RSSObama’s Postmillenial Dream
W.H. Chellis
Talk about immanentizing the eschaton… a scary vision of the Kingdom.
With Republican candidates struggling to make headway among evangelicals it would not be surprising to see 2008 as the year of the Christian left.
How can people who reject all historic forms and tradition on Sunday not drift leftward the other six days? The world of Rick Warren will never be friendly to Russell Kirk.
kjsulli
October 8th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
Were not similar sentiments fairly common about a century ago? Two world wars destroyed those. Of course, this time around, the particular “kingdom values” being promoted are getting even further askew from the truth. Pray God doesn’t chasten us in the same manner.
tim prussic
October 8th, 2007 at 6:45 pm
Kyle, for possibly the first time, I agree with you 100%… and I like it, baby!
The only question I have is this: Is such a chastening really a whole lot worse than some ding-bat Republican? Seems like we have a two-party chastening system.
Phil
October 8th, 2007 at 8:08 pm
I wouldn’t call Obama’s dream a postmillennial one: he isn’t indicating that he longs for Christ’s return if/when this Kingdom comes, and he gives no indication that he sees this as an extension of Christ’s Kingdom.
Furthermore, it appears that Obama’s hope is a subjective one, not anything objective like the person and work of Christ.
FWIW, the local pastor required that Obama sit through two services. A local radio show caller indicated that this was a way of not isolating one’s self from sinners. I don’t know the quality of what Obama heard in these services.
Here’s the local report of what he said:
http://greenvilleonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071008/NEWS01/710080321
stevez
October 9th, 2007 at 8:35 am
kjsulli, yes. There is nothing new under the (American) sun. But, no, as intriguing as it may seem to suggest, neither is side is getting “farther away from the truth.” That suggests a rather lop-sided view that the further one goes back in time the better man has been at it, which is just the opposite of the other lop-sided view that the more man progresses the better he gets at it. But the state of man/history has been the same from the beginning. Don’t get distracted with the more immediate and evident changes that attend time and place.
Here’s one place Dubya and Obama agree insofar as they descend from that American household called Evangelicalism. Like all good family members they squabble and bicker. But they all agree that Christianity is relevant to earth building. The proverbial devil is in the details.
At least it’s warm and cozy in the house, despite the evident in-fighting. Sure is cold out here in the confessional outhouse. Somebody pass the bread and wine, please?
Steve
efwakeman
October 9th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
Preach on brother Steve! AMEN!
The religion of man is The Law… “do this and you will live” or to quote Obama, “…everybody is out there trying to figure out how do we live right and how do we create a stronger America”.
There is no category for The Gospel (I recognize every politician worth his salt has a gospel) in politics. They’re two separate and distinct categories. Does it bother anybody else that a church would invite a politician, no matter what his stance on the war or the death penalty or abortion, to speak to the congregation? Did our Christ give a rat’s rear end about His (physical) country, where He could have opened up a can of whoop a lot bigger than the US military with all its nukes ever dreamed, and taken His rightful seat on the throne in Jerusalem?
As a Presidential candidate who one day hopes to be the most powerful man in the world, one has to wonder when he says “We’re going to keep on praising together.” who shall be praised, and when he says “I am confident that we can create a Kingdom right here on Earth.” who’ll be the king! Just a hint as to my suspicion… Patrick Henry would spin in his grave at the irony, and Thomas Jefferson would suggest he was right about the need for a revolution every 150 yrs whether the guy had a little “D” or “R” next to his name. “King Obama,” “King Hillary,” “King Rudy,” or “King Mit” ought to turn the stomachs of people in both parties… but “King George” doesn’t seem to bother the presumably “conservative” party, so who knows…
We will always be disappointed if we think that any “kingdom” here on earth can do anything for that great Kingdom that even now Christ is building. There are countries with far fewer “rights” that by American Evangelical standards wouldn’t be anywhere near as “Christian” as America ever has been that have much healthier churches. Christ builds His Church in places without freedom, without free markets, without equality of the races, without child labor laws, places that serve alcohol, grow tobacco, and make significant portions of their national income from drugs and prostitution, etc.
I don’t know about y’all, but I’d love to hear from a candidate who doesn’t patronize me with god-talk but who has good solid policy ideas that’ll protect our right to assemble and speak freely, police our borders, save the lives of our young men in the military, and save the tax payers money.
