President Obama professes Jesus as Lord

At a fundraiser in Los Angeles yesterday President Obama encountered a heckler who plainly stated Truth.  "Jesus Christ is God! Jesus Christ is God! Jesus Christ is God! Jesus Christ is the son of God!" To which the crowd immediately began to boo.  Of course I hope that most were booing at the perceived inappropriateness of the venue for such a proclamation: interrupting a political event.  (In Truth, should such a proclamation ever be considered "inappropriate"?)  Better yet would it be they boo due to a correct premonition of what would come next.  After his utterance of Truth the young man uttered a strong opinion too.  You can  listen here.  I'd like to suggest that such an opinion spoken is inappropriate, while at the same time being quietly watchful to the possibility of his suggestion is not.

It's probably not a wise thing to utter such opinion next to Truth.  If you've listened through the link you'll know that the heckler christens Barack Obama the anti-christ.  Now scripture encourages us to be on the look out for the anti-christ - and for those that would come before the True Christ in messiah-like fashion.  It even suggests that there will be One who eventually claims to be God.  I have to admit that I have wondered about this President.   I've kept a quiet mouth on the idea - but an open eye and mind to the possibility.  Anyone remember the photo to the right?  Or these?  How about Oprah Winfrey's pronunciation of him as "The One".  Yikes.  I've watched him(seemingly) cater to Muslims here, here and arguably suggest that all religions are Truth.  And admittedly, the deep policy differences that I hold with the President - particularly as it relates to abortion rights and social engineering on behalf of the gay agenda - led me to a knee jerk first thought, "...even the demons believe in God..." (James 2:19)
At the same time I've seen him profess a stirring and profound Christian testimony about coming to Christ.    The contradictions are too numerous to number in this space.  So this reminds me that throughout history the Christian public, including me, have speculated - and the contradictions existed - in the same way about other leaders.  Some thought Stalin was the anti-christ.  Some thought Hitler the anti-christ.  In my lifetime I can remember wondering about Gorbachev. (remember that sinister mark?) How about Amadinajad.  I have to admit that I even wondered about possibility of Clinton or the Bush family dynasty springing forth the one who is anti-God.  (We still have Jeb - and ALL grandkids kids.)  So it should be no surprise - and I would argue is a biblical mandate - that I should view any world leader that comes to the world stage as a conquering hero - to be a candidate.  Of course, we think these things knowing that most scholars believe the anti-christ will rise from eastern europe or the middle east.  So perhaps the President's response shouldn't surprise us and even may give those of us watching and in political disagreement something he's always promised: Hope. (he's certainly given us plenty of change).

Progressives to taste the racism Smear?

Progressive 2008 Obama voters find themselves finds himself in an interesting predicament.  With liberal progressives and even those within the black community unsatisfied with the his agenda there is a curious shot being fired in the progressive publication, The Nation.  Melissa Harris Perry writes in this weeks online issue that a more pernicious racism could very well be afoot.  In spite of President Obama's efforts to minimize the issue of raise, at least in his public voice, the table is now being set to guilt those unsatisfied with his work as a progressive and possibly set up a primary challenge for him prior to the 2012 general election. 
Harris-Perry points out the obvious that voters were willing to bring him into office in 2004 as a senator in Illinois (against a black republican opponent no less) and then again 2008.  To her credit she admits that the most "naked, egregious and aggressive form" of racism is no longer a factor.  She comes to this conclusion by pointing out the less obvious (which I take at her word as I've not researched it myself) by comparing the "roll-off" vote in prior elections.  "Roll off" is the number of voters who vote in a primary election but then fail to vote in current year municipal, state or local elections.  The same can be compared to off year elections.  For example, those who voted in the Kerry-Bush race in 2008 but refused to vote in the Illinois senate race which was comprised of Obama and another black candidate Alan Keyes.  If the number votes cast were significantly lower for the senate race then one could deduce that racism was still alive and well.  The "roll off" was statistically insignificant.  This allowed Harris Perry to conclude the worst form of racism is no factor.

But don't celebrate yet.  According to Harris Perry we still need to look out for what she has termed "liberal electoral racism".  This is defined as "...the willingness to abandon a black candidate when he is just as competent as his white predecessors.  She goes on to compare the legislative "successes" of President Obama and President Clinton concluding of course that Obama has seen as much success as did President Clinton.  Concluding that both Clinton and Obama are centrist Presidents.  Of course she concludes the only difference between the two:  one is white and the other is black.  Therefore any push for the base to abdicate him, or heaven forbid, push for a primary challenger will indicate a form of racism that still exists.  An interesting theory I disagree with on many levels but I will leave the reader to decide.

What I find equally interesting is the comments section.  "I love you Melissa but bunk!"  or "...don't you listen to the reasons liberals give for being very unhappy with President Obama? To blame it on racism is, frankly, insulting...".  On and on it goes.  I don't know if a primary challenge is in the cards or not, but it offers some small satisfaction to see those that would accuse me of racism for not voting for this President (much less agreeing with His policies) beginning to get back a bit of their own medicine.  Is it possible they will learn from this and cease and desist?    

