Obama-bashing

A friend posted this picture on facebook. I "liked" it, and re-posted it on my "timeline."

It's interesting: the simple statement of these facts, that Obama has done some good things, violently offends people whose entire political "principle" is he can't do a single thing right. But the hatred "conservatives" (including many "Christians") bear Obama goes beyond politics, and beyond reality.

It seems commonsense to me that Presidents are human; and like every other human being, are never all good nor all bad. That seems simple reality. Richard Nixon was probably one of the most flawed men, and one of the sleaziest politicians, who ever became President. Even so, he did some good things. However mixed his motives, he was first to have the courage against hardline conservatives to recognize communist China (after building his entire career on sharing their rabid hatred of Communism).

To deny that Nixon ever did a single thing right would be to ignore facts. It would say more about the person making such a statement, than about Nixon. It would tell me, for one thing, that person had little love for truth, and was not trying in the least to make an honest judgement.

It would also tell me that person's heart was so filled with hatred that violent lies had become his religion. It's interesting, again, that people of that spirit can only see others as they themselves are. Delusional haters can only perceive any contradictory statement of fact as violent, partisan attack.

More than a few "conservatives" in America today have worked themselves up to that level of Obama-hatred. More than a few of them call their violent delusional hatred "Christianity."

May any who can still hear the Spirit, hear Him cry "Repent !!"

Amen.

God Loves the Honest

"...[we] have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God." (II Corinthians 4:2, KJV)

A forwarded meditation by David Wilkerson was in my e-mail today, on the above scripture. I was struck by the word "dishonesty," which I don't remember having seen in scripture previously. So I had to look it up, and check it out.

Part of the reason I'd never seen "dishonesty" before was because my favored New American Standard translation always translates the Greek word in this passage (aischune) as "shame." I rarely consult the King James' translation: but looking at the lexicons and other references, and the context, I can credit the KJV's alternative reading here of "dishonesty."

More than a particular word, however, this verse resonated for me with Jesus' characterization of Nathanael as a man "in whom there is no guile." The straightforward character this verse commends seems to be what Jesus perceived in Nathanael: a man in whom there was no hidden agenda, no craftiness, no deceitfulness: one whose straightforward truthfulness commended him to every man, and to Jesus Himself.

Incarnation

Robert Rohr, a priest who heads The Center for Action and Contemplation, sends out a daily e-mail devotion I've recently begun subscribing to. Some of his writings are a bit too self-consciously "mystical" for my tastes, but no matter: he often shares a piercing light of Christ in Truth.

His recent meditation on the eucharist highlighted such a truth, of our being the Body of Christ:

"It is not just Jesus’ own sacrifice that we are recalling, but also our agreement to participate in the same! It is not just the human incarnation in Jesus that we are remembering, but that this mystery of incarnation is continued in space, time, and the physical universe itself..."

AMEN !!

Letter to a facebook "friend"

Hi, B----:

Thanks for being open to some comments. You can understand why I wasn't sure you would.

Was hopeful after your facebook response was civil and straightforward. But we naturally associate people with their facebook (re-) posts:
an implied "I'm (whoever), and I approved this message," like the tag on politicians' ads. Isn't that what we intend to say with our facebook re-postings ?

So I was glad you didn't respond in the spirit of that post. I'm not at all implying hypocrisy: I get that you despise President Obama, and you don't ever pretend otherwise. But neither do you seem filled with raging hatred like the writer of your post.

For all I know, the writer himself may actually be a decent person, and only using violent rhetoric to make his opinions more striking. Political views these days have to be pretty extreme (as you agreed his post is) to stand out from the negative chorus we've gotten used to. He may simply be trying for some kind of notoriety among the crowd.

It's otherwise hard to understand why a decent person would choose to strike a pose so much more evil than his actual character. You and I both know the scriptures, especially Christ's teachings. We both know the admonition to "put on Christ." Isn't spewing hatred putting on the contrary spirit ?

