i thought maybe under bush people would begin to realize that a president's (or candidate's) religious beliefs really mean nothing regarding the way they will govern. bush is a self-avowed Christian (as are all candidates who hope to have a prayer of getting elected) and yet he has waged an unprovoked, unmitigated, endless war built entirely on lies. at the same time he has thwarted any effort to care for the environment and ignored any scientific evidence (or really any opinion) that has not supported his beliefs. i defy anyone to defend the claim (with a straight face) that he has done anything in his presidency that would even please Jesus Christ.
but i'm fine with this because politicians are not pastors and they shouldn't be. they should, of course, stop pretending to be devout Christians and admit they're playing to the crowd. but at the same time, the voters should actually explore history rather than listen to hack revisionist historians (often in the form of "pastors") and realize that the founders of the united states wanted a government devoid of religious favoritism and influence.
to those who want to belong to the Church - God is the ultimate authority. therefore, there is no allegiance to the state. to those who want to pledge allegiance to the state, let them serve the state, but don't expect them to worship God. no one can serve two gods.
which brings me to jeremiah wright. he is a pastor. his job is not to make flattering comments about the united states. his job is to serve God. people may certainly disagree with his sermons, but not in any political way because he is not a politician. and if people disagree with his sermons, they should speak with him, not members of his church. they don't write his sermons.
perhaps obama should answer questions about his relationship to wright - but not the kind the media are offering. maybe obama should be asked why a political campaign has a chaplain or spiritual advisors. even more basic, he should be asked how he plans to command a military that may be called upon to kill while he serves a God that forbids killing. but of course these questions draw attention to the problems of mixing Church and state, and everybody knows those two are separate. right?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
A few weeks ago the Sunday school class I teach was discussing what it means to be a Christian and the president of the U.S. I asked whether they thought it was possible to be both, and not one person was willing to say 'yes' in an unqualified way. These are mostly pretty traditional folks, but they also see what our country has been doing the past few years under the leadership of an "evangelical Christian".
It makes me think of that pesky little epistle of James: "But prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves" (James 1:22). Can we say that a person really believes, that a person has true faith, when his or her outward actions betray the word of God on a regular basis? I don't mean this for presidents and for presidential candidates, but for all Christians.
If true religion is keeping oneself unstained by the world and protecting widows and orphans in their distress, then a whole bunch of folks in the church are really nothing more than heathens with a serious case of self-delusion. I admit it is a constant battle not to let myself be one of them.
Post a Comment