Obama Nation Consternation

The pundits are telling us to get ready for the Obama Nation. They may well be right, although the media don't have a perfect track record on this sort of thing. But let's suppose they have this one right and everything falls Obama's way.

What if we elect this liberal President, a Democratic majority in the House and a filibuster proof Democratic majority in the Senate? His party will hold all the reins of power -- He won't need "bi-partisan support" to have his way. Vacancies on the Supreme Court bench can easily be filled with judges who protect the legalized murder we call abortion. There will be nothing to stop his economic policies of wealth redistribution. Some form of nationalized health care, a hasty retreat from Iraq, a pie-in-the-sky energy policy that only accepts solutions which meet his ideological test, and say-what-you-want soirees for the Kim Jong-ils and Ahmadinejads of the world - all this and more could be ours when the package of "change we can believe in" arrives at our doorstep

Most of the package contents make me fearful. I am not alone. I hear voices all around me expressing concern about what lies ahead in the Obama Nation. So let's put a little L-W perspective on the subject. A good place to start is in Romans 13:1-7. This is the most complete NT passage to deal with the Christian's relationship to the state. Verse one captures the heart of the matter:

Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God (Rom. 13:1).

The "governing authorities" at the time Paul penned this passage includes an infamous fellow by the name of Nero, a Caesar not known for his favorable treatment of Christians. It would be hard to pick a governing authority more worthy of the animosity and resistance of Christ-followers. Yet, Paul enjoins his readers to be submissive to such a one. If submission is the right response to Rome, how much more is it appropriate in the Obama Nation? After George Bush was elected, I remember seeing a bumper sticker declaring, "He's not my President." If Obama is elected, he will be my President (and yours) and it is God's express will for me to make Rom. 13:1-7 live in my words and actions toward him.

This passage also offers me some incentive for submission. When Paul says "There is no authority except from God," he means that all governmental leaders exercise delegated authority. Jesus said something similar in his interchange with Pilate:

So Pilate said to Him, “You do not speak to me? Do You not know that I have authority to release You, and I have authority to crucify You?” Jesus answered, “You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above; for this reason he who delivered Me to you has the greater sin” (John 19:10-11).

Judas' sin is "greater." Therefore, Pilate is sinning, too. By condemning Jesus to crucifixion, Pilate is doing what is wrong. His authority does not originate with himself, it was given him by God. And now he is abusing that authority by condemning to death the innocent Son of the One who gave him his office. Scary thought! No wonder the next verse (John 19:12) tells us Pilate got desperate for an escape route.

Should Obama become President, he becomes accountable to God for his actions as President. God can handle Obama! (God can handle John, too, if the pundits are wrong.) In either case, knowing that God will deal with the President makes it easier to keep my eye on the ball, to submit to the governing authorities.

Comments

[Austin]

What an insight into Pilate's response to Jesus. I never thought of that before.

Although, if Pilate was shaken enough to be searching for a way not to abuse his authority, perhaps that in itself is a sign of a germinating faith? Lots of folks never even get to believing what Jesus says--Pilate at least seems to take Him very seriously.

[randy]

God eventually dealt with Hitler too, but it took a World War to do so!

[rev. george moore]

Redistribution of wealth??? You think that the three hundred fifty million pcketted by mitt romney is JUST? He put thousands out of work and sold therir tools for his money, BECAUSE THEY WERE INEFFICIENT; In the worship of money one of the idoliosed saints is called 'inefficiency'. So mwhat if they were iefficient they had work they supported their families they had meaning to life and it was taken from them to enrich one mn. But as you are part of this money-worship cult you approve because wealth is a sign that god loves you. Did you ever read Job or have you twisted that around also to suit your justifications?

[AC]

I'm curious if you read the post before loosing your barrage of verbage-diarrhea on the rest of us "money cultists." I'm also curious if you know how to spell.

[MBV]

easy big fella. Smoke peace pipe first.

[Austin]

Here's a hilarious link to Glenn Beck. You WILL laugh--or else!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l46t_nrySg4

[Randy]

With respect to rom 13:1, if followed literally as suggested, does this mean that no believer should have supported the French and American revelotions?

[Austin]

Well, you can answer the easy question first.

The French Revolution was a nothing but paroxysm of humanist stupidity anyway, a bloody tantrum-prelude to a stampede back to dictatorship under Napoleon. I'm willing to bet that if an exception to the "submit to your leaders" rule exists, it's contours do not spread so far as to protect the Terror's descent into terrorism and murder. So, no believer should have supported the French Revolution anyway.