Here is an utterly vacuous endorsement of Obama by Brian McLaren and others. Obama has been married for 16 years and has two "beautiful children." So, elect him as the leader of the free world!
This clip is sponsored by "Matthew 25"! That chapter features vs. 31-46 where Jesus speaks of caring for "the least of these." Of course, in McLaren and Obama's minds, that doesn't include the unborn--or those born alive after failed abortions.
Obama is for "the family," supposedly, but refuses to support The Marriage Amendment, which would insure that marriage is not redefined by the courts as same-sex unions.
Those who think (instead of gaze agog) should not be fooled. See John 7:24.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
The president has no role in amending the Constitution. Any proposed amendment has to pass both houses by a 2/3 majority and then is sent to the state legislatures to be ratified--which requires 3/4 of the states to ratify. You're not going to see that Marriage Amendment get passed for a long, long time, if ever.
Yes, I know the president has the so-called "bully pulpit." That and a nickel won't get you a cup of coffee at Denny's.
Somehow, this new rush by evangelicals to looking beyond "single issue politics" simply means voting Democrat.
It's as if somehow people have decided that the ONLY reason to vote Republican is the abortion issue and for some reason that just isn't doing it for them anymore.
The pursuit of relevance for its own sake is a dangerous thing.
My support of McCain is not a single issue issue! But that single issue--abortion--is paramount.
O's view of The Marriage Amendment speaks to his worldview, his political vision, which is radically defective, dangerous,and subChristian.
I'm a fundamentalist. Therefore I agree with you.
Brian McLaren's entire theology is vacuous, why should we expect his political endorsement to be anything other?
Tried to post a YouTube comment.
Comment denied.
--
[giggle giggle giggle]
Yes. Christians.
[giggle giggle]
Emerge.Evolve.Deconstruct.Reconstruct.Reimagine.Rethink.Relevant.
And turn your backs on the very "least of these," mix your Christianity with Molech-worship and deliver the babies to the fire.
Progressive Christianity indeed.
I am not a fan of McLaren's poor theology and PoMo emergent leadership. I am also passionately against Obama's position on abortion. I think he has that completely wrong. And it IS a massive, weighty, paramount issue.
That being said... making a case for someone's character because they are a good husband and father is not a bad thing, is it? It seems it would be a good thing if we looked to how politicians live their lives as husbands (wives) and fathers (mothers) as a potential peek into who they are.
It seems you are railing against these folks for endorsing Obama and making a positive claim for him based off the premise of him being a good family man.
Well... I'm not so sure that being a good family man is a bad piece of evidence. It certainly is not sufficient, but I don't think they were implying that it was. It seems like a good issue to discuss in who we want for president.
I wonder if you would have had this same reaction to an ad that used the "family credentials" of a Republican/Conservative/Right wing politician as a building point for a case in his favor. I imagine you would not have. So it is unclear how their endorsement is "utterly vacuous". That's a strong claim to make. They seem to be constructing an argument in favor of his character based off his good family roles as father/husband. I don't think that's vacuous...
The statement "if P then Q," wherein P is false... that's vacuous, because it says nothing. This ad certainly says something, and something worth pondering.
To piggy back on Darrell's comment--
It seems to me that this "rise" of the evangelical left is due, in part, to an aversion of being identified with stereotypes bandied about in the media regarding the "Religious Right."
If I tell someone I'm an evangelical, then, in all likelihood, the all-too-familiar labels of "homophobe," "evilgelical," "hate-monger," "fundy," etc. start to run through the person's mind--all before they even get to know me. However, if I tell them I'm an evangelical supporter of Obama, then I get the benefit of the doubt: "Hey, this guy might be thoughtful after all. Perhaps he is capable of taking nuanced positions. He may care for the environment. He may not actually be a racist. He doesn't hate women and want to burn homosexuals. He can actually read and write. Maybe he doesn't relish the thought of Iraqi children dying. Perhaps an evangelical can care for the poor. Hey, I might even be willing to talk religion with him."
See the enormous relational capital that can be gained by doing nothing more than distancing myself from Bush, the Republican Party, and James Dobson?!
This is not to say, of course, that thoughtful evangelicals do not have principled reasons for supporting Obama (or being a Democrat in general). But in a desperate desire to be known for who we are as individuals, the temptation weighs heavily upon my generation (I'm 30) to cast aside the (il)legitimate baggage of our theological predecessors, without giving much thought or care to what such a decision means.
So yes, the "single-issue voter" issue is an element of what is going on, but I think it is only one piece of the larger pie.
Video of Donald Miller praying at the DNC a few moments ago:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b79m3fJfmuA
Whoops I forgot to linkify that last post.
The video and my transcript of Donald's prayer can both be found on my blog
[/shameless self-promotion]
The Tornado is on to something. Let's not forget that Paul says that having one's home in order is a necessary condition for leadership within the church. Of course, the presidency and the pastorate are not the same thing, but the principle still applies: if you can't keep four people in line, how are you going to keep 300 million of them in check?
Nevertheless, there is something deeper to this endorsement than merely spouting Obama's love for his family. McLaren and his ilk seem like they'll do anything to get a president that is for econimc fairness and social justice. Unfortunately, "social justice" and "economic fairness" are just code words for Marxist policies. We therefore have two problems: (1) McLaren is so concerned for the "least of these" that he is willing to elect a president that will trample on the 6th commandment (Do not murder), and (2) McLaren is so concerned about social justice that he is willing to elect a marxist president that will trample on the 8th commandment (Do not steal). Quite the paradox if you ask me.
Note:
I'm not endorsing the opposites of economic fairness and social justice. I just don't think Marxism is the way to get them.
McCain on Roe v Wade, in 1999:
"I'd love to see a point where it is irrelevant, and could be repealed because abortion is no longer necessary," McCain told the Chronicle in 1999. "But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations."
McCain, laughing all the way to presidency at the expense of the usual suspects.
The people trying to amend the constitution are the ones trying to redefine marriage. Not the people who believe that love and lifelong commitment is something you cannot restrict, bible or no bible.
Post a Comment