 |
| Search |
|
|
|
|
Hot Button Issues
Dearest Ladies,
With regard to the recent questioning headline "Is LAF too political?", I thought I might jot a quick note to let you know that your site does have a near-perfect balance of all that pertains to Christian womanhood. I greatly appreciate the voice that you are able to give to those of us who haven't the resources available in order to effectively spread such a Biblical message. I especially appreciated the article regarding the fact that, Biblically speaking, a woman must allow the leader of her household to cast her vote with his. It is an issue of deference and respect toward her father or husband and I fear that so many women have failed to understand this basic principle of submission.
Thank you for all that you do in order to uplift and exhort so many women who truly desire to be ladies. The Lord has used you in my own life, and I daresay that you are not overbearingly strong on any issue. I am 21, still single, and have believed for many years that a woman's place is at home under the headship of her father in preparation for the day when she is given to be under the headship of a husband. This conviction, and all of its accompanying convictions and principles, is certainly not for the faint of heart. It is not for the selfish. It is not for the proud. A woman is not her own, and when she comes to this realization, only then is she able to find true liberty, fulfillment and contentment... A gentle and quiet spirit is sure to follow.
I was overjoyed when I found your site in 2002! Thank you again for allowing yourselves to be used of the Lord in such a manner as this, for such a time as this. (Please do continue to post the unpopular!)
For Christ and His Church,
Joyelle
*~*~*~*~*~*
Thank you so much for all you have done to encourage women. I have been greatly motivated by the articles posted on LAF. I agree with most perspectives and check the website almost daily! It is refreshing to see that there are other girls and women striving to live a God glorifying life by being home foucused! May God bless you richly! After reading the article regarding President Bush, along with Laura and Michelle, I am deeply concerned. First, I will say that in these elections, I have been reminded that it is God who appoints kings and it is God who brings them down. Four years ago, God obviously choose George W. Bush to be President. Was he the perfect man? Probably not. No man is. I understand your position, but disagree wholeheartedly. Is the man you are voting for a perfect man? Has his speech been Biblically solid at all times? Is his family ALWAYS a perfect example? If so, I respect him greatly! But, I would highly doubt it. We all fall short of the glory of God. Even President Bush. I do not agree with all of his choices, speeches or family stances. I know that nothing I will say will "convince" you to vote for him. Still, I will voice that I am disappointed with LAF on this political note. May I pose a question... Have you earnestly prayed for those in Washington? You said that if we voted Biblically, we would see a drastic change in Washington. I agree partially. I also believe that if we prayed... not just token prayers of "God help the politicians" but earnest prayers for conviction and salvation we would also see a change in Washington. The last four years, have you prayed for a change of heart for President Bush in the areas you disagree with him? Or have you just complained about what he is doing? There are many other questions I could pose, but do not have time to do so. Despite this area of polictics, I will of course continue to read your articles on family and homemaking because I agree with your imput there! May God bless our country and have mercy on us for a little longer. ~ Jaclyn
Thank you for this thoughtful note, Jaclyn! I am glad LAF has been an encouragement to you. And I am glad you felt perfectly free to express your opinions about our stance on the voting issue. :-)
Let me immediately clarify what we are saying about God's commands for selecting civil rulers:
- God does not say we are to choose "perfect" men. That is nowhere in Scripture. There are no perfect men on earth. The only One Who was ever here is now seated on the throne in Heaven. :-)
- Because of this fact, we are not looking for or expecting a "perfect" candidate. There will never be one. My husband doesn't agree with Michael Peroutka on every single one of his views, but the things he takes issue with are not "litmus test" issues for Christians when they go to the ballot box. In essence, they are not life-or-death issues. BUT -- we must be prepared to hold candidates to the litmus tests God has clearly provided us in His Word, which leads us to,
- Does the candidate protect the lives of the innocent and justly punish the wicked (Romans 13:3-4)? Does the candidate promote good works and lawfully discourage and punish evil works (Romans 13:3)? Does the candidate fear God, love the truth, and hate covetousness (Exodus 18:21)? That's it. Those are God's guidelines for civil rulers. This doesn't cover a lot of things that are left up to us to judge from the law with wisdom. A whole lot of imperfect men could meet these few requirements!
So, the question then becomes not "Who is perfect?" but "Who will fulfill these requirements for civil rulers?" Does the candidate fund abortion or believe some types of child murder are okay? Does the candidate deal justly with those who have violated the law (not throwing innocent people into jail or letting the guilty go free)? Does the candidate believe law "evolves" or that it is based in unchanging Truth? Here are bedrock issues we can easily look at. All we have to do is to look at how President Bush has used his time in office to see that he does not meet most of the Bible's minimum requirements for civil rulers. Any man who claims to be pro-life "with exceptions" (as Bush does) is saying that he believes some children should die. Any man who claims to be pro-life but continues to increase funding for Planned Parenthood and UNICEF (for overseas abortions) more than any other president in the history of the United States is talking out of both sides of his mouth. Any man who says marriage is between a man and a woman but supports "civil unions" is trying to have his cake and eat it, too (not wanting to lose the support of the "Log Cabin Republicans").