I’ll leave the preaching to a man who knows that His only comfort in life and in death is not in His faithful savior Uncle Sam, but in Christ Jesus, and that He builds His Church in the most inefficient means known… preaching of the word, sacraments, and Church discipline.
stevez
October 10th, 2007 at 8:41 am
Wakeman said, “…to quote Obama, ‘…everybody is out there trying to figure out how do we live right and how do we create a stronger America.’”
I have no problem with anyone wanting to simply do LHK building. What Obama says here isn’t a problem. His problem, however, is his context. Saying as much in a secular context is completely legitimate. Saying it in a sacred one is the classic, predictable American Evangelical fumble and that wink-wink-say-no-more kind of way. Switch the sacred/secular categories and it’s a lot like saying your favorite “philosopher” is Jesus during a debate. Yeow. Both seem to need a lesson in Joseph’s bones.
“I don’t know about y’all, but I’d love to hear from a candidate who doesn’t patronize me with god-talk but who has good solid policy ideas…”
Don’t hold your breath. Everyone seems to agree that government or politics is the place to exercise one’s morality and cultivate virtue, etc. (entertainment being a close second maybe). It is ironic that a party like the Republican one, insofar as it has becomes so closely associated with the stuff of “family values” and personal virtue, equally miscontrues the parameters and reach of statecraft. It’s the institution of family that cultivates virtue, etc.
Steve
kjsulli
October 11th, 2007 at 12:53 am
Tim,
Believe it or not, I don’t think this is the first time. I certainly hope it’s not the last.
Steve,
What I said has nothing to do with the view of history you impute to me. I’m stating what I believe to be simple fact. There have been worse periods in history than this, there have been better periods; there will no doubt be worse periods yet. And there may even be better periods before the Lord returns. What is being promoted in the name of “kingdom values” now, by folks like Obama, versus the old Social Gospel of a century ago, happens to be worse. This is not by some fatalistic necessity in the nature of time’s march.
stevez
October 11th, 2007 at 10:56 am
kjsulli,
It’s always hard to objectify what is by nature highly subjective. It’s a “simple fact” that I am wearing a blue sweater today. That what is being promoted now is worse than the Social Gospel of a century ago…eh, not so much. That may be your take, which is fine, but I have difficulty with it being a “simple fact.” I would rather say it may be different in its particulars here and there. But essentially it’s the same thing warmed over to fit its particular time and place, that’s all. I tend to think that when someone qualifies what is essentially the same thing in nature as “better or worse” it might betray what one thinks of the particulars. In other words, you are no Obama fan. But I’d stop short of heaping the weight of history onto the man’s shoulders and say he’s exceeded the “badness” of even then just to make that point. Why not just say you’re no Obama fan and be done with it?
Steve
kjsulli
October 11th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
Steve,
I’m not an Obama fan. But my comments were never meant with specific reference to Obama. Obama is only one of many. And no, by “many” I do not mean “Democrats,” although they are mostly part of the “many.”
stevez
October 12th, 2007 at 9:45 am
kjsulli,
Ok. But, hold on, not so fast. There you go again with your qualifiers. The Dems are “mostly” part of the many? If we are going to do this sneaky modifying exercise, I’d actually think the case could be made that they have, in at least recent history, done better at drawing the sacred/secular lines (Okay, not by much, but every little bit counts in this present evil age). It’s only of late that they want in on the God-vote. I might be more inclined to say that the “many” have been the Righties. But then I’d be violating my own rule about suggesting that the Evangelical household is qualitatively different from the Confessional one. Whatever distinctions might be made within their household are secondary to me; at the risk of sounding like a bigot, it matters little as they all look the same to me.
Steve
kjsulli
October 12th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
Steve,
If you want to play games with what I’ve said, feel free. But I prefer not to engage in such games. I don’t think I’ve been unclear. You, on the hand, have been reading whatever you like into what I’ve written. What I said was that the Democrats are mostly part of the “many,” not that the “many” are mostly Democrats. I am NOT cheerleading for broad evangelicalism, nor for Republicans. Please CEASE AND DESIST from making assumptions about my politics.
stevez
October 15th, 2007 at 9:01 am
kjsulli,
Sorry. I guess I was just doing what one normally does when writing and reading. Inferring and implying seem to come with the territory.
Steve
efwakeman
October 21st, 2007 at 8:44 pm
Steve, you’re a meanie-head.
stevez
October 22nd, 2007 at 8:40 am
Wakeman,
I am not, shut up.
Steve