“Obama or McCain? It’s a no-brainer!”
That was what our Aussie friend Sally T, who was here in the States recently, said when asked her opinion about the American presidential election. And she meant by this that Obama was the hands-down best choice. I have to be honest and say that this is what every non-American I have met in the last year says about the choice of candidates. I cannot recall even one who has pitched for either Clinton (in the primaries) or McCain when venturing their opinion. And just so that you know, I do travel extensively in the US, Europe, Australia, and South Africa. Now fair enough, they don’t get to vote for either candidate, and so can be dismissed as seemingly insignificant. But Americans need to be aware that all non-Americans do get to wear American choices because the President of the US is in fact the most influential person in the world and directly affects everyone, everywhere. Please don’t forget that.
What I am about to say I have deliberated long and hard over. And I do it with a deep sense of caution as well as a sense of profound love for (and calling to) America and the American people. I am about as American in spirit as a non-American can get! and I don’t mind going on record that I am strongly pro-American. So, I don’t say this lightly. On top of this sense of respect, I am loathe to engage directly in a sensitive political issue on a dedicatedly missional website. I don’t want to mix the message and dilute what I believe to be the essential one–that the church gets its missional act together–so the reader will have to excuse my political diversion here. I hope and trust you will. And once this is said, we can get back to business as usual for ye olde TFW site. So let me just say it– I agree with Sally (and all the others) here.
I say this mainly because I think that Obama is the symbolic choice: His election, if successful, will signal the healing of deep racial wounds and will, in effect, symbolize the utter greatness of America. Think about it! That America can elect a professing Christian, with an African Muslim (of all things!) father, a white mother, and a very strange sounding name to boot, to be its leader (and by extension, the leader of the free world) IS significant in the true meaning of the word. I can’t tell you what this will communicate symbolically to the rest of the world! imagine what this will mean to the Africans alone, let alone all those nations who struggle with race and ideological issues? And who doesn’t? And to do this in precisely this current, profoundly complex, global situation we all find ourselves in–well, that’s the historical piece. Hey, at the very least Obama represents the reconciliation of opposites…just look at him. He is himself a symbol of what I am saying: He reconciles black and white in his very person. He reconciles ‘the familiar’ and ‘the other’ in the precisely same way. He cannot but be symbolic. And that’s the least of it. At best, the symbolic power of a President Obama can itself potentially restore the prestige that America has lost over the last decade. Perhaps he might even develop it beyond where it has previously been since perhaps FDR in WW2. This can only be a good thing! America can, and should, stand as the symbolic re-presentation of the worlds best hopes. The other continents have a much darker history and struggle to be that which America at her best can, and should, be (except perhaps for my beloved Australia-but we are so far “down under” that it doesn’t really matter 
)
Seriously, as I see it, this choice represents a genuinely historical one. In my hack opinion, I do not think that such choices present themselves to any nation very often. It might be decades, if ever, that such an opportunity presents itself again–especially in light of the global situation. Viewed in this way, Obama can be seen as “a gift” to an America that has lost its moral standing in the global context.
One more thing, and here it becomes much more subjective, I do sense something of possible greatness in Obama. He has all the potential to be what can legitimately be called a ‘great leader’. He seems to be a very wise and considered person. There is sense of moral authority in him and we can only pray develops into genuine greatness–a Mandela-in-the-making. In saying this I am NOT saying that he is perfect, or that he is some sort of black messiah. God forbid we should lay any of our deepest hopes on him, or any other potential human pretender to Jesus’ rightful place. But I do believe he is the man of the moment. And as you can see, for my vote (if I had one), he has won my heart. It is interesting to note that Colin Powell has come to the same conclusion today in endorsing Obama.
And just to soften what I am saying here for my Republican friends and colleagues, I am NOT a natural ‘liberal’ of “lefty”. In fact I would be what Americans call “an independent” or a swing voter. And I am NOT saying the McCain isn’t a really good man. I think he is a very principled, open-hearted, dedicated, politician who has served his country well over a lifetime. In fact I think he can be a really good president. Its just that he cannot represent to the world, and to America itself, what Obama can. Greatness will therefore elude him. And lets face it, the election of the president of America is not only an American event, it is a global one. Therefore I am calling for Americans to go for greatness.
So there, shock, horror, I said it!! And if I have offended protocol, or intruded on your political sensibilities, forgive me and be kind to me. I have just felt that I should take the risk of possibly alienating some people in order to bring a perspective that Americans might not normally get….a global one.
Comments
172 Responses to ““Obama or McCain? It’s a no-brainer!””
I agree and have said similar things from the beginning. I’m an independent albeit a “liberal” one but I believe more than anything, Obama is what we need right now - not only in America but globally. We need someone with his worldview, his approach to global politics and his attitudes toward diplomacy as well as his ideas about the economy and social matters. put simply, I believe he’s the TYPE of leader we need, the figurehead we need and the representative we need.
Having said that, I don’t think a McCain win would be the end of the world and I agree that he seems to be a very decent principled man…and I certainly am not naive or blind enough to think that Obama is the answer to everything..but I do believe he’s what we need in this hour.
Never really thought of Obama as a “reconcilation of opposites”. However, I completely agree with that notion. We can no longer avoid that the time to confront the racial, political, economic opposites we seem to gloss over every day.
Alan…I agree with and appreciate yours and Brian McLaren’s perspective.
We are in a time of reconciliation and it seems as though Obama might be the one who can begin that process for the U.S. with the world. This ties in very well with the missional church.
peace from your local moderate…
Not sure why my other comment was rejected. I support your right to cast your ballot however you wish and your choice to post about that on your site - it’s your vote & site. I disagree with your choice, but more because I do not think Mr. Obama is the best choice for our country (nor do I think that Mr. McCain is, but that’s another story).
Personally, I am bothered that Mr. Obama is extremely pro-abortion and pro-same-sex-marriage - two positions that just don’t line up with scripture. I find it ironic then that he would be a “gift” to the American people who have lost their moral standing. He has a lot of great talk about caring for the poor, but all of it is at taxpayer expense, not in the sense that the church should care for people. Worse, it doesn’t differentiate between the poor who are poor because they do not work and those who can not work. Worse still, he wants to penalize those who have worked themselves into a great position and re-distribute their wealth to others.
I’ll flip what one of the above comments said - if he wins it won’t be the end of the world, but I don’t believe he’s what we need in this hour. He may be what we deserve, but not what we need.
I still respect your opinion, even if I disagree with your presidential choice. For me - I just cannot support a candidate whose opinions and choices differ from mine by such a vast degree. I don’t really agree with most of what Mr. McCain has to say, either, but he’s closer to where I stand than Mr. Obama. I really don’t look forward to casting my ballot this election day just because my choices are so bad this year. *sigh*
Wow. I’m one of those independent (been described as “libertarian” once) voters, a registered Republican who has not make up his mind yet…until just now. Not only do I deeply respect your opinion, but the global opinion simply cannot be ignored in this particular election. How America is perceived by the rest of the world is perhaps the single most significant issue here. And if in fact the only guy I would be honored to vote for as president of the US (Collin Powell…who is too smart to run for the office) is actually endorsing O, then I’m going with him too.
Wow.
Well said as always Al, and I agree with you.
I’ve found it interesting over the past few months how much criticism has been levelled at me by fellow Christians because I’ve openly said I was supporting Barack Obama. A lot of the same criticisms I received when I supported Labor in the last Australian federal election.
Why is it that we place so much emphasis on issues of morality, and less on justice and reconciliation as evangelical Christians. I don’t support Obama’s policies relating to abortion and homosexuality, neither can I support McCain’s taxation, welfare and health care policies. But I’m labelled ‘liberal’ for not supporting the ‘conservative’ candidate, liberal in the theological sense as well as the political sense. I’m neither.
It amazes me that Jesus’ passion for justice for the poor and needy seems to be less important than issues of morality. Surely they’re all important.
I’ve also found that Obama’s explanations of his Christian faith seem to be genuine, and unlike the platitudes trotted out by a lot of politicians targetting the Christian vote.
(As an aside, it was at the inaugural Forge National Summit that after too many years in polarised church that I discovered that it was possible to be evangelical, hold to an orthodox interpretation of scripture, AND be passionate about social justice.)
I plan on voting for Obama, but I have to admit that as I was reading your post I experienced a tiny, “OMG, he’s the anti-christ!” freak out moment.