Roots of Obama

We hear much rhetoric in the conservative right about President Obama's political ideology.  Marxist. Socialist.  Communist.  I read a book that I only wish I could change the title.  I'd call it "The Roots of Obama's Policy".  Of course that sounds pretty boring and probably wouldn't sell as well, but it is was a fascinating read.  This book may present a more accurate picture of who and why the President acts in the way that he does.  The premise of the book is that we are not living out the ideology of Barack Obama so much as we are living out the legacy of a failed Kenyan civil servant that Barack Obama has been trying to live up to his entire life: Barack Obama, Sr. 

The author, Dinesh D'sousa's first and most basic clue to this possibility is to look at the title of President Obama's first book, "Dreams from my Father".  The very title itself implies that he has received his dreams from his father.  D'sousa's book suggests an Obama I and Obama II.  Obama I is the inspirational Obama that was so praised and lifted up in adulation during the 2008 campaign.  The Obama that - putting it in the words of the man himself -was "...a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views..." .   I think the premise of the book is that President Obama is not a communist or a socialist or a marxist.  He is anti-colonialist and anti-Imperialist.  D'Sousa suggests that President Obama believes the US, in the 20th and 21st century, is colonial in it's foreign policy.  It suggests Mr. Obama's hope is that he can help make the US the last of the colonialist powers. 

The consequence of this is that his policies are designed for one purpose: to weaken our standing abroad, and strengthen the role, power and impact of the federal government domestically.  The book suggests that - when given the choice of policy - his choice will always further this objective.  The book offers a tremendous amount of evidence to make this case.  I won't present all of the evidence here, but agree that it does seem to serve as a predictive measure of how Obama has acted.  Think about it.  Health Care (domestic)- increases government control.  Finance Reform(domestic)- increases government control.  Buying GM(domestic) - increases government control. Poland Missile Shield Abandoned (foreign)- weakens foreign influence.  Leading from behind in Libya (foreign)- weakens foreign influence.  Flooding economy with (borrowed) printed dollars(QE I, II, III?) - increases government control and weakens foreign influence.

Perhaps the most interesting things that it explains, in my mind, is why the President finds himself with eroding support in both conservative and progressive political camps.  We have the right clamoring for his ouster, we have the left clamoring for his ouster and we have independents exceedingly dissatisfied.  His policies have seemingly pleased no one and the reason, this book would argue, is because he isn't playing to any of us.  He is acting to more fully realize the dreams of his Father.  Could this explain why a "really good one-term Presidency" would be OK with him?  If "really" good is defined by him, and not by the rest of us, then he can - in principal - be "really good" even if no one (but him) is satisfied with his results.     

I will say there were occasions in this book for what I perceived to be hyperbole.  Unfortunately, as I mentioned above, even the title of the book plays to the hard core Obama malcontent.  While hyperbole may increase sales, it likely prevents a more wide range of political ideaology in it's readership.  I think that's unfortunate.  Were it not for the title of the book I think it offers a reasonable (even one for which we might objectively empathize) explanation for how and why the President takes action. I wonder though, what an honest to goodness, clear thinking, progressive might think?  

The Rise of Rick Perry and the New Apostolic Reformation?

An article by an old friend, Greg Metzger, that I've rediscovered the joy of verbal jousting in recent months.  (Thanks Greg!)  The piece talks about the possible influence of the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) and the theology of dominionism on Governor Perry - a republican presidential candidate.  Greg posits the notion dominionism generally and that NAR influence specifically, is something beyond the usual pandering for Governor Perry.  As is common, I disagree, although this is a "less than hearty" disagreement. 

Dominionism can sound awful - but properly balanced it merely suggests that we are to be steward's of God's creation. To be steward's we must be involved in word and action.  Certainly Christians shouldn't pull out of society like the pre-trib brethren and leave it to those who would be "left behind"? The notion de-legitimizes this very platform.  I, for one, am much more excited about Christians infiltrating with consequence the public square rather than leaving it in it's "nakedness" as described by RJ Neuhaus. True "little christs" doing so would mitigate the fringes, yes? Like any theological view point - the extreme fringe can be dangerous - but a very powerful motivator and hence political tool. I get the impression - and it is only an impression - that a president Perry, in spite of his NAR ties, does in fact offer more of the same.

So far, little has enthused me about this Governor. While I suspect I know more than the average citizen about him, I have yet to spend much time analyzing outside of a few interviews, articles and right wing media buzz. What is interesting to me is that generally the buzz doesn't measure up to the man - as far as I am concerned. In spite of the hype - to me - his speeches aren't that great, off the cuff statements touch the fringes of sensational and even his persona strikes me as hollow. While I won't judge the man in total, I have to say that his alliance and persona comes across more opportunistic than heartfelt. I suspect that NAR will be the governor's version of the Rev Wright and, beyond the primaries, will go the way of Obama's "old uncle".