Final Election Year Post

Yes, I promise this is my last post this year to do with the election and politics.

Today I was watching an interview with Perry Noble on TonyMorganLive.com. His thoughts on the election and post-election Christian attitude are worth discussing.

Gods Man

God's Man

This is what Perry had to say in a nutshell:  “It’s amazing how many Christians say they believe in the sovereignty of God until their party loses the election.”

Nail on the head.  As Perry points out the Bible instructs us to lift up our leaders in prayer.  It does not instruct us or give any example of a time we should tear them down.  I think some Christians take the idea that we should be politically involved and since our system tends to be full of vitriolic diatribe they just jump right in.   That’s wrong.

I was in a conversation with someone this week who in a slip of the tongue said the name “Obama” instead of “McCain.”  The ensuing fit made me think she had uttered “He Who Must Not Be Named.”

The thing is regardless of who you voted for God is still sovereign (in charge).  In the Bible God used both good and evil kings for His glory (and not I’m not suggesting Obama is evil, I’m just making a point.)  Of course we should feel the freedom to be heard if we have a disagreement no matter who is president.  But there is a difference between being a part of the process and acting out of a bad spirit and unkind heart.

So I’ve made a decision.  Hopefully it’s not too combative or argument-inducing.  I’m going to start referring to Obama as “God’s man for the White House.”  Because he is, or he wouldn’t be headed there.

I will also pray for him and encourage others to do the same.  According to the Bible we should pray for “all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness” (1 Timothy 2:2)

Because God doesn’t need Obama, McCain, or the United States to do his work.  God didn’t stay up all night waiting for exit polls to come in.  God chooses to let us be a part of His plan, and President-elect Obama is a part of it.

President 2.0

So the news today is about how Obama will be upgrading the weekly radio address from the White House to

Old and Busted

a YouTube video.  Obama has made by far the best use of the Web 2.0 world in his campaign and I think the idea of moving this to the world of government is a great step forward.  Some have called it putting a face on the government.

I think the idea of making the White House seem more personal through these tools is great.  Why hasn’t anyone done this yet?

The government is way behind in the world of technology (except when it comes to military strength).

I believe Wired.com may have proposed something similar to this, but their needs

to be a Technology Czar of some sort that finds ways to connect government with todays tech methods AND keep abreast of where technology is moving to keep the US competetive.  It’s a well known fact that the US has some of the worst internet service and prices in the developed world.  It just ain’t right.

How do you think the government needs to step into this century of technololgy?

Pray Backwards


An awesome initiative tonight from Carlos Whittaker. At 9:30 we all have a chance to pray for our leadership the way we are supposed to. Not tearing down but building up.

He’s calling it “Praying Backwards” and the big idea is for McCain fans to pray for Obama, and Obama fans to pray for McCain. Simple but great.

Participate. Let’s clear up some of this divisive junk and remember that as Christians we are to lift up everyone in prayer. No matter who you plan to vote for they are someone created by and loved by God. Being a politician doesn’t change that. Let’s do this together.

What is the President’s job?

Yesterday I talked about how maybe we aren’t asking all the right questions.  There are issues beyond “the issues” and beyond the party with the question of who our president will be.  This year as I’ve given it more and more thought, one of the most important issues for me is the question of leadership.

It first struck me in reading about leadership as it applies to the church and business.  I think we get sucked into so much to the political talk that we neglect this major issue.  We spend lots of time concerned about it in the church & business worlds.  We ask: what is your record; can you manage people; how do your inferiors perform (i.e do you make them better while they make you better).

Everyone has different opinions about our current President.  You can think what you will of the war, taxes, economy, etc.  However regardless of your political position, I think where he has lacked has been in the area of leadership.  He has be bold when neccesary, and decisive when need be.  Those are good things.  But he has (in my opinion) chosen poor partners, appointed poor leaders beneath him, and reaped poor results in various branches and departments because of it.  

For example, the biggest turnaround in Iraq happened after the appointment of a new leader.  That is not a coincidence.  I would also say this has been one of the largest problems with getting something done with the current economic crisis.  President Bush has lost his leadership value, and you can see it as no one really cares what he as to say about the situation.

So the question is, which of these two men would be the greater leader of our country?  Who would make the best executive, the best “governmental CEO.”  Because that is the presidents job, if we remember.  He does not legislate, he does not judge; however we regularly vote based on what laws a president says he will enact and what ruling he says he will overturn.  But how will he LEAD?  How will he command control of a massive, ungainly corporation that is our government?

Do “the issues” matter?  Absolutely.  Should we look to our legislators to do the legislating?  I think so.

 The issues and leadership are tied together in many ways, I understand that.  But does leadership matter more?  You’ll have to decide.

Postmodern Politics

This is one of the most unique & insightful things I have read this election season. The modern/postmodern discussion and debate has been at the forefront of Christian thought for quite a while now. In the Out of Ur blog Collin Hansen filters the candidates and last weeks debate through this lens.

As much as we discuss how the postmodern world has changed people faith and views, I’ve never thought much about how it effects politics. It is completely applicable and in the same way we must adjust our leadership in the church, we must also in government. Which is not to say I am endorsing either candidate because of this one issue.

It does bring up something I’ve given lots of thought this year-the more I see, the more I think we should be focusing more on leadership ability as the main litmus test when choosing a candidate. That’s a big topic, so more on that later.

by dietrick

by dietrick

Thou Shalt Not Be Ridiculous

The Ten Commandments of Talking (or blogging) Politics

One of the more excellent things I’ve read this election year.  The first commandment is:

1. Do not worship political theories or parties.(You shall have no other gods before me.)  Do not worship ideas or theories instead of God. Not your stance on global warming or Capitalism or deregulation or education or abortion or gay marriage or health care or international trade or war. Do not put your hopes in a political stance or party line or economic theory. Those things are important, but they should not distract us from our unity in Christ Jesus.

As Christians, we have definitely got to get a grip on how we deal with political issues.

Dobson v. Obama Pt2

Part One

So now I’ve had a chance to read through the transcript of the Dobson/Minnery discussion as well as read most of Obama’s speech.

Do I agree with everything Barack Obama has to say? No. Dr James Dobson? No. There’s not time to dig through every phrase on both sides of this issue. For the sake of this blog, I’m going to pick on Dr. Dobson.

It seems to me that he really parses Obama’s words in an unfair manner that doesn’t really reflect the tone of his speech. Dr. Dobson seems to feel that Obama is mounting a subversive attack on Christianity. While Obama may not be entirely clear or accurate in all he says, I don’t believe his intent is to be offensive. Dr. Dobson also characterizes the mention of his name in the speech as coming “under fire.” If you listen to the entire speech, I think that is a very inaccurate statement.

To be honest, I think Dobson’s reaction has more to do with his preconceived feelings towards Obama than the actual text of the speech. That gets into a whole other discussion on Evangelicals being “owned” by the Republican party, but that’s another blog.

The point is while Obama’s speech came across as searching for a proper way to balance faith and politics (whether or not you agree with his assumptions), the Dobson/Minnery discussion came across as the more unfriendly, unloving between the two. Which gets back to the conclusion of my previous post. Are we as Christians influencing culture by being salt and light, or by being offended and getting angry?

Just my thoughts. You can decide for yourself though.