Alan,
As a member of the body of Western Christianity, I too see some importance in how we represent ourselves. But the representation should be a reflection of Jesus, not us prostituting ourselves in blatent disobediance of God’s laws. Obama may represent many things, but as said in an eariler post, his radical stances on pro choice, homosexuality and same sex marriage certainly are inconsistent with Scripture. Unless one sees these as insignificant issues……
Alan: I am an American Bible college professor. I am deeply disappointed in this decision of yours to take a stance on such a volatile issue that has little to do with the message that you have so eloquently written on. I have loved your book, but now I am not so sure that I should have so much confidence in you. I almost feel like you have drunk the “Obama Kool-Aid” and shown a great lack of discernment in taking a position for one candidate over the other. Both Obama and McCain are troubling to me and, as a Christian leader, I have determined to not mix my ministry in any way with advocacy of political candidates. I am convinced that we dilute the impact of our ministry when we advocate for or against a candidate. To advocate FOR and speaking glowingly of a candidate who has such an extreme view of abortion as Obama raises profound doubts as to your wisdom and prudence. I have been for some candidates who were elected and against others. Nevertheless, my strong opinions notwithstanding, God has sovereignly raised up some leaders and brought down others. To presume that Obama represents anything more positive than McCain is to import your own presuppositions and foist into your ministry your own naivete about the truth of which either candidate says. I think this decision of yours is ill-advised. I doubt that either of these candidates is worthy of endorsement. Certainly not Obama. Now a fresh cloud hangs over your own ministry and that is truly disappointing.
Dave
I actually don’t see Obama as inconsistent with Christ’s messages and I also don’t see his stances on those issues as radical. So that’s a matter of opinion as always with most things of this nature.
I also think it’s important to differentiate between values and morals - all of these things need to be weighed as a whole.
You know, bearing in mind that Republican is not synonymous with Christian and that even Christian, Godly people can be well-intentioned but wrong, is it not within the realm of possibility that lawmakers that profess to have the same values as the church could have ulterior motives?
How many “pro-family” Republican presidencies have we had within the last 30ish years since Roe v. Wade? In that time, they have managed to convince politicians on both sides of the fence to agree on many issues - often going against their own party lines - in order to come to a resolution. Yet amazingly the FEW times abortion reform has been brought up, it just manages to peter out. Could it be that the GOP realizes that apart from 2 or 3 key issues, they would basically be on level ground with the the Dems? What motivation then is there for the Republicans to make any REAL progress toward changing laws?
The church has become like a foolish woman who “puts out” for any lawmaker that says the magic words of abortion and anti-homosexuality. But the lawmakers do not love the church… they just want our money and unquestioning support.
I read an article months ago saying the rest of the world wanted Obama as president, but of course… it’s not up to the rest of the world.
On a couple of the other commments, I can feel a rant coming on….
“He has a lot of great talk about caring for the poor, but all of it is at taxpayer expense, not in the sense that the church should care for people.”
I strongly disagree with the implication that all social welfare should be shifted to the churches… I think they are ill-equipped (and not infrequently unwilling) to deal with poverty adequately.
My local church ministers seem to spend a great deal of time giving out food vouchers and referring homeless people for possible accomodation… and it’s great to be salt and light in the community… but you could see this as pulling them away from their primary calling to equip God’s people… and this is happening in a country with a far better social welfare safety net than in the U.S.
Peter… do you truly believe churches would be able to deal with all of the poor of America adequately and with dignity if no government support were available? I think it would be a most unreasonable impost on the churches, and on the good will of Christian people.
To be honest, I don’t actually know of many people who are willing to take Isaiah 58:7
seriously… and even if you are one of them Peter, do you believe that there are enough Christians willing to embrace the all the homeless of America in this way? I’d suggest such a view is naive… that it is better to have adequate supplies of public housing, or at the very least, taxation policies and other incentives that encourage investors to provide low-priced rental accomodation for the poor.
Many homeless people have mental illness and addiction issues, and I think most Christian people are ill-equipped to deal with these kinds of issues… it actually is a better option to have trained social workers, drug counsellors, etc taking primary responsibility for such people… supplemented by the kindness and friendship of God’s people of course.
How do you REALLY see it working if the churches are to take responsibility for ALL the needs of the poor, or is this just rhetoric? What is your church doing for the poor? Would it cope with a huge surge in demand? Personally, I think provision of saftey nets for disadvantaged members of society is rightly the responsibility of all citizens, regardless of their religious persuasion.
I don’t regard taxing the relatively well-off at a higher rate than others as a “punishment”… paying tax is a responsibility as a citizen… if you want a society that has a legal system, a police force, a defence force, universal education for children, adequate roads, water supplies, infrastructure and the provision of safety nets for the poor (which reduces crime anyway!) then taxation is required.
A system where people on minimum wages have to pay the same tax rate as those on executive salaries denies the poor necessities… a system where the well-off pay a higher tax rate denies the wealthy some luxuries…. I don’t see that this is so terrible. The wealthy have rarely worked their way up from the bottom of society by sheer hard work… they usually have some educational, cultural and financial advantages to start with. Most countries in the world tax the well off and higher rates than the poor… I just can’t see it as the terrible “punishment” you describe.
On another issue (and more controversially)… ever since John Locke’s famous “Letter Concerning Toleration” of the 17th century, there has been a strong argument advanced that religious questions should not be mandated by civil law. I would argue the same could be said for moral questions. If we are to adopt OT standards of morality holus-bolus, we would make not only homosexual acts, but adultery (and even disobedience to parents) criminal acts (punishable by death under the Mosaic law.) I see a lot of inconsistency in the moral stance of Christians that seems to have more to do with prejudice than righteousness… the same people who want homosexual acts to be illegal, don’t campaign for adultery (or sex between unmarried persons) to be illegal. Do we really think they should be? Do we think sex is the business of individuals, or the business of the state? Do we think religious moral views should be imposed by law? How do non-Christians perceive what Jesus is like if we campaign in this way?
On a really murky issue… I don’t know of anyone who is “pro-abortion” as if abortion were a good thing…. abortion is always tragic. I do know of people who believe that abortion should be legal… that if it is not legal, some hideous backyard abortions will be performed, and some children will be born into situations of terrible abuse and neglect. I’m regretfully forming the view that although it’s worth expending considerable effort to reduce the number of abortions (pragmatic sex education, adequate access to contraception etc.) it is probably is the greater of two evils to have an absolute prohibition on abortions. I respect others will come to a different conscience decision on this, but I do think it’s important to move beyond “abortion is bad” to thinking about the implication for society if abortions are illegal.
Sorry that was so looonngggg… on a roll…
Just re-read your comment Peter and note you said “penalise” not “punish”… my apology.
They say not to talk about sex, religion or politics in polite society, and we’re doing all three… no wonder we’re all getting het up!
I can’t believe what I’ve read here your blog entry Alan. In breaking down what you are saying, you believe we should vote for Obama because he would be popular in the world’s eyes.
You say he’s a “professing Christian”. Is there evidence of this? He turned his back on his “spiritual mentor” for over 20 years because it didn’t fit well with his political advancement. Would you do that?
In my eyes I see something similar to a pastor who will say and do anything to draw a crowd. Who tells his crowd exactly what it wants to hear.
Too many christians believe that if we stop abortion and gay marriage in the United States then the rest of the world will “work itself out.” I think that we do need to be aware that we are 5% of the world and that there are many other issues at hand. That said, I do know that this election could have certain consequence for the future of Roe v Wade, because the appointment of Supreme Court justices will be made. I am not concerned with the gay marriage issue because it polarizes our culture for no reason, ultimately. Anyone in a homosexual relationship is enagaging in sexual activity that is contrary to God’s purpose. If the church had not become polluted with politics we would also take a strong stance against “shacking up” and “unbiblical divorce.” It would only make sense. But I am not concerned with such things from a political standpoint.
All things said, I am wrestling with my choice. I definitely like Obama more - he is not PRO-abortion. He was right on the Iraq war. McCain could appoint supreme court justices that may change laws on abortion. Obama seems to “care” more about other nations and not just have more informed foreign policy.
Alan, I get your perspective. I do not “scold” you for sharing your thoughts on Obama (like the professor who is obviously voting for McCain) and do not contend that you have a cloud over your ministry. I met you this year and I believe you are a missionary to this country. Thanks for the Forgotten Ways! It has greatly influenced my philosophy of Ministry.
jared
I think I’m about ditto with you, Alan, except that in my case I can vote! I am registered as an Independent here in Michigan.
I have my pros and cons with both major parties and candidates, and don’t want to say for sure how I’ll vote here. Abortion is a big issue for me, though I think the entire discussion has to be so much more nuanced, and in doing that, I’m far from sanguine about putting in another “pro-life” Republican or thinking that even overturning Roe v Wade will solve the problem. Obama does speak some sense into this issue, even if I do strongly disagree with his voting record on this and his pro-choice stance. And I do like the organization, Democrats for Life and their 90/10 proposal (called something like that), which I think is bipartisan.
