More on Religion/ Politics

Last week Mary Margaret and I became captivated by a documentary on LBJ on the E-TV, one of the few channels we get with our new digital converter. It was the only thing on at the hours we usually watch TV, but as time moved to the 9 o'clock hour and time for CSI, we could not pull away from the show. It described Johnson's ascension to the presidency. I think I was captivated because my knowledge of Johnson and feelings about his presidency are that of a poor leader who accomplished little beyond the Civil Rights Act, which appear to be more for his own political clout, at least in his eyes. Interestingly enough, the documentary painted the feelings of the nation at the time of Johnson's election. He was highly poplar, seeking to beat out Republican opponent Goldwater by a large majority. The country appeared to be optimistic and Johnson was elected by a large majority. Now it is interesting to me how much the country was buying into Johnson's "Great Society" and his plans for the future of the nation. But as I reflected more on the difference in the mood of the country in the mid-60's and the incongruence with what I know as Johnson's legacy, I began to realize how most anything I've read or watched on a president, there appears to be some feeling or thought that as he was leaving office, he didn't get it done. The it being some idea, some plan, that the president wanted to do or have done, but somehow failed. Come to think of it, I have seen a great deal of most presidents painted as a failure to one degree or another. Now you might be wondering how this relates to religion. Well, I suggest that it has something to do with my last post and the idea that politicians are idols. We as a country look to each president to be a savior, to rid our society of the evils and injustices. However, we come to realize that after four or eight years, that the idol elected has let us down. Why? Well I simply suggest that they are idols, human idols and they cannot and do not solve the problems, hence a tone of "he didn't get it done." We continue to look for a problem solver when there is no understanding of the problem. The problem is our sin and the solution is the Savior, Christ. The nation, for the most part, enters each election optimistic, only to come out cynical, hence we tend to flip flop parties every 4 or 8 years, at least presidentially, thinking obviously that the party that has been in control can't do it and the other can. I expect Obama to get elected. I also expect in 4 or 8 years, we will crucify him. Why? Because his "change" is unrealistic, and so are our expectations of him. The same is true for McCain. Perhaps Obama seems so unscathed, such a nice, pretty idol, because he has little history working against him. I say this not because it eludes to some ability to be president, but more to make a case that in a sense, ignorance or the inexperience is bliss. The history of his inability is not as long as McCain's, hence the look of a much "prettier" idol. All this to say, lets not vote hoping to be fulfilled by a man who is suffering from the same state we all are, a sinner.

Political Blog????

Hmmm... So I had no intentions of this becoming a political blog, but perhaps I can direct this post to reflect more of the title my wife chose, one which I must and do agree, is a good one. So today I was listening to Les Newsom's RUF Ole Miss podcast, discussing the Fall of man and what it looks like in today's world, something Les is a master at doing. As he discussed the implications for men, it meant that our work would not be easy. That life would bring frustration and at times, would never be enough. Men will try to get more and have more, to find satisfaction, and it will never be enough. And for women, childbirth, as well as rearing, will be hard. This appears as women not only have difficulty in the birth of a child, but attempt to find security in "keeping the family unit together"- enmeshment as we MFTs like to call it. Les suggests, and I agree, that mothers go on living and making idols of their children, the lives they wish they could have again. So how does this relate to politics? Well, as I was reading some stories on Yahoo, I noticed a story discussing what "celebs" (ugh....that term makes me sick) endorsed what candidates. My question is "why do we care?" Well, it's simple. Idols. Politicians are idols as are celebrities. Celebrities take on rolls that inspire, that for men, show the man who does it all and has it all, and for the woman, the same. Hence, some have begun to actually hold these people in high esteem. Therefore, some care that Matt Damon supports Obama, or that whoever from that "show" the Hills supports John McCain. Then, somehow vicariously, those who idolize these celebrities then feel some sense of sameness, but with who? Perhaps a fictional character. Nonetheless, by supporting who their idol supports, there exists a feeling of rightness and fulfillment. America, WAKE UP! Just because someone is on TV doesn't mean they know anything about real life and politics. They are idols because they live in world that is fantasy, and so why don't we question their connectedness to real issues? Therefore, I suggest the best story, and perhaps with the best hero, is that of the Bible. I believe this is the best way, the way that taps into the reality of who we are in the world. However, the real question I pose is "do we make our political decisions based on a famous person's endorsement, or on our values?" Anyway, I hope this makes sense. I am le tired. PEace