Skip to main content
Fine. Politically and ideologically, I have a viewpoint. It's a strong one. You can fool me (See "Obama, Barack, 2008") but my basic approach and opinions on matters haven't changed much in 10+ years. I will not sit here and tell you that I'm either moderate, or open-minded in a certain sense, because I'm not.

But I can tell you for certain that I'm a patriot and an optimist. I've only had an active dislike for one candidate the entire time. [You forgot McCain.--ed.] Well, that's debatable. It's not like I'd have been upset if he won. In any case, while I might naturally be an optimist, I also consider myself optimistic in application of the biblical truth that Jesus is Universal President for All Time. This is just true.

I do find it irritating that people who don't understand issues or the game of politics in America wade in to give this lecture to politically-engaged Christians, as if we've never heard this before. Firstly, if you truly don't know what the fuss is about, thank you for the reminder that this is not our home, but shut up. The fact that you are Christian and desiring not to rob Jesus of His glory does not entitle you to look down your nose at those who are deeply passionate about war and peace, social safety nets, or what have you in a way that you don't understand. You don't sound holy and above the fray; you sound like a fool.

I digress. Though I am gravely concerned about the evil of abortion and its increase, or the possibility that my party is not committed to peace and just war only as a last resort, for example, my default reaction to the election of the "other guy" (or anybody) is, "Hmmmm. The people and God must know something I don't."

And that goes for Barack Obama. He is not a punishment from God; he is not evil incarnate; he's not even close to the worst president ever. If he wins, well, there must be a reason. Those concerns I have--grave ones--about life, death, and the relation of Church and State will still be there. But as long as we are free, we have no reason to be downcast. And even if we were not, could you even dare withhold your prayers from one in the image of God?

Truth be told, I wish that the big chair in that fancy house in DC was the Church, because I know God would have something profound to say (or do) to the son of George Romney, too. He may say it anyway.

In some ways, I am the most partisan of men. My opinions are strong, and I will share them. But in another way, part of what it means to "come together as Americans," if that means anything at all, is not to agree, but to hope for the best, even to believe it will be better, even in spite of ourselves. In something like 96 hours, this election will be over. To let it have its place, and be done with it is not to dismiss it as insignificant, nor is it to spiritualize it away in some spasm of moral superiority, but it is that very act of recognizing the City of Man and the City of God by letting go.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

We Don't Need No Magisterium: (Jason's Version) (But Actually, We Do)

Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con...

Who Is Out Here Having Sex And Children With People They Don’t Like?

 And look, I’m not married. I’ve never been married. I have no children. I didn’t choose that; things just worked out that way. If you must know, I haven’t had sexual intercourse either. I probably should say “coitus,” so I am not arguing with some progressive activist about what “sexual intercourse” means. But I figured out from influencer videos or something what a “dead bedroom” was. Unless a couple mutually agrees that they don’t want to have sex/coitus anymore (hopefully to pray and serve) this is usually bad. I’ve known enough couples that it’s probably an indicator of trouble, especially for couples who are still able to have children. Is it really that wild to at least hope that Mr. and Mrs. Vance love each other? That a fourth child yet born at least might indicate that they enjoy each other?  Children are definitely not responsible for their parents’ happiness. That’s absolutely true. But wouldn’t any child hope their parents were happy, when they came into being? As...

What I Should Have Said

 I was functionally fired from my teaching job in November, 2024, after an unjust administrative "process" initiated by HR , and triggered by false accusations the content of which I was never told. My "defense" therefore could have no reasonable basis or direction. I won't say the name of the Local Education Agency, but the town where I lived and worked was Cheraw, South Carolina. I think that once I was on administrative leave, they could use nearly any indiscretion of mine as the final straw to remove me. I did connect with students on social media in protest, and I did express hope that I would quickly be returned to the classroom. The principal of the high school where I worked--a true lackey of the bureaucracy, and fully committed to educational ideas, methods, and solutions that don't work--also allowed his personal dislike of me to take the form of a belief that I was a substandard teacher. He gave me an unsatisfactory review on October 12, and we ha...