To be fair Jared, Dave appears not to like either candidate and may not be voting at all. (I like that about America… Australia has compulsory voting unless you’re a conscientious objector). However, I personally take exception to “a cloud hangs over your own ministry”. I would hope the Christian community has enough maturity to allow both liberty of conscience and freedom of expression on any matters. If someone was “pro McCain” I wouldn’t judge their ministry… if someone was “pro Obama” I wouldn’t judge their ministry… it’s just their political opinion.
I don’t believe CHURCHES should ever cooerce their members on political opinions or voting… but Alan speaks as an individual, not as church denomination. Alan is not pastor of a church. Alan is not a salaried teacher in an educational institution. He is an individual who writes books and writes a blog. It might not help his book sales to offer a personal political opinion…. but if there is perception that his ministry is “under a cloud” I will be very disappointed over the small-mindedness of Americans. Land of the free indeed.
P.S. Dave… as a salaried teacher in an educational institution I fully endorse that you should be “apolitical” in your public stance… I think you are under different ethical constraints to Alan.
Thanks for saying it, Alan. As the global hegemon, Americans do hold an enormous responsibility globally, but are largely unaware of the ramifications of their vote beyond our national borders. I’m glad you posted. I completely agree.
I have also come to the same conclusion as Gigi on the American church “putting out” for candidates that promise endlessly, and never deliver. I got tired of being used.
Thanks Alan. As a European and a Christian I agree wholeheartedly. But it takes more courage to say these things where you live.
Alan,
you have said what all non americans think, beautiful!! I love america and my american brothers and sisters. I just hope they see your heart. Christianty is not another word republican.
God bless you and may he keep you safe
Just heard on the news that diehard Republican, Colin Powell, former Secretary of State for George W Bush formally endorsed Barak Obama instead of John McCain.
That is highly significant.
I think it is because he believes America needs to head in a new direction than the one it has been going in for the past decade or more.
Powell is a Christian.
So why does he support one Christian candidate above another?
McCain is most certainly a genuine Christian. His faithfulness during his captivity in North Vietnam during the Vietnam War is legendary. His gentlemanly behaviour toward his opponent during this campaigning deserves great respect. He is truly a likeable, honest and highly skilled politician – and it seems you don’t get too many of those in real life.
McCain appears to be a very worthy candidate.
Barak Obama, despite what some of his opponents say, is also a genuine Christian. He also bridges the racial divide – being both African American and White – in what represents a reconciliation of sorts between both of those major sections of the US community. He is also a man of strong principle, honest, a highly skilled politician and has many highly admirable qualities about him that I like too .
Barak Obama also appears to be a very worthy candidate.
Now I know some – perhaps many of you – would disagree with me about that. But I think it needed to be said. Because that’s the truth as I see it.
But under the present system of political things, only one of them can win.
What a pity one good candidate must lose with all the good he has to offer the US and the rest of the world, because both cannot win.
Bipartisanship across the political divide of Republican and Democrat is not an [presidential or systematic ] option.
Only one can win!
The sad thing about it is that both Obana and McCain probably offer important things that the USA and the rest of the world need. But because of the way things are set up only one of them can. That’s a big shortfall of the system. It’s a real pity that can’t be changed somehow.
So imagine if the system could be changed into something better.
Its okay to imagine something better for something important as this, isn’t it?
So imagine if the system could be changed so we `got the best of both worlds”?
What if the winner of the presidency could employ the runner up – supposably the second best option in the country for leadership – as his second in command?
Then you’d still have the biggest majority choice, but also their real second choice at the leadership helm.
What if part of accepting high office meant putting aside their party differences for the common higher good. Isn’t that what the best presidents do anyway?
Wouldn’t that be far more democratically representative than the existing status quo way of doing things?
You’re right. It will probably never, ever happen. In our life-times, at least.
But I can’t help thinking that when talking about the in-breaking reign of Christ into history, somewhere and somehow it must happen at some time.
Didn’t Jesus pray, “That they may be one, even as I am One with the Father”.
Well was Jesus’ prayer one of faith or not?
Is what Jesus prayed going to happen or not within the human dimensions of our political systems and relationships?
Is it too much to imagine that somehow, somewhere, someone is going to take Jesus’ prayer and its implications for Christians working in politics seriously enough to suggest something radical like challenging the existing status quo of things by advocating more genuinely bipartisan models of leadership in situations of high political office? Especially in such a unique situation where both of the candidates supposably love and serve the Lord?
You see. There is something really bothers me about our models and systems of leadership in the USA and Australia.
We don’t get the best, because we settle for less than the best due to corrupting pressures such as factional favours, stakeholder influences etc.
With a two-party system you only get the choice of two options – just one or the other usually – but not the wider range of options that could be offered in between.
So what if the two became one, and then consummated their political marriage by birthing a whole new way – a whole new `communitas model’ of doing things politically, mutually respectfully under the ever-present motto “in God we trust”.
Just remember, I’m just imagining this.
What if Barak Obama and John McCain came together as brothers in Christ and prayed, and discussed, and prayed, and reflected upon God’s word together, and listened to each other diligently, and prayed, and listened to God, and prayed, humbly prayed, and repented on behalf of the nation, and prayed, and finally heard together as leaders in unity what God is really saying to the USA , the world and them as world leaders…. and then worked together instead of separately?
Jesus prayed, “Oh Father, that they may be one, even as I am One with the Father …”
Might be a `pipe dream’ to some. But I’d rather envisage something much better than the current status quo way of doing things than not dream at all!
I nominate Obama for Prime Minister of Australia!
it’s been said a hundred times before, but, why do so many (western) christian people consider abortion & homosexuality as synonomous with “morality” and not other things like caring for the poor, loving justice, being humble, not gossiping, greed etc etc.
last time i checked our god was the god of all these things… the defining feature of a hebraic understanding of god was that he was one god over all (as opposed to many gods for many occassions/things).
you taught me that al… i’ve probably summarised it poorly but i think it is a critical point when discussing politics from a christian viewpoint.
also, i don’t understand why some have problem with others expressing their opinion… just read on and deal with it if you disagree - i don’t think it is some massive dissappointment “endorsing” someone. you’d get in less trouble for endorsing a drunken debaucherous football team. crazy.
Al you’re a gutsy man. Having just spent a month in your new county I know how difficult it is to be open about your political opinions.
For me it is a no brainer. I have watched the debates, read the articles, tuned into both CNN and Fox and weighed it all up. But I do respect and love to hear from those who think differently – which is why I have enjoyed this blog. Missional scmissional…give me some juicy politics. Ha!
I try to get inside the mind of conservatives (including my beloved parents) who are so black and white about one or two issues, but overlook major, widespread breakdowns and havoc caused by certain policies. I oppose abortion, but if I was in government I wouldn’t make it illegal. I can’t enforce my moral beliefs on the whole population, so I would consider actions and policies which would bring about the least harm to humankind. The Bush government recently cut off birth control supplies to some of the world’s poorest women in Africa. This pro-life based policy will paradoxically lead to tens of thousands of additional abortions each year, along with more women dying in childbirth.
As Christianity Today recently quoted – Martin Luther said he would rather be ruled by a competent Turk, ie a Muslim, than an incompetent Christian. Eight years ago the US had a budget surplus, peace and prosperity reigned, and America was universally respected. Now when I tell people I am a Christian they don’t mention the Crusades, they mention George Bush. I have strong social justice values which I believe are birthed out of my faith – so such a comparison is difficult to take.
When you back a football team you support them one-eyed through thick and thin. That’s the job of a true supporter. They can be a shambles each week on the field and you’ll still wave around your coloured scarf with determined pride. But when it comes to leading a country, a country that has such a powerful and direct impact on the rest of the world, you can’t afford to stick with your team because you’re a ‘true supporter’. We all need to stand back, evaluate and weigh it up. If, at the end of that process, you come to the same conclusion – at least you have gone through the process and you can have confidence that your decision is informed. You have done your best to see all sides and perspectives.
On November 4th millions of people around the world are affected by the American vote. Many of us can’t participate, but we are affected. As an American your vote carries significant responsibility.
Hey Bill. Why would we want Obama when we’ve got even better with Kevin from Heaven Rudd as our PM.
(All jokes about names aside, I actually think Kevin Rudd is a genuine Christian and good leader to boot. Took guts & great theological insight & political courage for Kevin to do what had been staunchly resisted by almost all previous political leaders of all political persuasions - write the Apology to the Stolen Generation of Aboriginal People, and actually sincerely mean it. I believe Obama and McCain could learn alot from his example in terms of initiating a real apology to the Stolen Generations of Native American people in the USA for past broken treaties, land grabs and other injustices perpetrated against them).
