Well, there it is. And now maybe with her out of the race the party can heal itself in the next five months because Clinton supporters aren’t too happy:
Party unity may have been the theme of the day for Democrats on Wednesday, but as Barack Obama made his victory lap on Capitol Hill, there was no road map for how to heal the party’s wounds, and Hillary Rodham Clinton’s supporters — like the candidate herself — seemed unclear about what role she should play once her candidacy formally ends Friday.
At a moment when Democrats would be expected to be rejoicing over the historic significance of Obama’s victory, any sense of joy seemed to be drowned out by competing messages from factions of lawmakers who have been warring for months.
In one corner of the House, female lawmakers such as Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) and Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-Ohio) were planning to write a letter demanding that Clinton be on the presidential ticket.
“There are a lot of members of Congress who feel this way,” Wasserman Schultz said. “That way, we can maximize party unity and the odds of winning the election. They balance each other out in every way. They’re the dynamic duo. They really are.”
In another corner, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.) declared that the Congressional Black Caucus should stay out of the business of pushing for a vice presidential nominee.
And in the Senate, Clinton and Obama surrogates talked respectfully about helping the party heal itself — yet Democrats disagreed over exactly how that should happen.
You know, I find this all pretty ironic since Obama is supposed to be this great unity candidate, bringing everyone together for the good of the country transcending differences to solve the problems of the nation but how can he do that when he’s leading a badly fractured party? If he can’t bring his own party together, why should we believe he can bring the rest of the nation together?
And then there’s this:
“I told Barack and Hillary I would wait until Friday” to endorse, Brown said. “I don’t think a bunch of white, middle-aged senators should tell the Democratic Party what to do.”
Further vvidence that the party is also fractured along racial lines as well. I wonder if the messiah will be able to heal wounds of his people (the Democrats).
An interpretation of this post from the Reformed perspective:
You know, you could go in many different directions looking at this post from a Reformed perspective but the direction I went with was looking at it from the aspect of Obama’s chosen role of political savior. The people are looking for someone to lead them (this is true in general). They know that they need protection and someone to solve the problems of the nation and a ruler does that. You would think that this would not be the case since we’ve thrown off the rule of God to rule ourselves but we recognize the need for government to take the place of the one that we’ve overthrown (I believe this is a reflection of our nature as created beings).
We see this need reflected in Israel’s request for a king:
1 Samuel 8:4 Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah 5 and said to him, “Behold, you are old and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now appoint for us a king to judge us like all the nations.” 6 But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, “Give us a king to judge us.” And Samuel prayed to the LORD. 7 And the LORD said to Samuel, “Obey the voice of the people in all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them. 8 According to all the deeds that they have done, from the day I brought them up out of Egypt even to this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are also doing to you. 9 Now then, obey their voice; only you shall solemnly warn them and show them the ways of the king who shall reign over them.” 10 So Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking for a king from him. 11 He said, “These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen and to run before his chariots. 12 And he will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and some to plow his ground and to reap his harvest, and to make his implements of war and the equipment of his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive orchards and give them to his servants. 15 He will take the tenth of your grain and of your vineyards and give it to his officers and to his servants. 16 He will take your male servants and female servants and the best of your young men and your donkeys, and put them to his work. 17 He will take the tenth of your flocks, and you shall be his slaves. 18 And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the LORD will not answer you in that day.” 19 But the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel. And they said, “No! But there shall be a king over us, 20 that we also may be like all the nations, and that our king may judge us and go out before us and fight our battles.” 21 And when Samuel had heard all the words of the people, he repeated them in the ears of the LORD. 22 And the LORD said to Samuel, “Obey their voice and make them a king.” Samuel then said to the men of Israel, “Go every man to his city.”
They no longer wanted God to be their sovereign, they wanted a king like the other nations even though that king would be inferior to God and really would be like the kings of the other nations (a despot).
We also see it reflected in the desire of the Pharisees, the disciples and the people’s desire for Jesus to overthrow the rule of the Romans and serve as the nation’s king. But Jesus had a different kingdom in mind, a spiritual kingdom that wasn’t of this world. He wasn’t focused on solving their political problem, he was focused on the far greater problem of their alienation with God.
Israel soon discovered that having a king like the other nations didn’t mean they were protected from the other nations and that sometimes they needed to be protected from their king and eventually the king was the reason they were kicked out of their land (Manasseh — 2 Kings 21:10-15). A king is susceptible to the same failings that all humans are susceptible to and will rule in the same flawed way any human would. That’s why there is no such thing as a political savior, Obama won’t be able to bring much change (in a good sense) to this nation or solve our problems because he’ll be as limited as any human by the nature of his flesh and that of those he’s dealing with. The political agenda of the left (government is the solution to our problems) and that of some on the right (government should be limited to allow the free market to come up with solutions to our problems) are incompatible and there can only be compromise when someone gives up their principles (usually the right). With each side fighting for their principles, it will be an impossible situation in which to bring unity. Obama will only bring about change if the Republicans have been decimated in November and he won’t have to bring about change in a bi-partisan way then.
posted June 5, 2008 at 10:41 am
Ok, I see why you are using the Old Testament as an example, but as an historic parallel it is pretty flawed. Republics have internal stresses and how they are resolved is messy. The Founders, being sensible people with the exception of some remaining puritan loons in New England who got patted on the head and then ignored, knew that political factions were a bad idea because they meant fighting over the spoils, but they had no idea how to avoid them, and we still have no idea.