And, yes, God put Bush in the White House. God also put wicked King Ahab and covetous Queen Jezebel on the throne of Israel (to judge a wicked and covetous people). God also caused Pharaoh to harden his heart ten times. God also gave Israel over to Babylon. God has judged His people through wicked kings, captivity, and enslavement. But that doesn't mean we're supposed to vote for these things! ;-) On the contrary, we are to do what God tells us to do and fear no man. Remember how Christians wailed when Bill Clinton got into office? Yet how much damage was Pres. Clinton able to do the during eight years he was in office? Not much! He was in deadlock with a Republican-led congress, and Christians stayed on their guard and on their toes during that administration. We seem to be far more willing to be involved (to pray, to write letters, to call) when there is a Democrat in office than when there is a Republican (see Charlotte Iserbyt's article for examples).
And to answer your question -- YES! My husband and I make it a point to pray for our leaders in all government offices, both state and federal. We encourage our children to pray for our country. My husband is very involved with local Christian organizations who get the word out on issues including the pro-life message, marriage, family, and more. We support our local crisis pregnancy center, we've helped bring prominent Christian speakers to town, and we've hosted more "meet-the-candidate" functions in our home than I can count. We firmly believe that Christian families need to be involved and need to be prayer warriors. We do not believe in retreatism at all.
BUT -- we also do not believe it is wise to put confidence in the promises of men who have spent years breaking those same promises. It is one thing to say you are pro-life. It is another thing to do something about it. It is one thing to say you believe marriage is between a man and a woman and another thing to affirm that it is perfectly fine for two men to have a "civil union." It is one thing to say you believe God should bless America; it is another thing to invite God's blessing by actually obeying Him.
We want God to have mercy on our nation, but it is not going to come by continuing to compromise our convictions. It is only going to come when Christians repent and turn back to God as the Source of law and justice: "If My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land (2 Chron. 7:14)." Where in Scripture does God tell us to slow down our slide into perdition by choosing men who are a "little less evil?" How can we turn from our wicked ways when we vote for evil, even when it is a "lesser" evil? We don't need to go on a fruitless search for "perfection" -- we just need to repent for our unwillingness to trust our Heavenly Father, relying instead upon our own limited sight.
"He has shown you, O man, what is good;
And what does the LORD require of you
But to do justly,
To love mercy,
And to walk humbly with your God?" ~ Micah 6:8
Again, you are a sister in the Lord, and you have my love and respect! I am not going to be angry if you still disagree with me. The point in all of this discussion is to "provoke one another to love and good works" -- even the "good work" of selecting civil rulers!
Blessings in Christ,
Mrs. Jennie Chancey
*~*~*~*~*~*
First of all, I love and appreciate your site! I've been reading your election commentary with interest. The opinion you express about Michael Peroutka and Bush is one that I have heard in conservative circles. I too have wrestled with how to "vote my conscience." I found an article that explains clearer than I ever could why I feel it is unwise to vote for what is commonly known as a "spoiler." If you have the time, perhaps you would find it interesting. It can be found at: http://boundless.org/regulars/office_hours/a0000958.html.
Please know that I appreciate what you are doing to encourage conservative women! With much respect, Melissa G.
Thanks so much for the note, Melissa! I appreciate the kind comments about LAF and am glad you have enjoyed reading. :-) I am posting another set of Q&A on the voting issue, along with a link to a debate between two Christian men on this issue. I hope these will be helpful.
The Boundless article was interesting. I have read a lot of Mr. Budziszewski's writings and appreciate his logical approach to issues. However, his article assumes that the fictional students have a choice between a pro-life candidate and a pro-choice candidate. It is our contention that we do not have this choice before us. While Bush may claim to be pro-life and talk a hefty pro-life line, his actions do not match up with his words. Under his administration, funding for Planned Parenthood and overseas abortion providers has increased more than it has under any president in the history of our nation. The partial-birth abortion ban was signed to placate conservatives -- it will not save babies from being suctioned from the womb or burned to death by saline injection. It is easy to choose a very rare form of abortion (and one that looks to pretty much everyone just like infanticide) and take a stand against it. It is much harder to stand on principle and veto increased funding for Planned Parenthood here and UNICEF abroad. This is what a truly pro-life president would do, though. Obviously, we cannot stop sin by passing laws (making abortion illegal doesn't mean it would disappear entirely), but national leaders need to uphold the Constitution, which declares that no person shall be "deprived of life" (5th Amendment). Every president swears on the Bible to "uphold and defend" the Constitution of the United States. Signing bills that give money directly to abortion providers breaks this oath. It's that simple.
