Fool me once...shame on me

It has become quite clear in the past few months, that the "yes we can" and the "change we can believe in" chants have died down. Why you might ask? Simply put, people are beginning to realize that Obama is no moderate as he claimed to be during the campaign, nor is he bi-partisan as he claimed. He does not reach across the aisle and unite, he divides. He is one of the most liberal presidents we have had. His policies mirror that of Jimmy Carter (which does not bode well for the nation). He really did follow through on his campaign promise of "change;" and "yes he did" pass his healthcare legislation by all means necessarily. And in light of the Healthcare bill passing I want to re-post a blog I wrote shortly after the election. When I wrote it, it seemed that Obamamania would never die down...well, it has. The country isn't so naive anymore Mr. President.

There is a lot that I would like to say on this subject, but that will have to wait for another time. I will refrain for now and simply re-post my blog from November 14, 2008.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


President Elect Barack Obama received a majority of the independant and moderate-right vote in this past election, which was a major factor in his election. This country is still a moderate-right country, no matter what this past Presidential election tells you. Barack Obama is without question, a shrewed and skilled politician...this past election proved that. He ran his campaign with skill, showing himself as a moderate when he had to, who would reach across the aisle. But he showed himself to be a liberal when needed. This is what captured him so many votes.

There is much to say about this past election, however I want to focus on the moderate-right Christian voters who voted for Obama (of which there are many at Cedarville). These people care about issues such as abortion, gay marriage, and other "moral" issues as well as caring for the needy in our society. Barack Obama, as stated before is a man that knows what to say to itching ears. He portrayed himself as a man that cared for the poor, displayed in the resurgence of the Social Gospel a movement that is not new to the Church but once again important due to the influence of the Emerging Church. This is known by those who study history and realize that there is "nothing new under the sun," which includes movements in the Church. I am not doubting his motives - just the way those concerns should be addressed, which is another discussion. He also portrayed himself as a man in the middle when it comes to abortion, which secured a lot of moderate Christian votes. His track record in Congress, however, does not back this claim.

Obama's record shows that he stands on the far left of the aisle and we can only hope that holds to his campaign pledge to meet in the middle. History tells us differently, however, that the track record of Presidents before entering office rarely changes when they enter the highest office in the land, let alone the world. And why do we expect it change? Honestly! A man's character, values, and convictions do not magically change when they enter the Oval Office. This is true for anyone! Why do we never look at past track records of candidates?

All this said, I beleive that Obama's "honeymoon" and popularity that he is experiencing now will quickly fade. Because of the fact that he appealed to a very wide base means that he cannot please everyone. If he governs from the left (particularly on moral issues) he will quickly loose the support of the moderate-right and possibly the moderates. If he governs from the middle, the left will be upset. He may still be popular near the end of his term, but it will not be like it is now. He hasn't done anything yet...he is President ELECT. We will have to see how he handles the office once sworn in. He will have a delicate balance to maintain - a delicate balance that he created.

Hermenutics matter

Proverbs 4:4b (ESV)

“Let your heart hold fast my words;
keep my commandments, and live.

This is a verse that many people are familiar with, yet more often than not, is improperly understood and taught, particularly concerning the phrase "and live." The typical application of this passage is an if/then promise from God. If we keep God's commandments then we will have a long life, or at least a full life, if we can't have a long one. Some of this, I believe, is due to our Western Christian culture's obsession with God promising us health and wealth. We simply love the prosperity gospel (thank you Joel Osteen and friends!). And it is also be partly to blame in translation from Hebrew to English, which is inevitable with any translation. When properly translated though, the hermeneutical and theological implications are enormous! This slight translation variance is something that I was not made aware of until recently.
It is sometimes difficult to translate Hebrew imperatives (commands) into English. These imperatives are visible within the grammatical "pointing" in Hebrew, but this grammatical "pointing," unfortunately, is not available in English. Therefore, when translating an imperative into English, the command must be translated in the sentence structure. (Come! Eat! Be strong! etc.) In Proverbs 4:4 the words "keep" and "live" are both in imperative form. It is easy to see the command in "keep my commandments," but no so easy so see it in the phrase "and live." And because of this ambiguity created in translating from language to language, we have inferred upon it, intentionally or not, to mean that we will live as a result of obeying the commandments, instead of as a command to live. When properly understood as a command to keep his commandments and then to go live, it has enormous theological implications!

The father never promises that his son(s) will live long lives if they kept his commandments. He commanded them to keep his commandments and then commands them to go live in light of that. Carpe Diem if you will.