Janet: Thank you for your comments. However, to be clear, as a Bible college professor in America, I am not required to be apolitical except in public forums. I have many opportunities around the lunch table and in informal dialogue with students to be political and it is within my right to do so. However, while I do discuss issues, moral positions, etc., with my students, I have chosen to not play my hand in terms of politics (putting a bumper sticker on my car, advocating for a particular candidate) because, the moment I do so, I create a divide. No longer is God’s Word or Christ the focus of my ministry because my political persuasion will of necessity become the focus. I have seen this happen time and time again in over 35 years of ministry. I happen to teach in a Bible college that has an even racial mix. I am white. If I were, for instance, to come out pro-McCain (which I am not), I would immediately create a divide between my black students (who are predominately pro-Obama) and myself. The same could happen in reverse if I were to speak openly in support of Obama. This is why I am disheartened that Alan would choose to take a position EITHER WAY. I would be equally disheartened if he had come out pro-McCain. Now the thrust of Alan’s ministry is forever altered - we cannot read his writings or hear him speak without subconsciously nuancing everything he says in light of his pro-Obama stance. I happen to believe that Obama is a charlatan, an empty suit, a fascile and glib spokesman for a worldview that doesn’t work, never has worked, a viewpoint that is godless and immoral. I cannot believe any thinking person who is a mature believer would publicly advocate Obama’s presidency (although they may privately vote for him as the lesser of two evils). However, there is plenty of dirt on McCain, as well. What Alan has done is very unwise for he has taken his positive and exciting ministry and has laden it with political overtones that will distract his “disciples” from the core of his very valuable message. This is very sad.
One more comment - I do not make a distinction of KIND between homosexuality, abortion, caring for the poor, and justice. These are all moral issues. However, to compare feeding or not feeding the poor with the slaughter of unborn helpless infants in their mothers’ wombs is a distinction of DIMENSION. The horror of those two are incomparable. Injustice is wrong wherever it exists, but there is a greater wrong where helpless fetal life is assaulted and where the core of humanity (gender) is undermined through homosexuality. Abortionists and homosexuals are to be loved by the Church with great passion. But we should never equate failing to give a bowl of soup to a homeless person with putting a saline solution into a mother’s body to kill her baby.
Ah, but Andrew, don’t you know that being the “Greatest Country in the World” means never having to say you’re sorry?!
I honestly don’t think Americans - especially Christian Americans - get the impact of their past actions at all… I got a glimpse of this willful ignorance when I realized how many Christian schools, churches and para-church organizations proudly choose to name things with some form of the word “Crusade”.
Alan,
Thank you for taking that risk. I felt the EXACT same things about him as I heard him speak at the DNC. I thought this guy has got a serious leadership gift. He also has an identity that would really be healing for america.
So I agree with that. I then got somewhat turned off to him (as much as I’ve been influenced by emergent and missional discussions) when I learned of his fervent advocacy for pro-choice. I dont mean to be so religious right, cuz I’m not, but I couldnt believe that as a professing Christian he has voted for every legislation to go as far pro-choice as possible. I find that very weird that he wouldn’t just keep it as it is, but wants to take it further in the other direction. (for a specific he’d like to codify roe v wade)
I just find it somewhat disturbing that a professing Christian would want to take it further in the pro-choice direction rather than just leaving it where its at right now.
The other perspective I have received from my Republican-Far Right father is that he thinks Obama is an amazing orator, but nothing beyond that is evident.
We’ll see if my father is right about that,
but I do believe he’s a very powerful person in his leadership and his personna,
We’ll see if he can do half of what he says he’ll do if he’s president,
Peace from Providence,
Travis
Is there anyone more “pro-choice” than God? He placed two innocent people in the Garden of Eden that knew no pain and suffering. In that garden he offered abundant fruit on the tree of life, but he also created the tree of the knowledge of good and evil - KNOWING FULL WELL (Depending on your theology of God) that they would fail.
Had we been in charge of the Garden we would have cut down, fenced off, or burnt up the Tree of Knowledge while at the same time rationing out fruit from the Tree of Life.
And that is exactly what we are doing when we take a backseat in prevention and counseling (Leaving all the work to pregnancy centers who have to BEG for money every year and most barely make ends meet), when we withhold love from women that have had abortions and treat them like a pariah unless they chose to speak out against it, and when we don’t show we can care for the mothers that choose to keep their babies, and fail to support children who are already orphaned.
The last point is I think is key! How many times does scripture tell us to care for orphans - as opposed to throwing money at charities and essentially telling the children to “be warm and well-fed”?
If everyone who so vigorously promoted pro-life issues would also be willing to adopt a child or two that has been stuck in the system, it would be a testimony to the rest of America and politicians that we back up what we say we stand for. And perhaps in helping these children and showing them the love of Christ we would decrease abortions for a whole generation.
Alan et al
Too much to respond to and too little time.
Secondly, I am not sure which is more significant in your post, Alan. The audacity, the naivete, or the imprudence. To think you have swayed even one person to vote one way or the other is shameful. This must make one wonder about your wisdom, and as has been mentioned in these blog comments, the credibility of your ministry.
Obama’s potential to be a great leader? Symbolic choice? You are right there. He is the perfect example of symbolism being greater than substance.
Reconciliation? Nothing in his public record attests to this.
Historical? Maybe in Australia. Many things that are historical are not great, and an Obama presidency would most likely go down as the one rivaling any of a host of world leaders who have mislead the populace with high sounding and empty rhetoric.
After reading “The Forgotten Ways” and then reading this I wonder if you did not deliberate long enough or hard enough before posting your opinion. Another few weeks might have been a better idea. Never, the best.
Secondly Andrew, Colin Powell a diehard Republican?! If this is the political insight that drives people to vote we are in deep trouble? He has never been a diehard Republican. That is laughable.
Lastly, because I have to do real work, to call either Obama or McCain a “real Christian” is a leap. Reading this comment and others by Alan and many of the following comments one wonders how much we are going to allow post-modern thinking to rethink and restate biblical morality, salvation, and more. Scary and treacherous road…
Dave, I do not think that it is fair to compare a bowl of soup to saline. You seem to be very intelligent so I know that you understand God’s heart for the poor and broken more clearly than a bowl of soup. I would argue that the church responding to those in poverty resonates just as loudly with God’s heart as the church encouraging women to “have” their babies and then, providing other options should they not want them after birth.
Alan may always be viewed through the lens of Pro-Obama in your eyes, but not in mine or many others. Ultimately, we are people of faith, not of politics. We can disagree on aspects of our faith and still fulfill the great commission, likewise, I think that we can vote for different candidates and do the same.
Let’s not assign a label to Alan. He may endorse a different candidate four years from now.
Dave,
You say, “I cannot believe any thinking person who is a mature believer would publicly advocate Obama’s presidency (although they may privately vote for him as the lesser of two evils).”
Syllogistically, this is how it works:
Premise 1: “A thinking person who is a mature believer cannot publicly advocate Obama’s presidency.”
Premise 2: “Alan Hirsch has publicly advocated Obama’s presidency.”
Conclusion: “Alan Hirsch is either not a mature believer, or he is not a thinking person, or he is neither.”
This is a valid syllogism. Premise 2 is undeniable. Therefore, if premise 1 is true, the conclusion must be true. And if the conclusion is false, premise 1 must be false.
So given that premise 1 and the conclusion are mutually exclusive, which are you going to give more credence to?
For myself, premise 1 seems much shakier than the conclusion, especially given the other Christian leaders who have spoken in support of Obama.
In general, I find statements in the form “No real Christian can believe X,” where X is a position regarding some non-theological question to be often very problematic. They are problematic because they shut down discussion in an almost ad hominem way (if you disagree with me, you are not a real Christian), and they are problematic because they are typically easily disproved by multiple examples.
- Jonathan
So we should vote for him because he’s black?
Brother, with all due respect, I highly recommend you stick to theology. :p
(This post is coming from a white man married to a black woman)
Dave, if you’re still reading,
I would ask you to reconsider your statement that gender is “the core” of humanity.
(For the record, I do not believe same-sex unions should be called “marriage” and I intend to vote accordingly on a referendum about this in my state.)
I believe gender is an important part of being human, and it has deep resonances in connection with creation. But the core of being human has to be being created in the image of God (and all that means). And however one believes humans came into existence, at the time of creation none of the persons of the Godhead had yet become human; all were still spirit, which is neither male nor female.
If gender is the core of being human, we have some problems:
-those who are born with incomplete reproductive organs or both sets of them are somehow not human (yes, there are such people);
-females should be regarded as more human than males, because we are all female in utero until a wash of xy-connected hormones early on triggers development of male characteristics;
-males should be regarded as more human than females, because God created Adam directly but created Eve indirectly, and therefore males are *more* the image of God than females (Incredibly, there are some Christians who believe this…);
-there is no room for celibacy, because if the defining characteristic of humanity is gender then we are all destined for the reproductive act;
-this must carry through into the next life, when humanity will have been “perfected”, which will include a resurrection body- and as far as we know, it will be gendered.