Will we continue to buy into the lies of "conservative" leaders who desperately want the votes of the Christian "right?" Or will we say, "No more--Not on my watch," and vote for men who have put it on public record that they will veto taxpayer funding for abortion? Which sends the stronger message -- causing a compromising candidate to lose or giving him the votes he needs and letting him think he can buy us so easily (empty promises, moral-sounding rhetoric, etc.).
Yes, there are legitimate times when we can do something that appears wrong in order to save life (like Rahab lying about the hidden spies in Jericho or Christians saying, "There are no Jews in this house" to the SS). But we can't take this extreme example and say, "It's okay to vote for a man who will contribute to the murders of six million people rather than for a man who will contribute to the murders of 40 million people." There is no legitimate "choice" between these two evils. And, logically, we are not caught between two choices. That would be called the fallacy of a false dilemma--saying we are caught between two choices when there may be multiple options. On an issue as "easy" as a bank robbery (Mr. Budziszewski's example), yes, far better to give up money than to allow a murder. What is money compared to human life? But when it comes to voting our conscience, we aren't limited in our choice. We aren't stuck with "evil" or "not so evil." There are more choices, one of which is to vote for a man who has committed not to fund abortion and has taken a very public stand on the issue without wavering. Will he win? Not the point. The Boundless article implies that Christians who do not vote for Bush will be personally accountable for Kerry's sins in office if he wins. Does God hold us responsible for the actions of the winning candidate if we did not vote for him or promote him? Did He hold the Israelites personally responsible for David's sin of adultery or his murder of Uriah? David was called to account by the prophet Nathan for his own sin. Similarly, we aren't held responsible for how our "kings" rule over us unless we actively participate in their sin or wholeheartedly endorse it. Refusing to vote for a man who labels himself pro-life but doesn't practice what he preaches does not make us guilty if that man loses and another man we also did not endorse takes his place. God holds us accountable to obey Him and trust, even when we cannot understand how it will achieve good (Romans 8:28).
Thanks again for writing, and God bless you as you continue to seek Him!
In Christ,
Mrs. Chancey
*~*~*~*~*~*
Dear Mr. Forrest,
Thank you for writing. I thought the best way to answer your note would be to address each of your major points in turn. Therefore, the italicized comments will be yours; my response will be in bold.
This letter is a response to Jennie's note about voting for Bush. With all due respect, she is just plain wrong on some things (the practical differences between Bush and Kerry, what has been done in real terms etc...I have an extensive list of all Bush has done, which was compiled by Priests for Life) and is illogical on others ("would you choose your husband this way?") History proves that the "idealists" who are "completely correct" in politics are not the ones who take the "big spots" on the practical political scene, enabling the big things to happen. In relatively recent history, we see this in the cases of Lincoln (slavery...Lincoln was NOT nearly "correct" on slavery.....didn't really want to free them, and then when he finally agreed, he wanted to either ship them back to Africa or create the American version of Apartheid), Reagan ("winning" the cold war), even Gorbachev (Facilitating the end of Soviet Communism as we know it).
Actually, I believe you are mistaken. I believe King Solomon possessed "correct" political views, given the fact that the book of Proverbs is still used by politicians for its erudite wisdom--not to mention that Solomon was at the top of the "food chain" politically. ;-) You also assume that political involvement is only relevant when it takes the "big spots." Success in political involvement, as well as church involvement and family involvement, is measured by how well we obey God--not by how many politicians we elect, ministers we ordain, or children we produce. Your assumptions presuppose a Machiavellian view of politics ("the ends justify the means"), which might be the world's view of politics, but it isn't found in the Scriptures. If you feel it is found there, please do feel free to provide the exegesis to demonstrate that God gives us a pragmatic approach by direct command, example, or precept. :-)
And on her comment about "choosing a husband" the comparison is not accurate. For her comparison to choosing a husband to be more accurate, Jennie should have added these parameters:
1) In this particular culture, a girl MUST marry. There is no choice. (A president WILL be chosen)
2) In her culture, one's parents and siblings ALSO have an equal say in who you MUST MARRY (Other people vote in the U.S. besides just YOU)
3) There are three suitors: Steve, Tim and Clem. (There are multiple candidates for president)
4) You love Steve best. (Peroutka)
5) You absolutely HATE Clem. He's totally immoral, lecherous. (Kerry)
6) Tim isn't very good either, but he's at least somewhat moral and shows signs that he is open to honestly listening. (Bush)
7) Your Dad and one sibling are leaning strongly toward Clem, and absolutely WILL NOT choose Steve. (Liberals voting for Kerry)
8) Your Mom and the other sibling are leaning toward Tim, and absolutely WILL NOT choose Steve, either. (Conservatives voting for Bush)
9) But you know your Dad COULD persuade your Mom to vote for Clem or your Mom COULD possibly persuade your Dad to vote for Tim. You have to choose tomorrow.
