|
I want to juxtapose two apparently conflicting positions:
Position One: I am a strong support of President-Elect Obama
He has shown intelligence, amazing leadership capability, a preternaturally shrewd grasp of the realities of national politics, and colossal determination to bring fundamental --and I believe mostly positive-- change to both our government and our political culture. For all of this, I am profoundly grateful, deeply respectful of his aspirations and abilities, and enthusiastically supportive of his efforts.
Position Two: I strongly disagree with some of President-Elect Obama's decisions to date
Some of the positions and policies he appears to be advancing are not sufficiently decisive and radical (in the sense of "striking to the root of the matter") to please me. And I believe this will contribute to drawing out the imposition of fundamental inequities and injustices in our society-- inequities and injustices that I feel it is important to redress quickly-- not just for philosophical but for practical reasons.
The complete equality in civil rights for my sister, my uncle, and numerous gay friends is one area where I feel "going slow," and/or any kind of compromise with those who oppose complete equality, is a profound mistake and a betrayal of the fundamental principles of our Republic.
I feel equally strong about the need to restore essential and meaningful separation between religion (a matter for individual decision-making and action) and governance (a matter for collective decision-making and action.) The incursion of narrow sectarian religious views into our national political culture and our governmental policy fills me with dread.
I do not, however, take the position that it is inappropriate to acknowledge the role that faith and religion play in the lives of the individuals we elect to represent us. In fact, that acknowledgment is both appropriate and very useful in providing insight into how those representatives approach the decisions we ask them to make on our behalf. Nor is it inappropriate to acknowledge the role that faith and religion have in the broader sense of shaping our national culture.
President-Elect Obama makes no secret of his faith: He is a Christian. He makes no secret of how that faith has shaped and influenced his development as a person and as a political leader; he makes no secret of how it forms part of his every day approach to decisions and policies. We knew all of that (if we cared to inform ourselves) from the earliest days of his candidacy. It seems to have played a (mostly) constructive role in forming the broad coalition that enabled him to win the election. And for that, I am grateful.
President-Elect Obama's Christianity is not exactly the same as my Christianity. But neither is it the same as (::shudder:: ) Sarah Palin's "Christianity." There is a broad spectrum of belief and practice among Christians and it would be foolish to ignore the differences.
So I do not believe it is inappropriate for President-Elect Obama to continue the traditional practice of having some acknowledgment of his faith play a role in the Inaugural ceremony.
And he has done something that I initially found quite disturbing: Inviting a man who represents much of what I regard as the worst of Christianity to give the Inaugural invocation.
And he confused me again by inviting a man who represents much of what I regard as the best of Christianity to give the Inaugural benediction.
President-Elect Obama is a man who is profoundly aware of the power of symbolism. So I am impelled to dig deeper: Is there a symbolic message here? Something beyond just straddling as broad a spectrum as possible? From a Biblical standpoint, the whole 'have your cake and eat it' thing is a definite no-no As the Laodiceans were told in Rev. 3:15-16: "Would you had been either cold or hot! But since you are lukewarm, neither cold nor hot, I will spew thee out from my mouth." I am certain Obama knows this much-quoted and much-invoked Biblical injunction, and so I doubt the symbolism he is trying to convey is "Cold AND Hot."
What, then?
And I wonder if there isn't a clear, intentional, but tacit message here in which preacher is delivering which part of the ceremony.
The invocation is given prior to the oath-taking. Technically, as Rev. Warren speaks, George W. Bush is President. Lord knows, Rev. Warren's narrow, bigoted interpretation of the Christian message is harmonious with Mr. Bush's views and actions. The invocation is the last gasp of the old regime. Perhaps it is an appropriate nod to exactly what we are leaving behind, to have Rev. Warren speak that last gasp. The invocation is a plea, a request to the Divine to be present. And so, Rev. Warren asks his God to be present. Perhaps in a final, desperate petition to turn the direction of the leader about to be inaugurated towards the bigotry and exclusion of the kind of "Christianity" that has infused the past Administration.
The benediction is given after the oath-taking. The benediction is about what is to come. The benedition is about the new direction: Asking the Divine to bless the newly-inaugurated leader and infuse him with a whole different kind of Christianity: A Christianity that is all about equity and justice and the ongoing fight for civil rights and inclusion. Cold TO hot?
"He that has ears to hear, let him hear."
observantly,
Bright
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