But they knew that a king was not the answer and it was not only from reading the Bible. It was from looking back across the pond.
Obama is going to learn that he is not going to be elected king. He may not even get elected.
posted June 5, 2008 at 11:02 am
You’re stopping too short in your analysis, I think, because there’s more to the picture.
I just started another loathsome Precepts study, “Revival and Captivity,” and read 2 Kings 14 for background.
In light of your Obama’s faith post or for anybody who thinks God can use only the morally upright, there are these verses, starting at 24:
And he [Jeroboam] did what was evil in the sight of the LORD.
Yet:
He [Jeroboam] restored the border of Israel from Lebo-hamath as far as the Sea of the Arabah, according to the word of the LORD, the God of Israel, which he spoke by his servant Jonah the son of Amittai, the prophet, who was from Gath-hepher.
Even still, But the LORD had not said that he would blot out the name of Israel from under heaven, so he saved them by the hand of Jeroboam the son of Joash.
I would think that this view of God fits with the Reformed perspective.
posted June 5, 2008 at 11:23 am
You wrote, “They know that they need protection and someone to solve the problems of the nation and a ruler does that.”
The derivation of the word “ruler” is the one who sets the standard. When a king did, the standards for measurement were broken and the new Kings measurements were taken, and a new rule established. The leader of a country sets the standards. It is up to them to make some ultimate decisions, but they do not start with the answers. They are to be informed their advisors and then to choose a course of action.
At this point in the election process we are reviewing the standards that the potential leaders might set. No longer do we use the measure of the persons arm or foot. Now we inspect thier mental agility and emotional stability. To expect answers to particular issues is premature. But what is their tone, can they inspire followers, are they able to communicate their case effectively and will they surround themselves with people of honor, clear minds, and open hearts.
In addition to the portion from Kings (Are you SURE you want a King?” “Oh, yes, everyone else has one and we need one too”. “Are you really sure. They are a lot of trouble you know” “Oh. yes we are certain.” “OK, but I warned you”.), I recommend the last Words of David, 2 Samuel 23:3b-5.
posted June 5, 2008 at 11:58 am
You seem to have forgotten that David was able to unite a divided nation. and from the line of David Jesus was born.
I also know that change can come under one leader. Kennedy got us ahead of the Soviets in the Space Race, Nixon opened doors to China and paved the way to peace between Israel and Egypt, Regan bullied the Soviet Union into total collapse without firing a single shot and ended the cold war. And less we forget, Clinton gave us a surplus budget for the first time since WWII.
Change is possible in a few short years if we really want it. Progress is a reality if we work at it. Clinton will back Obama whether or not she’s on the ticket, and she will bring with her, the millions of people who voted for her.
Personally, I would rather see her in a more effective position than V.P. Sec. of State is a better place for her.
posted June 5, 2008 at 12:51 pm
“Change is possible in a few short years if we really want it. Progress is a reality if we work at it.”
I think this is the key to the idea of change that is being played out in the election process. The change is already happening at the grass roots level. Individuals are changing, and as they change their views on various issues are changing. This will continue regardless of who is elected in the fall.
I see Obama less as a person orchestrating change than one of the more visible evidences of that change that is taking place. People perceive that he will be a different leader, and will emphasize different directions in his policy. Because of that they look to vote for him not because he is a savior but because they seem him as a natural expression of the changes that they are feeling in their own lives.
Change, if it is to be substantive, originates at the lower levels of the system, not at the upper levels. Obama is riding that desire for change, and McCain is trying to take on that mantle himself. Both of them see what is at play in society, and are responding to that.
posted June 5, 2008 at 1:30 pm
“Ok, I see why you are using the Old Testament as an example, but as an historic parallel it is pretty flawed. ”
What do you think I was using it as an example of?
posted June 5, 2008 at 1:32 pm
“But they knew that a king was not the answer and it was not only from reading the Bible. It was from looking back across the pond.”
Then why did they try to make Washington their king?
posted June 5, 2008 at 1:35 pm
You’re stopping too short in your analysis, I think, because there’s more to the picture.”
Good heavens, woman! How many hours do you think I have to write a post about Hillary conceding defeat and Obama trying to unify the party?
posted June 5, 2008 at 1:47 pm
“You seem to have forgotten that David was able to unite a divided nation. and from the line of David Jesus was born.”
You seem to have forgotten that David was punished by the Lord twice and the nation suffered because of it. His son usurped his position as king and David had to flee (this was in punishment for having Uriah killed) and the censor that David took led to thousands being killed in a plague. Even a king after God’s own heart brought agony to the people. My statement stands.