So, what do you do? Do you make your vote irrelevant by choosing Steve (who you know no one else wants) only to possibly end up with Clem? Will you feel at peace knowing that you "chose" the best one, even when you knew it was impossible to end up with him, and only to help the possibility of ending up with the foulest mate? Or would wisdom and prudence dictate that you hold your nose and try to persuade your Mom to stay with Tim and also vote for him yourself because your choice along with your Mother and sibling makes a majority...and Tim isn't nearly as bad as Clem? I say that the good feeling of choosing "Steve" in this case is will rather quickly give way to the ugly reality that she has ended up with the heinous Clem, if that occurs.
Of course, even this comparison is not perfect, but I think it is sufficiently close. I acknowledge that this also all depends upon agreeing that there is a significant difference between "Clem" and "Tim".(Kerry and Bush). And I believe, objectively speaking, there is. I wish the difference were even greater, but to suggest there is no real difference is just not supported by the facts.
I think you missed my point. I was not attempting to draw a hard analogy between voting and courtship (trying to compare the process of courtship to the process of selecting leaders by a representative democracy). The issue is what biblical criteria do we use in choosing a mate? We go to the Bible to find principles and instructions on how to choose a mate. We would never, as Christians, use the world's standards (wealth, looks, etc.) as our sole guidelines in selecting a spouse. My point is that we have a double standard when it comes to politics. We go to the Bible to find rules governing marriage, the family, and the church, but when it comes to civil government, we rely on "polls" and our own autonomous reasoning. If we wouldn't choose a mate pragmatically, why would we think it is okay to choose civil rulers pragmatically? We can only think this way if we truly believe the Bible is silent on the issue of the requirements for civil magistrates.
I do agree that there comes a point when both are so evil that neither can be chosen. But I don't believe the evidence supports the claim that we have actually reached that point.
I believe you just proved my position. You are creating a personal threshold instead of using the Bible. You may believe we haven't reached a point of no return; some people believe we have. Who is right? Who decides? If my personal threshold is "higher" than yours, on what basis do you prove to me that I am wrong? What standard of proof will you use? "Bush isn't that bad...." But how bad is "too bad?" When do we reach the point? As Christians, we derive our ethical thresholds from the Bible--not from autonomous reason, right?
On the current moral issues of the day, Bush would either maintain the status quo or move things in the right direction.
Again, this is your opinion. Your view of Bush does not correspond with the last four years of his administration. We have seen an increase in the size of government--not the status quo. We have seen an increase in deficits--not the status quo. We have seen an increase in unconstitutional education spending--not the status quo. We have seen an increase in funding for Planned Parenthood--not the status quo. We have seen an increase in homosexual "rights" under Bush--not the status quo.
Right now, abortion is legal in all circumstances and at all times during a pregnancy. Then there's cloning (Bush against, Kerry for), embryonic stem cell testing (Bush against, except those lines that already exist, Kerry for without exception), homosexual marriage (Bush against by supporting DOMA and a constitutional amendment, Kerry SAYS he is against but is against DOMA and the constitutional amendment). Kerry would move things dramatically in the wrong direction from the status quo.
Actually, Bush supports "civil unions" (i.e. marriage for homosexuals), as recently reported in a New York Times interview that I already posted on the site. As far as the other issues, bear in mind that we don't live under a dictatorship. The odds of Kerry getting human cloning through a Republican-controlled Congress is practically non-existent. But that's not the point. The point is your opinions are not shared by everyone. Consequently, who is right, and who is wrong? Without God's unchanging Standard, we can't know. Is it "better" to use already aborted babies for stem cell research? I personally believe it can be shown from a purely pragmatic basis that a Kerry presidency would "maintain the status quo," as you say, simply because of gridlock resulting from two-party control of government (just like under Clinton -- when DOMA was signed into law). Obviously, this doesn't mean my husband is voting for Kerry -- I'm just trying to show that, if you're going to be pragmatic, why not go all the way and aim for total gridlock to maintain the status quo? (I'll be posting another letter on LAF from a young lady about this very thing.)
I'm all for advancing and supporting candidates like Peroutka between elections. Perhaps if our leaders help to organize serious Christians, our votes may eventually have a collective impact. But Christians are not lone sheep, and they do not function well in such a way. As much as I agree with Jennie's aims, her methods are not realistic. Christians are not called to ignore plain reality and logic in such circumstances.