But Jesus said there will be no marriage “in heaven”. Though we will be embodied, reproduction will not be necessary, and we will know as we are known, so our companionship will be much greater than in any relationship we now experience, and our union much deeper, transcending gender.
These are a few reasons why I hope you will re-think your statement. Thanks.
(Alan, I know this is off topic. I let some time pass after I first read the post this morning, and I debated with myself as to whether I should come back to the blog at all. But this is too important to lived-out theology to let pass without comment.)
Can real world change come from a hierarchical system of government and political figures or from underground, organic movements of people willing to do when nothing is being done?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Phs6CwnutoY&feature=related
Alan-
Thanks for your courage in sharing your thoughts.
What’s saddest to me is that followers of Jesus can’t suspend judgment and personal albeit deep held convictions for open dialogue and consideration of another vantage point.
I know you didn’t do this for affirmation, but as one who has been deeply affected by your thought leading, I don’t see any cloud looming from me or the many others who admire you.
Peace out.
I thought I would add my 2 cents. I consider myself an independent but have leaned republican, and voted for bush both times. I have decided over the last few days that I will be voting for Obama this election.
I think this is very difficult for your typical evangelical American because they have for so long bought the lie that being pro-life, and anti-homosexual makes you a “Christian.” Those issues in my opinion have way to much weight in evangelical circles. The irony of the situation is that thousands of people will fight against abortion, but almost no one is willing to help poor women who do keep their babies get out of the horrible situations that they live in in our cities. We should really call ourselves “pro-birth”, because we have done a really crappy job of caring for “life”
Obama is my choice because it at least appears that he is asking us to look beyond ourselves as individual consumers and to look to help our society and the global society as a whole. Do I totally agree with Obama on his views, no. Do I think he has been billed as some form of a messiah and will ultimately let a lot of people down, Yes. But I think he will leave America and the Globe as a better place.
“To think you have swayed even one person to vote one way or the other is shameful. ”
Rudy… why? Can you say with your hand on your heart you’ve never had a political conversation that may have influenced others? And even if you have avoided this your whole life long, what is it about a political discussion you think is “shameful”?
This is a discussion around opinions. Alan is entitled to his. You are entitled to yours without being castigated or shamed.
Just for clarification Dave… as I see it a college professor is in a situation of POSITIONAL influence. Students are required to attend your classes, and students complete assignments that you mark. I think anyone who holds positional authority should avoid advancing political opinions… ministers, heads of churches, senior public servants, etc. (Also, if you advanced an opinion that was truly was received badly, it might reflect badly on your college, regardless of their policy on staff opinions). I think your stance is wise. As a freelance writer and speaker, I think Alan’s situation is different.
I have trouble imagining you’d commend one of your students for their clear thinking if they claimed everything a particular Academic has written is under a cloud, just because they’d discovered this scholar supported a vote for Obama on their personal blog. It’s absurd. I can’t see how disagreeing with Alan politically requires disagreeing with him in relation to missiology.
“We cannot read his writings or hear him speak without subconsciously nuancing everything he says in light of his pro-Obama stance.”
Actually, I can and do.
Personalities aside, it wouldn’t surprise me if the Republicans get an electoral pummelling from their failure to regulate the banking industry… what a fiasco! Running up a massive budget deficit can’t be helping a liquidity crisis either.
Lastly… I don’t know who you think was lumping homosexuality, caring for the poor and abortion all in the same bucket…. I’d hope we could have a more nuanced conversation than that. But as someone has noted, having had a pro-life president for 8 years hasn’t changed a damn thing… there seem to be just as many abortions as ever. Having a pro-choice president probably won’t change anything either. I think we need to acknowledge the horse bolted on this issue in the 70’s, and be pragmatic enough to work a whole lot harder on prevention (and as has been noted, support of disadvantaged mothers).
Dear Friend,
With love, gentleness, and respect, I disagree.
Obama misses the mark when it comes to our constitutional freedoms written by our founding forefathers and I personally enjoy hearing your thoughts and ideas in our country without being mandated to present an opposite view all the time. (The Fairness Doctrine Act that Obama wants to bring back into effect). I enjoyed meeting you twice but will not listen to you if you have to have an opposing view! yes, i know it’s for the radio.
When we discuss human life we need to examine the right to protest, parental involvement, partial & full birth abortion bans, waiting time for woman receiving the information on abortion and fetal homicide laws regarding the infant in the womb as a victim and not just the mother. Nobody ever mentions these things and how laws affect them. It’s interesting when Obama talks about abortion as an important moral issue with good people on both sides (3rd debate). I thought a moral issue had to have a right and wrong and not two rights?
I agree that laws cannot make people good and morality cannot be legislated. But what makes a law a law? All law is a reflection of some moral code. To say that you cant legislate morality is a half-truth. Law is concerned with rights and wrongs and restraining evil and protecting good. you should listen to the two candidates answering questions at the Saddleback Church forum if you want to hear any substance from these guys. Christians are free from the curse of the law but not from the demands of the law. Not to mention McCain will appoint more conservative supreme court judges concerning marriage, bioethics and family law and who will interpret the law. I feel Obama will put in more liberal thinking judges who will legislate from the bench.
as for education…I dont want kindergartens learning about masturbation, homosexuality and touching where it feels good. You need to read the bill!
i’m sorry, but I have a problem with that.
Universal voluntary preschool is a contradiction just saying it. How is it voluntary when your making kids enroll? read it…it’s in there. I would like to decide where my kids go to school and I want to decide at what age they should begin as their parent.
The Bible has a lot to say about the outcast, marginalized, orphans and widows, sick and hungry,but taking money from the rich and distributing it to the poor is not one of the solutions mentioned in the good book.
I have said more than enough without even getting into the gun control, immigration, character & integrity, national security, etc.
Not to mention the power of the media and campaign funds generated by Obama. I want to know why he doesn’t run a more fiscally responsible campaign and redistribute the rest of the money to people like Joe the Plumber?
Micah - I am cutting and pasting your second para simply because it bears repeating and re-reading. Bless.
“I think this is very difficult for your typical evangelical American because they have for so long bought the lie that being pro-life, and anti-homosexual makes you a “Christian.” Those issues in my opinion have way to much weight in evangelical circles. The irony of the situation is that thousands of people will fight against abortion, but almost no one is willing to help poor women who do keep their babies get out of the horrible situations that they live in in our cities. We should really call ourselves “pro-birth”, because we have done a really crappy job of caring for “life””
Janet - you are marvellously articulate and intelligent and I have so enjoyed reading your posts.
Pro-life? Who’s life? Pro-innocent Iraqi’s–90,000 killed in Bush’s war. A war that McCain backed and Obama had the guts to vote against. So, who’s pro-life?
Dave, seminary professor… I can hear the condescending tisk tisk in our writing… I am disappointed you’d use such arrogant language. It is I who are disappointed in you.
Those of us who follow Christ are “people of the book”…and in that narrative I find great stories of imperfect men and women stepping into leadership roles. I’m guessing that we would never vote in any of the OT kings - too many polygamists and crooks. And Solomon’s building programs likely exceeded the economic bail-out of our day. Imperfection is part of the deal.
I find it troubling that so many in the Christian world are incapable of seeing the other perspective and at least acknowledging that person can follow Christ and vote Democratic! Obama is not, as many pointed out, pro-abortion (is anyone?). He sees a right to privacy in our constitution - though I think he misses an opportunity to draw parallels to other examples of social policy (drinking age, drug laws, etc) that infringe on privacy for the common good. Neither candidate is pro-life (thanks Lance) as both have called for military action that would kill other people (bad people by national identity).
And why should Americans care what the world thinks? Because we are - shocking as this may seem - part of the world and becoming increasingly dim. Travel to Asia - the cities of the Tiger are alive with innovation. They still need our markets for their goods - for now. But two nations have a third of the world’s population within their borders and are determined to be world powers in the new economy. We need a world diplomat to represent our nation in a new way….
And so as I look at the whole picture - leadership capacity, ability to unite/excite/motivate, inclusiveness ($150M in donations with an average donation of $86), and judgment the choice becomes clear in my mind. One candidate does, as Alan stated, have the potential to be a great world leader. The other has strong capability with a very weak bullpen…
Dave,
Correct me if i am wrong (i am definitely nowhere near an expert on the bible), but where does God differentiate one sin from another (apart from Paul’s comments re: sexual sin being a sin a gainst the body)?
