For those interested in voting for John McCain, you might want to read this list of how he has, er., evolved on policy issues. Oops. Can't say that in conservative circles. Hmm. How he has intelligently designed his answers, perhaps? Wait. That doesn't really work either unless he was told to change his positions by an intelligent creator. Or at least an intelligent, Karl Rove-like advisor. Or even Karl Rove.
Let's just call them flip flops and be done with it. Unless that only applies to Democrats. And some of his are real doozies. The very things that he used to justify his claim to be a "different kind of Republican" have been thrown under the "Straight Talk Express." Of course, we should have known that when the same man who denounced Jerry Falwell as an agent of intolerance, but then hugged the most ridiculous of the religious right. Notice, btw, how many times in this list he opposes his own legislation. Even as much as John Kerry might have deserved criticism, he didn't come close to this level of flip flopping.
Oh, but I am sure republicans don't mind, and I fear mostly don't mind because McCain is essentially 4 more years of Bush. If you like this last 8 year disaster, then buckle up. But for those who have told me that this last 8 years was an abject failure, or even suggested that it was time for a change, this may not be your guy.
12 comments:
I must admit, I am torn. I really do not know where to go. Anytime I even mention the name (starts with O) to my conservative brethren there are shrieks of terror.
A vote for Obama is a vote for killing babies...a vote for the gays...a vote for uhhh...uhhh...a vote for the gays!
But no, my friends won't consider things such as this. Reject Romney because he is Mormon. Reject Hillary for well, whatever reason, you fill in the blank. Reject (begins with O) because he loves gays. (Wait, is starts with O gay?)
Aackkk, run!
Well, he is a Muslim. Or a radical Christian. One of those. And radical means "black." John Hagee and Rod Parsley are not "radical." They are "prophetic." Or "anointed." Or something.
I like the John McCain of 2000, and could consider him a viable option in 2008, but not the current Stepford/Bodysnatchers version.
Tony, what is your sense of the Jeremiah Wright controversy? For what it's worth, I look to Kennedy (or to a lesser degree, Romney) and draw a distinction between a candidates personal religious/spiritual/philosophical beliefs and their policy decisions.
As a voter, I don't see a need to agree with someone's personal theological views. I am not a Methodist, for example, but if Hilary is, so be it. However, I get owly when I see candidates, as candidates for official positions, bowing down before Hagee, Robertson, Falwell, etc. The former is your spiritual base as a human being while the latter is pandering and implicitly promising policy concessions based on theology I cannot accept.
I am in a hurry, so may not be expressing myself as clearly as I'd like, but maybe you all follow?
ubub,
I understand perfectly. I do my best to draw a distinction between a candidate's personal beliefs and their policy decisions. Will beliefs influence those decisions? Well, of course. Should those beliefs be the sole determining factor? Absolutely not.
This is where I get into hot water with my conservative peers. They just cannot separate their theology from their politics.
I was really disappointed with Obama on the "controversy." I feel like he threw his former pastor under the bus. This is the only place where I have seen Obama being conciliatory for the sake of the establishment. Granted, the pastor may have made some remarks that some white conservatives cannot live with. However, and this is where I got into trouble on another blog, I sided with one of my theologically moderate friends who asked a very valid and legitimate question: "So, what if McCain had been a member of Falwell's church for twenty years, would THAT make a difference?"
He was censured for taking the post "off subject." Ugh.
So Obama has an outspoken pastor. What is the big deal? Its not like outspoken pastors have not swayed political decisions in the past. They are swaying in a different direction and we (conservatives) just cannot have that (/snark).
Streak
I enjoyed the linked article.
Here's a another good one (in my opinion). It's written from a libertarian bias with which I'm pretty sympathetic- I tend to fall in the "leftist libertarian" category. Anyway, McCain has always bothered me. This guy's puts words to some of my gut feelings. John McCain Wants You - New York Times
McCain really strikes me as one of those people who has had his last shot presented to him and he's willing to do/say anything to get it. I have no love for the Republican party, but I'm so disappointed that McCain is the best that they could come up with. I know there's plenty who will vote for him because he's the repub candidate or the "not Obama" or "not Hilary" choice so I know he's got a fair chance, but DAMN! Six years of Bush follies and it appears NO ONE was seriously working on finding an inspirational conservative.
I really appreciate Tony's points about Obama's pastor. I've attended church all my life and wish so badly some of the services I've been in over the years were now on Youtube. Some of my non-church or mainline denomination friends just wouldn't believe it without seeing it. The outrage expressed by so many on this is just lost on me. I know this is off topic for this thread so I won't expound further.
Later
BB
BB, we don't have a problem with going off topic on this blog. What would the Youtube of BB's past tell us?
I think I have made my position clear on this and I must say, I am more and more convinced that race IS the source of the conservative attack on Wright. Hagee and Parsley and Falwell and Robertson have all said unbelievably stupid and insane and ignorant and biased and stupid and ridiculous things. Hell, Pat Robertson has a damn tv station so he can say stupid stuff every day. And yes, people don't like it and object. But no one is challenging McCain for going out of his way to recruit the support of idiots like Hagee and Parsley, but as Tony notes, Obama has a loudmouthed and opinionated pastor.
Big deal.