But, again, the assumption here is that our goal is to win elections rather than to obey God. We are wide open to Scriptural exegesis that demonstrates God would have us endorse evil (even "lesser" evil) in the name of keeping the status quo or slowing down the rate of decay. We just don't see it. Over and over again, God calls His people to obey Him, regardless of the cost. And over and over again, we wimp out. "But there are giants in the land. There is no way we can take it!" "But they have an army of thousands; we're surrounded and cut off!" "But we need you to go with us, Deborah. We're afraid we'll lose without you!" Yet the most inspiring and incredibly moving stories in the Bible are those of "insurmountable" odds (from a human perspective). One boy without armor or a broadsword takes down a giant. One woman bravely approaches the king of Persia and saves her people from destruction. One man refuses to cease praying openly to God and goes to the lion's den rather than disobey his Lord. God opens the eyes of Elisha's servant to show him the vast army of angels surrounding the enemy on every side. It just goes on and on. God's ways are not our ways (Is. 55:8). Additionally, without appealing to the Bible to justify your position, your view assumes that God doesn't have anything to say about how we shall obey Him concerning civil rulers.
That said, I deeply agree that we must be very careful not to give the impression that Bush is great, simply in reaction to the evils of the apostate Catholic John Kerry. That is a dangerous error as well. We must make our ojbections clear so as not to confuse the brethren. But we must make our voting decisions based on the reality as it exists at this precise point in time, rather than how we pray it might be in the future.
As Bill Einwechter says in his recent article on Christian voting ethics, "reality" is Christ on the throne: "In the real world, Jesus Christ rules as King of kings and Lord of lords (Ps. 2:6-12; 110: 1-7; Isa. 9:6-7; Dan. 7: 13-14; Acts 2:32-36; Rev. 1:5; 19:16), and sovereignly determines who will sit in the office of president of the United States (Isa. 46:9-11; Dan. 4:32; Eph. 1:11). In this real world, the sole duty of Christians is to obey their Sovereign and vote in accord with His revealed will." The reality is that we have a Christian candidate running who honors God and upholds His law. When we impose our view of reality over God's declared reality, we engage in unrealistic, autonomous speculation. We do not know the end from the beginning, but we know that God is on the throne, and our allegiance is owed to Him.
As we saw in 2000, a few votes for the Democrat vs. a few votes for the Republican made a very real difference. Conversely, a few votes for Peroutka will have no measurable impact other than helping the far more manifestly evil Kerry (I know, I've lived in Massachusetts my whole life..pray for me!). I believe voting for Peroutka amounts to spitting into the wind, at least at this point. The man doesn't even register on the polls at this point (formerly .1% at best).
God bless,
Michael
A vote for Peroutka may pull sufficient votes away from Bush to give Kerry a victory. I doubt it, but it's possible. Yet I have to ask the question, "Does it matter?" When God sent Gideon with 300 men to fight a Midianite army "as numerous as locusts" (Judges 7:12), Gideon obeyed. He didn't say, "But, God, I'm going to be slaughtered. There's no chance of winning! The reality is that I have only 300 men! The odds are far too great!" And keep in mind that it was God who sent away 32,000 Israelite soldiers: "And the LORD said to Gideon, 'The people who are with you are too many for Me to give the Midianites into their hands, lest Israel claim glory for itself against Me, saying, 'My own hand has saved me....'"
Where in the Bible does God's method appear "logical" by human reasoning? Paul tells us the Word of God appears as "foolishness" to the world (1 Cor. 2:14). "The first shall be last, and the last shall be first?" "The meek shall inherit the earth?" "To gain your life, you must lose it?" It's the glorious paradox of Christendom. We do not conquer by sword or sheer numbers; God's Word is our sword (Eph. 6:17, Heb. 4:12). "So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth; it shall not return to Me void, but it shall accomplish what I please, and it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it" (Is. 55:11).
God bless you as you continue to grapple with the issues of the day and apply God's Word to them.
In Christ,
Mrs. Jennie Chancey
*~*~*~*~*~*
Dear LAF,
My name is Bethany Carlberg. I am a 20-year-old Junior at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, majoring in Theatre with a minor in Religion, preparing my mind and heart for the chance to use my skills and knowledge to serve my family (and others!) full time whenever the Lord chooses to bless me with a husband. I have found such encouragement and grace over the past year since I discovered this site. I cannot express to you what a beautiful thing it is to hear from other Christian women who acknowledge the sovereign call to embrace their femininity when I am constantly surrounded by those who say I am just “wasting my talents” by opting to stay at home once given the chance. I am the only daughter of a broken marriage and a feminist mother, as well as the product of a culture that seems to view the honorable role of the housewife as oppressive and degrading. Thanks so much to all of you who have helped me to know I am not alone in my pursuit of God’s Will for me as a woman!
