

Abstinence is a choice. Adoption is a choice. Condoms and other forms of birth control are choices. Abortion is a choice. All of which are choices that deal with the birth of an unwanted child. Not separate. Equal. It has been my experience that you don't find "pro-choicers" advocating abstinence with the same passion in an abortion debate. It is dismissed and all but completely ignored. You will not find them touting the merits of birth control or adoption. What you do find is "pro-choicers" arguing for abortion. Why do these subjects rarely, if ever, come up? Because the crux of the abortion debate is, well, abortion. Choices take place before the choice to abort. As stated, all of the above are choices. Yes, birth control can fail. I'm not blaming anyone if and when it does, but more often than not, you won't find "pro-choicers" addressing this, because, to them, this is about nothing more than keeping abortion on the table. Pro-abortion. Example: pregnant teen. She finds herself faced with three choices. Abortion, adoption, raising. Only one of these choices is relevant to "pro-choicers". I, in no way, am objecting to this. We simply need to be honest about the language we use. Abortion is not a noble cause to be trumpeted from the rooftops. It is distasteful and should always remain thus, but if you support it, go right ahead. I do, but don't try to fool yourself into thinking you are championing the cause of "choice", because you're not.

Tim

Re: Glen
Reply #24 on : Fri August 08, 2008, 21:28:59

I disagree. I'm very pro-choice, but not an abortion supporter. I believe there are situations out there when termination of a pregnancy is necessary. The government doesn't shouldn't have the right to make the judgment call on whether it's right or wrong. The mother and any other parties involved have a hard enough time with that decision without the government sticking its nose in. It's also a health issue. If abortion were illegal, there would still be the same number of abortions going on, just with clothes hangers and unsafe pills. So anti-abortion, pro-choice is a common standpoint among us too.

Rachel

On voting
Reply #25 on : Sat August 09, 2008, 00:15:37

For Brent and those engaged in the conversation about voting, here are some thoughts from Claiborne and Haw in “Jesus for President.”

They write: “As the 2004 presidential election
campaign heated up, we wrestled with the question of voting—whether to vote, who to vote for, how much significance to give the act of voting…As the debates between Kerry and Bush raged on, it became apparent that both believed in the redeeming effects of violence...” (p. 333)

“As we heard this, the political dissonance between being a Christian and a citizen of the U.S. became more unmistakable. Christian politics (like the Sermon on the Mount) not only are alien to the requirements of becoming a president but are detestable and would be laughed out of the debate (if not worse)…Some of us began to think that if God had wanted us to vote, God would have given us some better options to choose from (wink). “ (p. 333)

“…The distinctly kingdom question is not about how we should vote but about how we should live. The decision we make in each future election is no more important than how we vote every day…We vote every day with our feet, our hands, our lips, and our wallets. We are to vote for the poor. We are to vote for the peacemakers. We are to vote for the marginalized, the oppressed, the most vulnerable in society. These are the ones Jesus voted for… And when it comes to voting for candidates, we can use the same prophetic imagination we’ve explored in this book.” (p. 333)

[Here the authors go on to describe how members of one Christian community decided to spend time with their immigrant friends who did not have the right to vote to find out who they would vote for. The Christians then went to the polls to vote on behalf of their friends, “this voiceless” of the empire.]

Claiborne and Haw conclude:
“There are endless ways to engage politically. We just need imagination and courage…When our options seem to limit us to choosing the lesser of two evils (or the evil of two lessers), then we must not put our faith in anything short of God, or we will be sadly disappointed…Sometimes voting may be little more than attempting to lessen the impact of the empire—less of a vote for something and more of a vote against something we know to be out of line with God’s dream. And perhaps for others, rocking the vote may mean going to the booths and writing in our Canddiate, because he doesn’t seem to be on the ballot.”

***I think that their thoughts would support those of us who wish to lessen the impact of the empire by voting against the continued war in Iraq (and the neglect of the poor and sick in America), as well as those of us who wish to lessen the impact of the empire by voting against the death of innocent babies. ****

I also think that they properly remind us that NO PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE EMBODIES THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS...So perhaps we ought to all agree to write Him in! :)

Write a comment

Required fields are bold and marked with *.

Evolving in Monkey Town

living, learning, and re-thinking fundamentalism in the town that gave it its name

Confessions of a Recovering Obama-Maniac

Write a comment

It happens to everyone...