It seems to me that it is humans who like to rank things things depending on what our palate finds more intolerable.
Regardless, i think the debate is more about the potential of Obama / McCain to be great leaders - not whether their theology alligns with ours.
- ps to whoever quoted MLK re: competent turk vs. incompetent christian… i like it!!!
Janet/Dave/ et. al
Interesting conversation that you have initiated. Dave you seem very set on the fact that Alan has initated his opinion in a public forum. . . his own to boot.
Suppose that new information comes around in the next few weeks that causes Alan to change his position. . . shouldn’t we let him out of his endorsement? Does that mean Alan has lost credibility? Could it be enough that has more information to base his opinion on and needs to change it?
One would hope so!
I hope to add a word of context… Australians might have a bit of a political argument, then crack political jokes around the barbeque, then have a few beers and agree that all politicians are bastards anyway, and all be pretty matey at the end. (I exaggerate slightly, and Christians might use more sanitised language and consume a little less grog, but you get the point… we’re relatively laid-back, often cynical, and not terribly idealistic about politics). I think the level of passion around US politics has taken Al a bit by surprise.
And this quote of Wes (from the other thread) blows me away: “I can tell you that there ARE many people who DO believe it a sin to vote for Obama, and who WILL call your salvation into question if you proclaim your support for him.” Wow. I find that incredible. No wonder this conversation has been feisty.
This level of partisanship is a big issue for the Christian community… don’t you think?
janet,
just to clarify:
1. coopers pale ale is the best beer discussing politics (or anything for that matter)
2. not all politicians are bastards - just the liberal party
3. we know our politicians are honest because they admit to smoking weed AND inhaling! :))
(for all you non aussies, google “malcolm turnbull & marijuana)
Alan,
First a disclaimer: spell check is against my religion (not really, I just don’t know how to do it on a blog).
As a thinking person and a passionate follower of Jesus (though this will be questioned by the kindly Bible prof.) I thank you for sharing your thoughts. I am certain my rational capacities and moral sensativities are not as finely developed, but at present I am still able to read your works without the specter of Obama-worship infecting my imagination at the turn of every page (I think you probably need a PHD to speak with certainty the mind of God, to accurately seperate the wheat and the tares, and to have such distain for the simple minded and the “decieved” [aka those who do not agree at each point with the Professor]).
Pride cometh before the fall Professor…and isn’t slander in the same sin list as homosexuality?
I am embarassed at the arrogance and self centeredness of both my county and the institutional expressions of my religion…. Sir Fruit-a-Lot has only expressed into the blogosphere the same thinking that all “evangelical” preachers like myself have thought…or given credence to through sermons, bible studies or our deafening silence. It just looks so ugly when you see it coming out of another mouth…I can’t believe I have allowed that poison in my heart and mind and thought I was honoring Jesus in so doing. Father forgive us, for we know not what we are doing!
I now know why the vast majority of people who I am meeting who have not grown up in the church (or with conservative political leanings) shut up like a clam when they find out I am a pastor…I think they are expecting to get spanked like Alan did for not agreeing with “biblical” thinking. I am starting to think that most people use “biblical” as a synonym for “what I think”. There is no opportunity (or need) for dialogue if we know TRUTH perfectly and absolutely. The church desperately needs to learn the life-giving skill of creating safe places for people to wrestle with the complexities of faith and life…so I guess I should stop my verbal roast of the professor.
One last thing, and I will try to say this in a kinder manner than the rest of my sarcastic post. There is nothing that I personally disagree with more about the professors post (I would use your name at this point, but I can’t remember it and I don’t know how to look back on the blog to find it without loosing all the treasure trove of wisdom that I have just spewed out)than this thought:
“These are all moral issues. However, to compare feeding or not feeding the poor with the slaughter of unborn helpless infants in their mothers’ wombs is a distinction of DIMENSION. The horror of those two are incomparable. Injustice is wrong wherever it exists, but there is a greater wrong where helpless fetal life is assaulted and where the core of humanity (gender) is undermined through homosexuality. Abortionists and homosexuals are to be loved by the Church with great passion. But we should never equate failing to give a bowl of soup to a homeless person with putting a saline solution into a mother’s body to kill her baby.
I am no friend of abortion, but as I read this the images that came to mind were those of African babies with distended belies and flies swarming their faces and pencil thin arms and legs…and the mother who has to watch this child die for months on end, knowing that there is nothing she can do and literally no who cares enough to reverse this reversable condition. Abortion, though in my mind still evil, seems the lesser of the two evils. I don’t think I will ever be able to advocate abortion, but I will never be able to again say that abortion is more a priority than poverty (or undoing inequity, or injustice, greed, or self centerness[in all their individual and corporate manifestations]). Slaughter is slaugher…but fast and early seems better than slow and prolonged. More kids die every day from hunger or bad water each day than die via abortion…both are horrific in my thinking, but let get a little perspective here. I guess I agree with “its a distinction of DIMENSION”…I guess I would just differ in opinion on which had more moral mass behind it. I can’t believe the level of sycretism that seems to have bewithed me [and the circles in which I have traveled].
Last thought from this whole blog string: Can there ever be anything like “an apolitical” perspective/pastor/teacher? The things that are important we talk about with those we love (and will often disagree with them…and need to learn how to live with and learn from these thought processes and points of view…might help a bit with our pride and self-centeredness). The things that we don’t talk about we either unintentionally give credence to the status quo or we leave to the forming influences of other socializing agents…like not talking to you kids about sex and them getting angry with them because they get pregnant. I get “not abusing your authority with minors” or giving the impression that your perspective is the only right one [and that gets back to learning how to create safe environments to learn in and to pass on skills necessary to think critically] but should the church [and its pastors, teachers, and leaders] be apolitical? Do we still believe in the sacred/secular dichotomies here in missional land? God cares about proper doctrine but not our capacity to love our neighbor and use power for the common good here on earth?
Boy,
I bet your envious of all those Germans who voted Hitler in. But with Obama you will get you opportunity to further participate in the killing of all these little American children through abortion, that you never met.
Thanks for sharing the good news of Jesus to these little ones. At least they will be in heaven is probably the way you think.
Your compassion reminds me of the founder of Planned Parenthood who said:
“The most merciful thing a large family can do for one of its infant members is to kill it.” Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood
Thanks for coming here and encourage us to kill our own children. Really appreciate it.
Tim
Tim,
Whoa… ease up there tiger… I don’t remember Al mentioning Planned Parenthood or killing babies.
have a read of Matt 5
, the two big commandments and re-read your post.
peace and grace,
Dave
Hi,
McCain will place Conservative Judges on the Supreme Court which will overthrow Roe V Wade. Obama will put in liberal judges that will keep Roe v Wade. The New York Times, Washington Post & Newsweek have all been saying this.
A vote for Obama is for the continuation of children being killed through Abortion. That is what is at stake. That is what their vote will continue.
I will not ease up. I have never voted for the president, only the conservative judges that they will appoint. I don’t agree with Bush on much. But the judges he appointed did stop partial birth abortion.
I gratefully receive your peace and grace.
Tim
tim
if you re-read al’s posts i think you find he’s critical of both sides.
we’ll probably disagree on all this stuff but ponder this:
Where does Jesus ever talk about abortion?
I’m not questioning the morality of the issue - just a possible refocus of your moral compass.
ps - did you read Matt 5
? and the two big commandments?
tim
pps - if the vote was as follows:
candidate #1 : completely stop abortion & stay at war and killing adults
candidate #2 : favour pro choice, entirely stop wars and killing adults
what would be the biblical basis for a vote either way?
Interesting discussion
Alan, I believe that your statements on Obama are a stretch. I don’t believe he has the potential for greatness. I believe he has more style than substance. May history prove me wrong if he wins.
I actually do believe an Obama win will be a major setback for social conservatives on issues like abortion and gay marriage. However, I am not bound by fear in that.
I believe Obama is probably a good man. I do not believe he is a great man and frankly don’t see the potential for him to be a great President
I will say this, in the long term, I believe his win will do wonders for the Republican Party. It’s the party I’ve been associated with all my life and it has become corrupt. I believe an Obama win will allow a real house cleaning in the GOP and ultimately that will be good for the party.
May God’s will be done regardless.
It amazes me how Christians are supporting Obama. You all are ignoring one of the biggest issues concerning Christianity and politics. Obama is the most radical pro-abortion candidate that this nation has ever seen.
Christians have an obligation to support life. If you don’t understand that, then you don’t really understand Christianity.
I’m sorry, but the arguement that this will be a huge symbolic win and it will heal race relations is a really weak arguement. If you really believe this will heal race relations, or even begin to- you aren’t really being honest with yourself.