Since this is my first time writing to all of you, I felt that I needed to express those sentiments before delving into my subject. I was just reading the article “Is LAF Too Political?” I was struck by Michelle’s note at the beginning of the article. I am curious as to why she feels so strongly that President Bush would make a “MUCH better president than John Kerry.” While, as a brother-in-Christ and as the current President and Commander in Chief, I throw my full support, love, and prayers behind George W. Bush, I feel quite the opposite of Michelle. I hope and pray that what I have to say will not come across as offensive or judgmental to any of my Sisters who desire the reelection of President Bush. I simply want to share a few things that I gleaned from a lecture I attended on campus earlier this week.
David Domke, head of the Department of Journalism at the University of Washington and author of the book God Willing? Fundamentalism in the White House, the “War on Terror” and the Echoing Press, came to speak at the Annenberg School for Communications here at USC this past Monday evening. As I was particularly interested in this topic, I made a point of stopping by between acting class and my weekly meeting with a young woman on campus whom I am discipling. I went in with a critical approach, fearing that Mr. Domke was likely to attack President Bush’s religious beliefs and public expression thereof. I was most pleasantly mistaken.
Mr. Domke, a professed man of faith himself, was not interested in whether or not George W. Bush was a religious man. I soon came to realize that the “Fundamentalism in the White House,” which he refers to in the title of his book was not a religious fundamentalism but “Political Fundamentalism,” a term which refers to the merging of religious fundamentalism with government policy for the purpose of political gain. He pointed out four ways in which the Bush administration has consistently exhibited this concept:
1) A language of binaries: “good” vs. “evil,” “safety” vs. “peril,” “with us” vs. “against us.” By using this sort of black-and-white rhetoric, this presidency has been able to take out the gray areas that are most often the standard of our reality, thus altering reality into one that exists on binary principles. For example, it is the state of most people in the world that they live with a certain degree of safety and a certain degree of peril. Thus, the goal for many is to maximize their safety, while remaining cognizant that they will still have to cope with some degree of peril. The rhetoric of the Bush administration makes things much simpler: we can have safety, but that means we have to eliminate any element of peril. While this is a beautiful ideal, I find it unwise and even un-Christian. To presume that we may eliminate peril from our midst is to deny God’s sovereignty over all parts of our lives.
2) A “universal gospel” of freedom and liberty. Since September 11th, and particularly after commencing the war in Iraq, President Bush has been very vocal about his crusade to spread freedom and liberty throughout the world. In general, I applaud his mission. Jesus came to bring these very things to a world enslaved. Isn’t it noble and exciting that our President would take up this call and fight for those who cannot fight for themselves? Yes!…and no. I will explain this in two ways.
a. Though it has never been expressly stated in these terms, the Bush administration has made it very clear that what they wish to spread is USA-style freedom and liberty, and this is where the danger lies. This kind of liberty is one of the very things that LAF has so passionately denounced. Along with the freedom to vote, our country promotes the freedom to dress provocatively, to sell dolls dressed like prostitutes to little girls, to condone the mass murder of unborn children, and many other harmful freedoms that never fail to degenerate a culture. I approve of President Bush’s wish to spread freedom and liberty to the oppressed. I utterly disapprove of his blurring the lines between the kind of selfish liberty we promote in the United States and the freedom of Christ’s salvation.
b. A shift in the presidency from a petitioner of God to a prophet of God. Let me illustrate: every State of the Union address has always ended with the President saying, “May God bless America.” In his 2003 State of the Union, President George W. Bush became the very first president to use the phrase, “May God continue to bless America.” This is a deceptively subtle nuance, which at first may seem insignificant. But, what it is really saying is, “Rather than asking for God’s blessing with the rest of the citizens of this country, I am going to tell the citizens of this country what it is that God is already doing.” Now, hold on just a second, you may say; God is blessing our nation, every day! I agree with you. In fact, that was my initial gut reaction when Mr. Domke pointed out this example. But, as I ruminated on it, I came to see his point. I have no qualms with President Bush’s assertion that God has blessed our nation. In fact, I applaud him for speaking this truth to a people in desperate need of hearing it. What makes me wary is the fact that this President, by asserting that he can speak for God to the American people, inadvertently implies that his policies are also speaking for God. In other words, our way=God’s way. This leaves little room for discussion or debate about the policies that this administration has put forth in the past four years. I will speak a bit more about this topic in a moment.