Ahhhhh, Streak. I'm heading out, but suffice it to say that one of my goals in another life is an sociological study on the position of pastor/preacher. Some of the most bizarre, narcissistic, manipulative, mean, racist, sexist, vindictive, judgmental people I've ever seen in my life have occupied the position of pastor or speaker less than a hundred feet from my seat on Sunday mornings, sunday nights, wednesday nights, revivals, retreats, and conferences. How these men (I know there's women who could fit the same descriptions, but they just weren't in my history until relatively recently) manage to get hired and then get a captive audience each week is simply a social anomaly to me. Intelligent people who during the week might even head up businesses and lead others seem to check their critical brains at the door and then tolerate statements and behavior they'd never allow in any other context. Often any questioning of these leaders is met with the, "but he's called of God".
Of course, some of my favorite people are pastors and they've been some of the most inspirational and challenging people in my life. Even with those shining examples, I still question the whole phenomenon of the individual standing at the pulpit and monologuing to the audience. I think it's too much influence for one individual and lends itself to too much abuse.
All of that said, given that the "pastor" isn't going anywhere soon just because of little ole me's reservations, I fully agree that the attacks on Wright are ridiculous in the context at large. I DO think that if he needs to determine if his intention is to promote Obama or to be prophetic. The two may not be the same at this point in time.
Maybe some youtube moments will come to me later, Streak.
Later- BB
I always liked the U2 line from Hawkmoon 269
Like thunder needs rain
Like a preacher needs pain
Like you, I have known some great ones. But I have also known some who clearly were drawn to the role--not because of God--for some internal dynamic that was very earthly. And that is fine. But as you note, too many people listening in the pews extend some kind of pass to those in the pulpit that seems to include shutting off brain activity.
I also think you are on to something that I would be intrigued to hear Tony speak to. Clearly, many churches turn pastors into something that is far from a servant role. They instead become part of some "cult of the personality." Here in OK, we have some non denoms that have "satellite" campuses where they stream the holy man's sermons. Because, I guess, he is irreplaceable.
That doesn't sound servant-like to me.
The worst preacher I ever encountered was so selfish, petty, insecure and generally inept that the congregation kept him around largely out of pity, despite the fact that the majority of the congregation disagreed strongly and vocally (when he wasn't around) with the majority of what he said and believed. But he was good at visiting people in the hospital.
It's hard to tell why people tolerate crap from pulpits. Sometimes it's little more than a culturally ingrained respect for authority--you don't make someone who's taken all that responsibility feel inadequate about his job under any circumstances, even if he were to steal the congregation's pets and run them over with a van. That rule may work for [some] holiday family gatherings, but it seems like a dangerous, destructive way to organize a community.
I don't mind speaking to that at all, and would be glad to. I hope I don't end up writing a book...
I guess I can start with one of my pet peeves--Christian leadership manuals. Huh? Oxymoronic, in my opinion. Such things were not heard of up until the 1970's with the progression of the church growth movement. It was at this time the church began to take on more of an institutional and business-like feel.
As churches grew in numbers, the dynamic naturally led to some kind of leadership needing to be put in place and that naturally fell to the pastor. The long and short of it would be that the pastor then became not the servant of the church, but the church then existed to serve him and make him known rather than the Savior whom they were supposed to proclaim.
Some men have pulled this off well...some, not so good. Up until this point in church history, the pastor/preacher role was not separated into the dichotomy that it is today.
The preacher stands up to be heard--simply because of who he is. The pastor earns his audience; it is because he has provided care outside of the pulpit that the congregation will listen to him and what he says. His presence outside of the pulpit has validated his presence in.
The people then trust him and they know, like a shepherd, he will not lead them astray. However, the preacher finds his validation from another source--himself. As long as he is satisfying some unseen establishment then his work is completely legitimate.
The paradigm for this kind of pulpit ministry should be found in John 13, Jesus washing the feet of the disciples. How many foot-washing pastors do you know? Now back to my pet peeve--if this paradigm were followed, there would be no reason for John Maxwell to even write a "book".
My good friend, Steve Sensenig, whom you have talked to at my blog, belongs to a house church movement and got out of institutional church mainly because of these reasons. He was on staff as a music minister at a large SB church and when even he could not get in to see the pastor, he quit; walked out of it entirely. I wish he still blogged regularly but he does not.
The point is, the people ought to have access to their pastor. You know, Jesus looked out at the multitudes and had compassion on them, because they were sheep without a leader.
Now what about those "men at the top" who get national media attention? Well, for the most part, that is what they are paid by their churches to do. Like Falwell's church he had a staff underneath him that attended to the "grind" of ministry which allowed him to jet-set all over the US, yet he still pulled a salary from Thomas Road. If I spent as little time with the people I serve as Falwell did (not that I would want it that way) I would be out of the ministry.
Once again, and I know this has come up here before and we have talked about it before, this comes from the odd, consumerist bent on religion. Granted, our pluralistic religious environment as well as free-market economy and competition have spawned the pulpiteer and elevated him to sports superstar status.
In one sense, we should thank God that we can use the media to draw people unto Him--however, even a tool can be misused and it can become cumbersome, unwieldy, and difficult to manage.
Leighton, I admit, I had to chuckle at this line in your post: But he was good at visiting people in the hospital.
I have heard of so many church people tolerating crappy preaching because "Well, when my favorite cousin's next-door neighbor's roommate from college's third cousin's hunting dog died, well, he was there." Of course, my opinion is, why are you making him waste his time like that?
I have probably gone on too long, but will be glad to elaborate if anyone would like. (Thanks for asking, Streak.)
I have heard of so many church people tolerating crappy preaching because "Well, when my favorite cousin's next-door neighbor's roommate from college's third cousin's hunting dog died, well, he was there." Of course, my opinion is, why are you making him waste his time like that?
Why? I'll tell you.
...I don't know.
Classic, Leighton. Classic!
Post a Comment