I’m not trying to trash anyone, I’m just appalled at Christians ignoring the abortion issue and supporting someone who when he gets into office will do more to kill unborn children than all previous presidents combined.
Here are the facts:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/10/obamas_abortion_extremism.html
“I have said more than enough without even getting into the gun control, immigration, character & integrity, national security, etc.”
So, an armed fetus is a safe fetus.
Jesse, my concern with the Republicans is that they have a well established record of killing BORN children.
Neith part can claim to be pro-life in a holistic sense.
Dave B-
How do you propose to stop terrorism? Do you think we should leave a destabilized nation (Iraq)? What do you think might happen when we leave? Or do you care about those “other” adults who will be killed?
And there is a big problem with your little candidate 1 and 2. One of these people groups has a decision to be put in harms way and get killed. THE OTHER DOES NOT.
Are you looking for a biblical basis to protect your nation from terrorists? Have you read the old testament? There is plenty of basis to back that up, and a candidate that wants to protect it’s national interests.
It’s so easy and shortsighted to just say, “stop the fighting and lets just leave”. We’ve already tried that in the 1930’s and it led to World War 2. How many lives could we have saved if we were vigilant on a global basis back then? How many lives are we saving by doing it now?
p.s. Did you read Matt 5
verse 9?
p.s.s. Your “moral compass” is frightening. The thing about morals is- they should never need “re-focusing”.
Matt-
What is this well established republican record of killing Born americans? Do american service men and women have a choice to be in the army or not? THEY DO? Do unborn children have a choice to be killed or not? Where is your arguement?
Did you mean Vietnam? The conflict elongated be democratic leadership? I’m confused.
Matt S-
The born children you speak of have a choice to enter the army or not. Unborn children do not have a choice to be killed or not.
Are you talking about Vietnam, the conflict extended by a Democratic administration? I’m confused, what is the well established record of killed adults…
“Are you looking for a biblical basis to protect your nation from terrorists? Have you read the old testament? There is plenty of basis to back that up, and a candidate that wants to protect it’s national interests.”
There is so much that is questionable with that statement that I don’t know where to begin. Firstly, the church is the new Israel, not America, so it is far from obvious that America can claim God’s approval in its wars on the basis of simple extrapolation from the Old Testament. Particularly since Bush has proven to be a pretty unreliable prophet. And he’s never chosen to fight from a position of weakness, which is often what God commanded in the Old Testament, to test their faith and demonstrate his faithfulness.
Then there’s the fact that in Deuteronomy 9:6
, God said point blank that “it is not because of your righteousness that the LORD your God is giving you this good land to possess, for you are a stiff-necked people,” which shows that even in the bible it was not so simple as white hats versus black hats.
Then there is the obvious, but so frequently neglected point, that in most Christian ethics the life, death and resurrection of Jesus is seen as the foundation of Christian ethics, over and above the Old Testament, so why not here? Why is the life, death and resurrection of Jesus irrelevant to this question?
And that’s not even to get into the fact that most of the rest of the world denounced the Iraq invasion as in direct contravention of international law before it even began. And let’s look, what has it achieved? Many American deaths, many Iraqi deaths, many Iraqi Christian deaths … for what? Democracy? Where? A discrediting of terrorist tactics? How? And just where is Bin Laden?
Christians need to rediscover the ancient and authentic story of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus as a foundation for life … not just a cute thing to sing about on Sundays.
Jesse, I am talking about the “collateral damage”. The infants killed in the cross fire. Some of whom were Christian, some of whom were not, all of whom were too young to legally sign up for any war. Where is the pro-life in “collateral damage”? Such a nice emotionally dead term.
We keep forgetting that while Jesus was on earth, his own nation (Israel, not America for the record) was presently invaded by godless Romans. His disciples kept wanting him to do “the Messiah thing” and come with military might to overthrow the government and restore earthly order. But Jesus’ kingdom was NOT OF THIS WORLD.
Also, Peter thought he was doing a good thing when he cut off the ear of the man who was attempting to arrest Jesus. But instead of congratulating Peter, he healed the man even though he knew he was going to lose his own life. So why do we kill so many for the cause of Christ instead of going over there to heal them and restore them to Christ?
We don’t seem to realize that we are not fighting one big monster in a far away land called the middle east. It is basically one man fighting one man. So if Jesus says to love our enemies and be good to those who hurt you, and the government is saying kill him - who is a Christian soldier to obey?
This is exactly what Samuel was trying to warn the Israelites about when they wanted a king… he said that the king would send your sons off to battle. God through Samuel was saying this was not a good thing.
Finally, we keep saying that we are “defending” America by going over there to fight, but there is the law in the Old Testament that basically says, if you kill someone who is an intruder in your home by accident, then you are innocent, but if you kill him in the light when you know who your enemy is, then it is murder. This war… is sanctioned murder.
Matt S-
You’re all over the place here, are you actually saying that we shouldn’t protect ourselves as a nation? That’s what my entire post was about, I’m really not understanding where you are trying to go.
Dave B said: “candidate #1 : completely stop abortion & stay at war and killing adults
candidate #2 : favour pro choice, entirely stop wars and killing adults - what would be the biblical basis for a vote either way?”
My reaction was to ask what Dave would think would happen to this region if we left a destabilized country and went home in his little candidate 1 vs 2 scenario. Do you think the adult killing would stop? Would this “entirely stop wars”? Would terrorism “go away”? Are we really that out of touch with reality to think that if we leave everything will be better?
And you mention something about republicans having a history of killing infants caught in the cross fire in firefights? Um…are you really serious? How many infants? Which wars? Are you saying republicans should have stopped all the wars and collateral damage? How can you possibly compare this to abortion?
You mention Christians should rediscover the story of Jesus for the foundation of life, so why are you defending abortion??? If you aren’t defending abortion, and do not support it- why do you support a presidential candidate that is the most radical supporter of abortion this country has ever seen?
It seems like we are so amazingly far off on pretty much everything, so I guess we can agree to disagree???
GiGi
What happens to the peaceful Iraqi’s when we leave and stop this “sanctioned murder”? Why don’t you care about their protection as well? What happens to terrorists in that region?
How do you explain the rest of the world being in Iraq? Are you honestly saying that all the unified NATO countries are all sanctioning murder? Why aren’t you protesting against NATO just as hard as you are against our country? What about France, Germany, England? This isn’t about America- it’s pretty convenient to forget about that. There are many other countries in Iraq and afghanistan trying to help police terrorism. This is about trying to stabilize a country, and limit terrorism. It’s not just the dirty American republicans, countries from all over the world are in the region trying to help the exact same cause.
Just use your brains people. Short-termed isolationism caused a world war. Research facts, know that the entire world is over in Iraq, not just Americans. As much as you would love to believe it’s Bush vs Iraq, it’s not.
GiGi
What happens to the peaceful Iraqi’s when we leave and stop this “sanctioned murder”? Why don’t you care about their protection as well? What happens to terrorists in that region?
How do you explain the rest of the world being in Iraq? Are you honestly saying that all the unified NATO countries are all sanctioning murder? Why aren’t you protesting against NATO just as hard as you are against our country? What about France, Germany, England? This isn’t about America- it’s pretty convenient to forget about that. There are many other countries in Iraq and afghanistan trying to help police terrorism. This is about trying to stabilize a country, and limit terrorism. It’s not just the dirty American republicans, countries from all over the world are in the region trying to help the exact same cause.
Just use your brains people. Short-termed isolationism caused a world war. Research facts, know that the entire world is over in Iraq, not just Americans. As much as you would love to believe it’s Bush vs Iraq, it’s not.
That law in the old testament you spoke about - does it not apply to terrorists? Does it not apply to Saddam?
Hi Dave B,
Yes I have just read Matthew 5
.
Where does Jesus speak of Abortion, how about Matthew 5:21
where he speaks about Murder.
I think that it is important to make this point. Every one is a single issue voter.
Think about this:
Imagine you have a favourite politician and you think they are just great, then you find out that this politician is in favor of lowering the age of sexual consent to 12, would he still be your favorite politician? I wonder if you could vote for this person again, or this politician is in favor of mixing up animal and human embryo for scientific research, or they believe Slavery is ok because not everyone is equal.
We all have our single issue, for some it may not be abortion. But it is something!
Tim
Tim,
Those are all great questions for people to personally weigh before voting.
But a similar question for you is how much injustice in other areas will you tolerate from a person who claims to be against abortion? How married are you to that one issue at the expense of the rights of others?
There were people in the Bible who thought they were doing right by tithing to the church (a biblical command, no?) but in being so married to that law they were withholding good from people in need and Jesus rebuked them.