3) The third tenet of Political Fundamentalism in the Bush Administration is an aversion to opposition. Ironically, the administration is, by no means, afraid of criticism, particularly by the press. This is an important point. For, though the media may criticize the policies of the administration—in particular, the press has been very critical of this third tenet—the rhetoric of the presidency still gets out to the public. While they are disagreeing with the President’s policies, reporters are still molding a reality of “good” vs. “evil,” “safety” vs. “peril,” “you’re with us or against us,” for the American public. The Bush Administration has been very gracious about such criticism. But opposition is another issue entirely. Opposition has been equated with being unpatriotic, which has consequently been equated with being a threat to the USA. Below, I will give two specific illustrations for of this has been exhibited in the Bush administration:
a. Donald Rumsfeld publicly denounced those opposed to certain foreign policies as “fearmongerers.” Apart from being a fabulous word, fearmongerer has a special resonance with US politics, historically. The last time this word was publicly used by an administration was during the 1950s when Joseph McCarthy was accused of being a fearmongerer by the President. I find this to be very significant in how those opposed to policies of the Bush administration are viewed.
b. The idea of national unity has been a hot topic for this presidency. Amen, to that! How refreshing it would be for our people to consolidate the efforts of our country instead of always battling and squabbling over policies and social issues. The problem is not the promotion of unity by the Bush administration—the problem is the timing. The subject of unity is consistently brought after—and only after—there has been a public declaration of a new policy or plan of action. This explicitly, though subtly, implies that unity is not something that should be arrived at through open discussion and consideration, but an uncompromising acceptance of the administration's policies under any circumstance for the sake of “unity.” This is very dangerous, especially for those seeking to follow Jesus. Our Lord did not come to unify all mankind, but to call us by name to take up the cross of revolution and follow Him, facing persecution and ridicule for His name’s sake.
4) The final element of Political Fundamentalism, which Mr. Domke proposed was the administration’s obsession with time. By stressing an urgency to “act now!” this presidency has excused itself of any obligation to caution or open discussion about action or policy. Ron Suskin, a staff writer for the New York Times, had this to say about this issue:
"In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend—but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency. The aide said that guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors ... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'”
Does the Bible not specifically call us to study as well as act? Remember Nehemiah who told no one of this plan to rebuild the wall at first, but surveyed the damage at night in order to sufficiently prepare for the undertaking. And, is he not revered as one of the greatest leaders of all time? Think of Esther, who obeyed her cousin Mordecai’s urging that she keep her nationality a secret until the time when God would use it to His purpose. Jesus, Himself, says to His mother when she urges Him to perform His first miracle at Cana, “Woman, why do you involve me…My time has not yet come” (John 2:4). This is not to say that Daoist inaction is the answer, either. For, indeed, many times action—drastic and quick action—is required of Godly men (and women). The important thing is not to continue barreling ahead, but continually stop, consult, and pray about the progress of a mission. Proverbs 19:2 tells us, “It is not good to have zeal without knowledge, nor to be hasty and miss the way.”
Many people have scoffed at or been critical of Sen. Kerry’s “waffling.” While I admire President Bush’s steadfast resoluteness to a certain degree, I find more comfort in John Kerry’s ability to change when change is necessary. Our President, in his resoluteness, influenced by a rhetoric of binaries, an obsession with time, a self-professed mission from God to spread US-style liberty to the world, and a refusal to consider opposition has stumbled into the actions of what the Book of Proverbs would refer to as a “fool.” Today, we might call it stubbornness. Being resolute is an honorable thing, but we must be willing to consider that we are imperfect and that we may be wrong. This is how I view John Kerry’s “waffling.” I will not go into detail, but I have found him to be as much a man of principle as George Bush. What I see in Sen. Kerry’ however, is an acknowledgement of his own human short-comings, which even a President will have, and his humility in being able to seek the advice of others—even those opposed to him—in order to establish plans and policies that have been derived through consideration, caution, and much thought.
One last thing, I would like to reiterate that I am by no means critical of President Bush’s faith or of his public expression of his faith. In fact, I find both beautiful. I do not even have a problem ,per se, with the nexus of faith and politics that Mr. Domke was critical of in his approach to the administration. I believe that the governments of our world would do best if lead by wise, God-fearing men of Christian faith and principle—provided that the people they governed were accepting of this faith and principles. (Remember that Jesus did not call to force seeds of faith to grow, but to scatter the seed and be aware that only some will fall on fertile soil. We must never force our faith on others, but be a witness of love and hospitality, even if our convictions may not always allow us to be tolerant.) What I mind is that the Bush administration is using faith as a tool for political gain, an excuse to justify their means and repress opposition. It is dangerous to promote the actions of any government as the Will of God. The President is wiser far who serves his nation with the heart of a servant and the wisdom of God, meeting the worldly needs of the people so that they may be free to seek out and nurture the more important needs of the spirit.
