I'm at home in a situation not conducive to work, so I thought I would float some thoughts that don't require my brain to work too hard.
Jimmy Carter has a new book out. I can't remember what it's called, but it sounds interesting. Carter was on Larry King and (I think) Hardball, and I caught a few lines as I drifted into Netherland.
The main thought I had was that I like this man. I don't agree with everything he thinks, but I agreed with most of what he said. I don't know how effective a president he made, but I wonder if he is the most Christ-like president we've ever had. Almost everything he said, he said in relation to his faith, and questioning his honesty seems about as silly as questioning Mr. Rodger's honesty (in fact, I wonder if he really is Mr. Rodgers).
For example, I am far more sympathetic to the death penalty than Carter is, but he put it this way: "I can't see Jesus being in favor of the death penalty." In other words, he formulated his arguments by way of WWJD.
He does think formal religion and politics should be completely separate, using the old "Render to Caesar" argument. I largely but not totally agree with him on that. I don't think it's a straight separation of church and state. But he clearly believes that there is a place for morality in law. And I agree with him that the more specifically religion gets involved in the state, the more likely the situation is to go sour.
He believed that late term abortions should be outlawed and that there were many ways even with R v W to diminish abortions drastically. He mentioned how much lower abortions were proportionately under his administration than today because his administration addressed the reason 2/3 of women have abortions--the inability to support another child. I could be wrong, but I've heard that there have been far more abortions during the current Bush's tenure than there were under Clinton.
On the whole, the word "character" was what kept coming to mind. This man has character, even if you disagree with him. The second word that came to mind was "intelligence." Here is a man whose degree was in nuclear physics. Again, I may not agree with him on every subject, but somehow the current Bush seems rather small next to him in every category.
But I do want to commend the current Bush on his recent initiative to stockpile flu vaccine. He's getting some flack on the money part, but I think it's something that needs to be done. The same people who are criticizing for this particular expenditure were roasting him a couple weeks ago for not planning ahead enough on the same subject. And you can be sure that those who are criticizing him now for getting it would have absolutely fried him if he hadn't and a pandemic had arisen.
I think this expenditure is a good expenditure. The problem I find with Bush's spending habits is the money we've spent in Iraq that we shouldn't have spent. Oops to the tune of endless billions.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
You've reminded me of an old field we've plowed several times together—“How Would Jesus Govern?” Mostly the conclusion has been that Jesus would be an ineffective President. A moral one, but perhaps ineffective (at least if He followed His own teachings). Which brings to mind the other question: if Jesus indeed will govern in some way in the future what will be different that might make that leadership effective--the governor or the governed?
Keith,
That's a frightening conclusion . . . following the teachings of Jesus leads to ineffective leadership and moral leadership is ineffective!?! Did Jesus practice what he preached? Did anyone follow him then? Does anyone follow him now? The obvious answers point to outstanding and very effective leadership. Has there been a better leader?
Why won't Jesus lead in the future the way he led in the past? He put the well being of his followers before his own personal self interest. Will he be any less a servant in the future? What type of leader would people rather follow?
If we don't think that model has application to presidential leadership, perhaps we have too little confidence in the Leader who gave us the gospel.
Rick,
I think a lot what Keith is saying is that Jesus' heavenly leadership amid sinful humanity ultimately resulted in his crucifixion. In a sinful world, would a president who led like Jesus result in a nation that became enslaved to evil, earthly forces because it "turned the other cheek"? Jesus' leadership was to "take up your cross and follow me" and "go and sell all you have and give to the poor." Would a nation that operated this way end up as a socialist or communist nation--models I personally believe are very ineffective on earth because of sinful human nature? So I don't think Keith is calling Jesus' leadership into question, but the current state of humanity. And, what is even harder to believe, I think Keith would actually enact these "impractical" policies if he actually were president!
In previous days, I've suggested that the biblical and theological model for governance is actually God the Father more than God the Son, since Jesus more modeled how to suffer under hostile powers than how to govern when you are in power. At least that's how I see it.
Ken,
All right you caught me. I am being deliberately provocative and trying to get our attention about leadership.
I am especially grateful for your push back on my thoughts. I need my thoughts challenged, corrected and sharpened. Please, be my guest.