So where are you with that ? You're obviously not filled with malevolent violence like the writer is (or at least pretends to). How does your re-posting his rantings not imply your approval: and associate your own character with the spirit his post manifests ?

Those questions are meant as hostile only to that enemy spirit, and his deceiving the Church away from its Head. Between us Christians, they are questions of purposefully "putting on Christ."

Thanks for welcoming my thoughts, and I'll very much welcome yours.

In Jesus, Steve

Partisanship

Another observation about my recent interaction with my "facebook friend."

His response seemed civil and rational, so I'd like to talk further (in more than the bumper-sticker or postcard-sized "thoughts" facebook promotes); but I'm rather hesitant to approach him. People striking belligerent poses invariably perceive any approach as hostile. Picknickers in Ukraine are well-advised these days to not stroll through fields near a military outpost, even if it's manned by "our side." Whatever ordinary or innocent purpose may be in your heart, or even if you're on the same "side," partisans can only see, and react to, everyone else in terms of their violent mania.

And it is very much "mania," the madness of sin's self-ishness, to operate as if the world entirely and actually conforms to one's personal world-view. A person who attacks others with a knife in the belief that everyone is trying to kill him, we deem criminally insane. Acting out the sin of partisanship (Galatians 5:20) is the same kind of madness: and produces the same raging spirit of murder.

Facebook Again

A "facebook friend" posted one of those personal attacks on President Obama that factionalists so love. His post was more vile than most: which is saying a lot in a society that's come to regard vicious personal attack as acceptable political discourse. Very much analogous to our deadened acceptance of people spewing profanity in public places.

This particular post was more vile than most because it was filled with hatred not just for the President, but for every person who voted for him (a majority of voters, in our political system), their reasons for voting for him...and as my "friend" put it, anyone who "thinks he is O.K." That's a lot of hate.

The format was something like: "If you voted for Obama...because of his qualifications, then you are ignorant...of his economic plan, then you are a moron...;" and so on, through "delusional," "a racist," "greedy," "a tool," "an idiot," etc.. The kicker (for the approving choir of factionalists, anyway) was, "if you voted for him because you TRULY know what he stands for, then you are a traitor."

Only five or six sentences: but lots of hatred, towards lots of people.

Spiritually, such stuff is of more substantive sin than someone ranting profanity in public. I have to guess the writer of this post is ignorant of what God says about speaking evil of rulers, or what Jesus said about calling people "fool;" and doesn't realize he's pouring forth sin. Or maybe he knows what God says in those scriptures, and just doesn't take it seriously, in practice.

But there's a spiritual consideration besides foundational belief and practical obedience. In this time of intense spiritual warfare, I've learned to weigh all things in those terms. It was a no-brainer in this case: spewing hatred is manifestly spiritual attack.

What impressed me, when my facebook "friend" replied to my disapproving comments, was that his response was more civil and thoughtful than the hate-filled post he'd copied to facebook under his name. He clearly despised Obama (which he professed to believe was the issue), but without the belligerent rhetoric: and agreed the post's attacking so many other people was uncalled for. It brought the spiritual warfare into focus for me.

I doubt President Obama, or those who voted for him, or anyone who "thinks he is O.K." is harmed by the vitriol my "friend" 's copied post directs at them. Maybe the original writer of the post operates on the voodoo belief that he can wound and kill people by targeting them with words of hatred: I'm a Christian, and don't. Indeed, as a Christian, I'd consider the spiritual effects of such a diatribe runs the other direction, wounding and (ultimately) killing anyone whose heart is so hate-filled.

The matter of posing also came to mind. Speaking as himself, my "friend" was clearly much more honest, temperate...decent...than the post he approvingly copied to facebook. NOT that his "posing" was hypocritical whatever: he truly despises President Obama, and doesn't pretend otherwise. But neither is he a creature of violent malevolence like the writer of the post (who might himself be striking a pose more demonic than his real character).