Dear Bethany,
Thank you for your very well-written and insightful letter. I am glad that LAF has been a blessing to you, and I am delighted that you feel it is a place of "encouragement and grace."
Your notes on Mr. Domke's view of the Bush administration are especially interesting to me, because LAF receives a lot of mail from people who rail against us for trying to "impose salvation by force" or violently "reconstruct" American government to conform to our beliefs. Nothing could be further from the truth, and this is the point I hope conveys more strongly than any other in this whole exchange:
Duty is ours; results are God's. One thing we hear a lot is, "You're just a bunch of dumb housewives. How can you possibly expect that what you are doing will change anything?" Yet we truly believe that, in the long run, what we are doing will change things. We really do believe that families following the biblical pattern (mothers and fathers, men and women rejoicing in their complementary roles and bringing up a generation that fears God more than man) will change culture. Will it happen tomorrow? Highly unlikely. Will it happen before I die? Maybe, but I won't count on it. But my goal as a wife and mother is not ten years ahead of me. My goal is 200 years ahead of me. I am praying for and working toward godly great-great-grandchildren who love the Lord and obey Him. As our culture continues to decline, we can laugh at the future with complete confidence in God. Sounds nuts, but we can do it, because we believe that God is faithful, even when we cannot see immediate results.
So, yes, we do not agree with any administration using force to make people agree with us. We do not agree with any administration cloaking itself in the language of God to declare that its designs have His blessing. We cannot read the mind of God. We cannot know the end from the beginning, as He does. America is not the nation of Israel and does not have the aid of its prophets to tell us the future. We are called to "do justly, to love mercy, and walk humbly with [our] God" (Micah 6:8), fearing no man and placing no confidence in earthly princes to save us (Psalm 118).
But, that said, we still do not believe that Christians should willfully cast a ballot for a man who is openly pro-choice, pro-homosexual, pro-feminist, etc. If Bush doesn't meet God's standards for civil magistrates, Kerry certainly doesn't. Our job is to "amen" God with our actions and choices and let Him sort out "the end from the beginning." There have to be lines we will not cross. The sanctity of human life is one of those lines. If there was no other reason to refuse to vote for Kerry, that would be it. The point we're trying to make in all of this debate is that Bush's actions and policies belie his words (he is funding Planned Parenthood and UNICEF at a higher level than they have ever been funded in the history of our nation--so he doesn't qualify as "pro-life" in spite of his rhetoric to the contrary). But that doesn't mean we should just go ahead and endorse Kerry in order to gain the gridlock I spoke of above. I'd urge you to rethink this position and consider the arguments given here and in the "Great Debate" articles I'm linking to as well this evening. What is our responsibility as Christians?
And, of course, what amuses me most of all as I sit here typing away is that I'm not casting a single ballot for anyone! My husband votes for our household (see my other article about that issue). And, to get down to brass tacks, all the ladies reading this (wives, daughters, singles, etc.) need to remember that I am not advocating all of y'all becoming revolutionaries within your families. By all means, discuss these topics with fathers, husbands, and brothers in a gracious and patient manner. Sharpen iron! Remember how Acquila and Priscilla took Apollos aside to correct his doctrine (Acts 18:26). Christian men and women should be talking about these things within their own families, but we should not do so out of a wish to "divide and conquer." Ultimately, we need to remember our role as helpers and willingly submit to the leadership of our authorities in Christ.
And so, let me close this with an appeal to everyone to prayerfully consider the issues that affect us as Christian families and be willing to let Scripture "correct and train" us, as Paul says in 2 Timothy 3:16-17. And please also let me remind you that my husband and I are wide open to teaching on this and any other topic -- we want to be "sharpened," too!
But I do want to bring this topic to a close now and move on to other things. I believe there is plenty of food for thought in what we've posted (if you want to see both sides of this debate, be sure to read the "Great Debate" articles I'm linking to). Beyond that, continue in prayer for our nation, for our churches, and for our families. May God have mercy on us and give us the confidence to obey Him with joy.
In Christ,
Mrs. Jennie Chancey
© Copyright 2002-2009 by LAF/BeautifulWomanhood.org
Top of Page
Would you like to translate this article into another language? Click the banner below!
LAF Theme Articles | Reader Favorites | Lady Lydia Speaks | Feminism and Related Issues
Biblical Womanhood and Christian Living | Especially for the Unmarried
Homemaking and Other Practical Topics | Femininity & Modesty | Teach Your Children Well
Personal Testimonies | How to Get Back Home | The Foundations of Truth
Responsible Manhood | Hot Button Issues | About LAF
What Can We Do? | Comments and Letters
|
|