Apparently we have rather different perspectives on leadership. I’m arguing that Jesus deliberately contrasted his approach to leadership with the prevailing thinking of his day; and I would argue our day as well. He described leaders of his day as lording it over the people and that it was not to be so among his followers. Jesus described the leader as the servant and proclaimed that he himself was among them as one who served. As Jesus practiced service he acted for the well being of the led rather than in his own self-interest.
You wrote . . . “I think a lot what Keith is saying is that Jesus' heavenly leadership amid sinful humanity ultimately resulted in his crucifixion.”
Yes absolutely and that is the point. Jesus acted for the well being of his followers; we needed what he did on the cross! But are we assuming his death equaled failure as a leader? Not at all; it was the triumph of his leadership. He put the needs of his followers before his own self interest. Isn’t the cross foundational to why we follow him?
You asked . . . “In a sinful world, would a president who led like Jesus result in a nation that became enslaved to evil, earthly forces because it “turned the other check?”
No! A president who allowed his people to be enslaved would not be leading for their well being. And of course, allowing enslavement would not be for the well being of the conquerors either. It is not in the best interest of people to enslave others.
On a practical level, we do not advocate that leaders of organizations today allow their organizations to be destroyed. We would consider that poor stewardship; a breach of trust. How would that be different for a nation?
You suggested that Jesus did not govern or lead from a position of power.
I beg to differ. He had power, but he laid it aside to lead as a servant. Positional leaders have power, Jesus challenges them to resist using that power on people and instead serve them. Jesus had power he just refused to “call ten thousand angels” to destroy his enemies and rescue him. He gave up his power to serve our well being.
I certainly agree with you that the present state of humanity is sinful and increasingly difficult to lead. Still I’m not ready to abandon Jesus’ approach to leadership as inappropriate even for today’s version of sinful humanity. Wasn’t it sinners he called and haven’t we responded? In fact isn’t Jesus approach to leadership necessary to permit freedom to respond? If Jesus lorded it over people there would be pressure, even coercion to respond. That’s not consistent with Jesus extending an invitation and allowing people to refuse it.
All right, I could go on and sometimes do to a fault!
At least part of the bottom line for me is the concern that too much Christian leadership resembles the leadership Jesus tried to correct. Jesus served the well being of his followers. We need more Christian leaders who will do the same. He did not advocate a kinder, gentler ‘lording it over leadership.’ He modeled the way of service. It is the more difficult way; really quite radical by most leadership standards. It’s the path I want to pursue and encourage.
Dr. Schenck:
Just wanted to quickly respond to your comment, "I could be wrong, but I've heard that there have been far more abortions during the current Bush's tenure than there were under Clinton."
I heard the same thing the other day and then heard it refuted by a commenter on another blog post:
Just gotta correct the record and note that the "Abortions Rise Under Bush" lie has been thoroughly debunked. 10 seconds with Google turns up more sites like http://www.nrlc.org/news/2005/NRL02/AbortionIncreaseMyth.html than you can shake a keyboard at.
(Fine, NRLC isn't impartial. Neither is Hillary Clinton.)
Now, we could bicker about stats all night long, but what we can't say is that "drastically more abortions have taken place during the Bush years than those of Clinton". That's just plain wrong, and Praise God for that.
The above comment was posted by "emlarson" under an unrelated post at theologica.blogspot.com. FYI! :)
*My apologies, the link didn't paste right. Let me try my limited grasp of html:
Abortion Myth Debunked
Thanks Amy. Because I had only heard it on the level as "rumor," I tried not to list it as assured fact. I really don't know how the Bush administration has changed or not changed mechanisms for helping support women who are only getting an abortion as an act of desperation. It is quite possible that it has been outstanding.
But my overall sense of the administration is that it makes rules but does not provide much in the way of help for prevention or help for coping--theories without taking into account the "friction" of real life situations. But I will be glad to say they've not been this way on this issue.
Concerning this little abortion discussion:
This is something we talked about at IWU Democrats last night. The Republicans really haven't been doing too much to lower the number of abortions that have been occuring, they just convince evangelicals that they have so they get the votes. We concluded that it will take other things that Christians really hate to help reduce the problem:
-sex ed
-reformed healthcare
-a better (not necessarily bigger) welfare system
Interesting, though... what REALLY has been done in the past even 16 or 20 years to reduce abortion besides blow hot air about court nominations?
Post a Comment