Life is far more complex than single issues Tim. I am pro-life, but there are other issues where pro-life might play out and not just for the rights of the fetus. That is important, but life extends beyond the birth experience. The problem with single issues for the Christian is that it is clear that the bible itself is not single-issue. At least a third of it is about ethics in the broadest sense of the word. God, it seems, its not a single-issue God.
One more thought…
Christians make judgment calls on who should live and die everyday on a case-by-case basis. When they say that if the life of the mother is in danger, or if the mother was raped or suffered incest, it’s ok for the baby to be aborted.
But is that not still “murder”? But we don’t condemn them even though they were technically, “pro-abortion” at the moment.
We don’t condemn them because we understand that there are other lives at stake in this whole affair. So we minister to the mother and grieve for the child.
Alan
Good luck with the website, I wish the best of luck to you. I think your post was irresponsible and wishy-washy. You’ve got some rather scary logic here and I think this is a symtom of a larger Christian church problem- Tolerance. You can bury it with words about “having a broad picture” and “don’t focus on single issues” - but at the end of the day, he supports killing unborn children like no other candidate ever has. You can support him, if you want to, but I can’t see how Christians can do that with a clear conscience.
“There are other issues where pro-life might play out and not just for the rights of the fetus.” What other rights are we talking about? How is this not black and white?
The Bible (and the Holy Spirit)is clear on what is right, and what is wrong. By supporting Obama - even though he might have other ideas that you like, you are supporting the very things you’ve spoken out against in other elections.
There is lots of talk of loving one another here, and that’s great- it truely is. The bible is also clear on how and when to stand up against things that are wrong.
Brave stance, Alan! As a South African it’s always been amazing to me the deep divisions that American politics brings to Americans. This is evident in some of the comments on this post that say you’ve now damaged your ministry because you’ve endorsed a candidate. Crazy!!! Yet you’ve framed that against the background of the Gospel claim of “Jesus is Lord” - which is over *all* spheres of life (including politics) - so it’s almost sadly amusing to me that people would immediately think your ministry is tainted because you, as a foreigner, bringing a “rest of the world” perspective, endorse a specific candidate.
American politics is so freaking complicated - and no matter who you vote for, at some point you’ll be disappointed, because they’ll never do exactly what you want on all issues. Endorsing Obama as the symbolic choice which the world needs right now is exactly right.
Hi,
The Supreme Court in the USA is the deciding factor if abortion is to continue. Obama is for abortion. He will decide who lives or dies in the womb. He will pick the Supreme Court justices.
The Christians could give all their money away to end all social ills, no one is stopping them. Please sell you houses, empty your bank accounts and take care of the poor, just don’t use that excuse that is why you are voting for OBAMA.
The poor and homeless are not directly affected in a life or death situation, like a surpreme court decision. The court will not stop anyone for helping them, but the court will decide who lives and who dies.
Since Roe V Wade, 48 million babies have been aborted.
And Alan don’t hid behind the fetus term . When your wife was pregnant, you were not having a fetus, it was a baby! Those little ultrasound pictures, no one says who cares its only a fetus and throws it away.
As for the injustices, no one is stopping you of emptying your bank account and giving it all away. If the Christians did what the Bible says in giving, we would have no poor. But it would not stop abortions, these are innocent people being killed. everyone wants change and so votes for Obama, but we don’t offer MERCY on behalf of these innocent children.
Here is another way to see it, I don’t want the govt. taking care of the poor, you know why, I want Jesus to get the glory and not the state. Its about relationship and not programs. I want the church to overcome all injustice, because I want Jesus to get the glory and not the govt.
He is worthy!
Tim
A fetus is a unborn child Tim…don’t go putting words into my mouth brother!
I prefer australian politics! But I am biased (and ours too is essentially a popularity contest most of the time).
I find it worrying that any people (let alone those who profess to follow Jesus) would consider one or two issues only in their decision on who to vote for.
Oh well, I suppose all our greed and consumerism will eventually do us in and China will take over once they decide to collect on all the billions of dollars the first world countries owe them after spending years at war and spending money that we don’t have - a quick look through history shows that this is not an unforeseeable risk.
Now that will make it interesting!
Hi Alan,
Its a baby! No words, just facts. Jesus considers it a person!
“The Lord called me before my birth. From within the womb he called me by my name…He said to me, `You are my servant’…” (Isaiah 49:1,3
TLB)
“For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb” (Psalm 139:13
).
Jeremiah 1
: 5
5 “I knew you before I formed you in your mother’s womb.
Before you were born I set you apart
and appointed you as my prophet to the nations.”
God doesn’t knit a fetus, he creates a person.
Tim
ps tim - i think you’re playing a little rough…
STOP!!! WHAT POSSIBLE VALUE IS THERE IN THIS DIALOGUE? OR DIALOGUES. IT HAS NO ETERNAL VALUE AND I DOUBT ANY TEMPORAL VALUE.
Hi,
A little rough, have you ever seen an abortion. Buy a copy of the movie a silent scream, you see an abortion taking place. I will stop. I will not add any more comments. Bless you. We are brothers in Christ, I passionately disagree with you. I live in England and I saw this button for sale in this shop, it made me sick. it said ” Fu_k the Poor” I am for the body of Christ emptying their wallets and bank accounts to take care of the poor. But if there ever was a vulnerable population, it is children in the womb.
Peace, Bless you.
Tim
Agreed Rudy. wise words indeed.
Blessings
nope… rudy - i’ve changed my mind - i say we take the discussion to another level, namely, start whole heartedly abusing each other (in love and for the glory of god of course!)
bring on a slanging match - there’s not a better place for it than blog land!
if you’ll excuse me while i go and remove the tongue that just got stuck in my ceek.
Jesse,
“…so why are you defending abortion???”
I am not. I oppose it.
“If you aren’t defending abortion, and do not support it- why do you support a presidential candidate that is the most radical supporter of abortion this country has ever seen?”
Because I am not a single issue guy. Because I think there is much more to pro-life than abortion and much more to Christian politics than pro-life.
“It seems like we are so amazingly far off on pretty much everything”
We’ll, no, we agree abortion is ethically problematic. We just disagree on national defense issues, since I baulk at arguments which marginalize the relevance of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus for questions of national defense.
Since people are becoming disturbed with this conversation I will leave it there for the moment. But I have to say I was finding it engaging and meaty and am dissappointed that it is illiciting such reactions. The relationship between church and state is a major missional issue. Burying it doesn’t resolve it. And we’re not kidding any non-Christians, they know we need to work on this. I pray for the day Christians can work through it, and find some sort of unity in their political diversity.
Matt,
I agree - that was the point i was making. it’s a shame we can’t discuss important issues without the tone becoming so aggressive (i’m not saying that yours was) - Janet mentioned before that Aussies can generally have these discussions and still be “matesy” in the end (tho not always the case) - that’s why i prefer aussie politics!
I applaud the discussion - people just need to chillax a bit.
How has this become a debate on abortion???!! At his point I am inclined to agree with Rudy above “Stop it!”
But truly, this has gone way beyond what is useful, and we are going around in circles.
No more talk about abortion Tim or anyone. I really don’t think any of us are ‘pro-abortion’, you are singing to the choir. We are simply saying that we are not single-issue disciples.
Around 492 million babies have died in the same amount of time as the Roe v Wade decision from malnutrition and bad water…thats over 10 times the tragedy. They just were not all American babies, so I guess they don’t count. But I am not willing to give up the fight to protect the 48 million innocent lives either. I do not believe voting for Obama is somehow determining to abandon their plight or rescuing their lives. The main problem with abortion is not that it is legal but rather that most people do not know (experientially participate with) God…so sin is attractive and convenience is valued above life. Abortion is a symtom or the desperateness of our condition no longer living under God. If more Christians exuded the love and truth of Jesus holiness would become a viable option to consider…if we all trusted Jesus more than political/judicial mechanism and spent all our time doing the things that Jesus did. Thats why I am so excited about the TFW. Also, I believe the Holy Spirit is still able to convict even presidents and supreme court justices of sin.
And Jesus can get the glory no matter which avenue relief for the poor comes…and there will need to be huge increases in what the church is doing as well as what the government is doing if there is going to be any significant blessing for the least of these in our global community (both individual and relational needs and corporate and systemic needs).
Sorry…didn’t read Al’s last post till after I posted…lower case tim will stop posting on abortion…do long for the day when we can share our opinions/though processes on heavy moral issue like this without being shamed as a heritic infidel.
mate who is shaming you as a heretic infidel?
people are simply disagreeing with the way you make your decision for a political candidate.
your whole tone is manipulative and guilt ridden. If you want to convince people of your point of view (who funnily enough already agree with you on this issue) then try using simple sensible arguments.
right now i’d vote for Obama just because I don’t like the tone of your comments!
“…right now i’d vote for Obama just because I don’t like the tone of