Indeed, I don't use "posing" here in any negative sense. Few of us are so completely authentic that we don't pose some times, in some degree, as someone not exactly who we really are. In Mere Christianity, C. S. Lewis even points out that "posing" is part of how we become fully Christian. Beginning with the first words of the prayer Jesus taught us to say, "Our Father...", we are enjoined to talk and act as if we were the Son of God: knowing we're only "putting on Christ" (Romans 13:14) like a mask of One much better than we are, over our true faces. In Lewis' understanding, Christ fulfills the ancient myths in reality, as our faces grow into the likeness of the Son-mask He bids us wear.

It seems to work the same way in the other direction. Decent, "good" people: perhaps Christian people: may also pose as something much worse than their real character. It's beyond my understanding WHY a good person would want to be seen as evil: but many of my facebook "friends" seem to, usually as a "political" stance. Some even seem to be growing into that mask, if their love of "enmity, strife, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions" (Galatians 5) are good indicators.

God is liberal in mercy: maybe He'll call back to their first Love some who've chosen to pose in "the deeds of the flesh." But there are masks worse than that carnal one. Scripture says flatly that those who profess to love God, but hate their brother, are LIARS. (I John 4:20) It seems a cautionary scripture for Christians who choose to pose as something less (and every pose but Christ is something less). The most fearful thing I can imagine happening to any person would be choosing the pose of hatred: and taking off the mask to find one's face grown into the likeness of the father of lies.

Nathanael

It came to mind in Sunday School recently, and I’d been thinking the last couple weeks about the time Jesus called Nathanael.

It's a curious episode. We don't quite know what Jesus is referring to when He tells Nathanael, "Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you." (John 1:48) I can only guess that God somehow supernaturally impressed Nathanael's heart as he sat under the fig tree, preparing him to meet Jesus.

Whatever the case, Jesus' words immediately destroyed Nathanael's initial skepticism. ("Can any good thing come out of Nazareth ?")

But I was impressed at what Jesus saw in Nathanael: “an Israelite in whom there is no guile” (or “deceit,” or “craft” -iness). The One True Judge of human hearts saw in Nathanael an honest man; a man without pretense, mixed motives, or hidden agenda.

I was impressed too that an honest heart immediately “got” Jesus. We often think of Peter's confession (Matthew 16) as the point when the disciples began to perceive Who Jesus IS. But before his first conversation with Jesus ended, Nathanael was already proclaiming, “Rabbi, You are the Son of God ! You are the King of Israel !” (John 1:49)

On his "A Call to the Remnant" blog, beloved brother Frank McEleny gave me the word I was looking for in meditating on Nathanael: authenticity. He perceptively writes of our walk before God,

"... mature saints have one thing in common in my estimation, they are transparent, what you see is what you get. Now this is rarely a way to make friends and influence people but it is the road to authenticity." ("All the world is a stage," http://acalltotheremnant.com/)

I've always been impressed with the prayer a good friend offers in acknowledging his failings: "God, you know my heart." It's authentic prayer: honest about Who God IS, honest about our failings...and that God still knows our deep love toward Him, despite our failings.

Praise Him Who KNOWS our hearts so completely: praise Him Who makes hearts who love Him as authentic as He Himself IS.

Amen !

Comfort

My daughter had been having problems in her pregnancy. Her twins, about whom we literally danced for joy when she told us, were growing unequally. The doctors kept close watch on the situation, and this week decided to do a surgical procedure so each twin would have equal placental nutrition and blood-flow. They told us the procedure was 85% successful.

She had the surgery Wednesday, and they kept her in the hospital to monitor for 24 hours. Everything was O.K., so she was allowed to come home Thursday, and scheduled back at the hospital Friday for continued checking.

She called Friday afternoon, barely able to say, "Elijah didn't make it." When she got home, I just held her and we cried together. I later asked her husband some of the particulars, but didn't talk to her about it. Neither of us could have.

It's been on my mind continually. I have to think of Abraham, able to trust God even with the death of his son because "he considered that God is able to raise people even from the dead..." (Hebrews 11:19). God quickly gave me His grace to say in my own aching and mourning heart, "So too will I trust God."

Today I had my regular time to be in God's Presence. I desperately needed Him today, even more than I usually feel (or at least, admit to) that need. I had determined to worship Him without my emotions intruding: but once in His Presence, I completely fell apart.

He let me. For a long time, He let me blubber and pray, without saying anything. He didn't have to. He was there: He was enough.

Eventually he said, "Those I love live forever."

It was the deep comfort He knew I needed. As deep as His everlasting BEING: I AM comfort.

God, Father, thank you !!

Derek Prince on Pride

As always, Derek Prince' teaching nails it: simple, Biblical, straightforward, logical, Spirit-given.


The essential nature of the sin into which Adam fell...was the same as Satan's own sin. It was the sin of pride, leading to rebellion against God.

In Genesis 3:5 Satan presented his ultimate temptation to Adam and Eve. What was it ? To disobey God and eat of the fruit of the tree in the middle of the garden than God had forbidden to them. Satan, in the person of the serpent, said to them:

"For God knows that when you eat of it, your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

The motivation that prompted Satan's own rebellion in heaven is summed up in the self-exalting statement, "I will make myself like the Most High" (Isaiah 14:14). Subsequently, Satan's ultimate temptation to Adam and Eve was, "If you eat of this tree of knowledge of good and evil, you will be like God--equal to God." It is the same motivation, producing the same disastrous consequences--pride that led to a fall.

What is, therefore, the intrinsic nature of pride ? It is most important that we see this. I can sum it up in one simple sentence: Pride of this kind is seeking to be independent of God. It was not a denial of God's sovereignty in the universe. It was simply a personal decision by Adam and Eve that they could do without God. They didn't need God. If they could acquire the knowledge of good and evil, they would no longer need to depend upon God...

"The people are the rightful masters of Congress and the Courts"

"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts,not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."

The tea party controversialists are currently sending around the above quote by Lincoln. I've seen it recently posted twice by facebook "friends."

Any quote "conservatives" send around, I try to verify. The Library of Congress' transcript of Lincoln's words, from notes he made in 1859 for speeches in Kansas and Ohio, is slightly different:

"the people — are the rightful masters of both Congresses, and courts — not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it."

http://www.loc.gov/teachers/classroommaterials/connections/abraham-lincoln-papers/history3.html

But the slight difference of wording isn't the point here. This isn't the kind of fabricated or deceptively edited quote we usually get from "conservatives" in support of their agenda. This quotation attempts to reverse American history, and its current application.

Lincoln's "men who pervert" the Constitution were southern conservatives promoting the institution of slavery. That rhetorically-violent minority had imposed their evil agenda on the country for decades, in Congress' legislation (The Fugitive Slave Act, for example) and in Supreme Court decisions (the Dred Scott case).

Lincoln's beef with "the men who pervert the Constitution" was that they usurped America's constitutional government to thwart the will of the nation's majority. They effectively blocked the operation of constitutional government in its attempts to rein in their power. And at the time Lincoln spoke, they were threatening to destroy the nation, unless they got their way.

Lincoln conceded that slavery, which southern politicians made the cornerstone of their "states rights" argument, had constitutional standing. But he refused to concede any minority's constitutional right to tyrannize the nation, or threaten to destroy it.

Lincoln's words indeed have current application. Tea partiers would like that to portray themselves as the "rightful masters" of constitutional government, against those who (in their eyes) pervert it...i.e., our constitutional government. It says a great deal about their ignorance of American history, and their lack of self-awareness, that they apply Lincoln's words in self-congratulation.

Any rational view of American history, past and current, would acknowledge that "the men who pervert the Constitution" are still with us: and still attempting to impose the evil agenda of their violent. destructive minority on the nation. That tea partiers fail to recognize themselves in that description is an act of willful self-delusion, stunning even by "conservative" standards: and hubris supreme.