“I also know that change can come under one leader. Kennedy got us ahead of the Soviets in the Space Race, Nixon opened doors to China and paved the way to peace between Israel and Egypt, Regan bullied the Soviet Union into total collapse without firing a single shot and ended the cold war. And less we forget, Clinton gave us a surplus budget for the first time since WWII.”
Um…ok, that’s not how Obama is using the word and I was just going with his usage.
“Change is possible in a few short years if we really want it. Progress is a reality if we work at it.”
As I said in my post, unless you get a super majority in the Senate or close enough flip a few Senators, there will not be the change that Obama wants to make (the change from capitalism to socialism).
posted June 5, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Michele, your example from Samuel put me in mind of a book I think you might like – “The Dream of God,” by Verna Dozier. She considers the request of the ancient Israelites for “a King like all the nations” to be another Fall from grace similar to the first one.
She also believes Constantine’s conversion to Christianity was a disaster for the followers of Jesus.
Yes, I think the people who regard Obama as a savior are going to be severely disappointed.
posted June 5, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Actually, I think Clinton would be far more effective as a Supreme OCurt Justice – the job lasts longer and will have a far more profound effect on the nation.
Alicia,
I agree about Constantine. I have wondered if the revelation to Mohammed was not correction of all the improper changes instituted by the Council of Nicea. It does seem to have many counter arguments to the decisions and stands taken there.
I hope Obama is not set up as a savior – that job never ends well. I would rather the be allowed to become the chief adminstrator that the job is designed to be. Let someone else be the savior – there is no government paygrade to cover that sort of loftiness.
posted June 5, 2008 at 2:49 pm
As Dozier puts it, that was when the movement by the followers of Jesus became even more institutionalized as they adopted the trappings of Imperial Rome.
posted June 5, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Good heavens, woman! How many hours do you think I have
No, no, I know that’s where your thinking stops. I know it. No matter how much time you have. The “good news” is that God doesn’t abandon us to our foolish decisions, king or what have you. At least that’s what I got out of 2 Kings 14.
The bad news for us in NJ is this all means Corzine stays put.
I have wondered if the revelation to Mohammed was not correction of all the improper changes instituted by the Council of Nicea.
Yeah, if one thinks Nicaea got Jesus wrong, that’s a very reasonable notion. I am, however impossible as it sounds, banking on the Nicaean bishops getting it right!
posted June 6, 2008 at 9:31 am
“Michele, your example from Samuel put me in mind of a book I think you might like – “The Dream of God,” by Verna Dozier. She considers the request of the ancient Israelites for “a King like all the nations” to be another Fall from grace similar to the first one.”
Thanks for the suggestion I wrote it down. I was thinking that maybe the second fall happened when they refused to enter the promised land. Moses recalls their refusal a rebellion:
ESV Deut. 1:26 “Yet you would not go up, but rebelled against the command of the LORD your God.
But in the Samuel passage the language is even harsher — they’ve rejected God as their king. They didn’t explicitly do that when they refused to enter the promised land.
It would be interesting to see how she makes her case.
posted June 6, 2008 at 9:37 am
“I hope Obama is not set up as a savior – that job never ends well. I would rather the be allowed to become the chief adminstrator that the job is designed to be. Let someone else be the savior – there is no government paygrade to cover that sort of loftiness.”
After listening to the things Obama promises will happen after he’s elected the oceans will start to recede and the planet begin to heal, I’m thinking he’s buying the hype and ready to take on the messiah mantle.
posted June 6, 2008 at 9:42 am
“She also believes Constantine’s conversion to Christianity was a disaster for the followers of Jesus.”
I agree that giving the church political power can be a huge problem for the church and led to forced conversions which really aren’t conversions at all. The church is generally weakened when it is in power.
But I believe that in regards to the doctrine of the Trinity, the forcing of this issue lead to a formalizing of the church’s position which was a benefit for the church.
posted June 6, 2008 at 10:03 am
“No, no, I know that’s where your thinking stops.”
You are claiming to know where my thinking stops? I suggest you might not want to do that because I don’t always play my whole hand, as it were.
You comment is strange given that you know I believe in common grace and that God can use whatever means he desires to accomplish his goal. Even the most heinous ruler could still shower his people with compassion at times (look at Castro). So I have no problem with the fact that Jeroboam did some good things for the nation but that fact doesn’t undermine my point at all given the fact that he turned the hearts of the people away from God to worship the golden calves and that practice continued until after the northern kingdom had been destroyed (when Josiah tore it down).
Interesting that out of all the kings you could have chosen as your example you choose Jeroboam given the fact that Obama appears to be assuming the messiah mantle
posted June 6, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Odd, first it seems that Obama doesn’t have any policies or ideas suggested. Then there’s so many and so lofty that nobody could ever accomplish them.
Or maybe he simply phrases his goals in an inspirational way? After all, we tried a very concrete, detailed, technically precise list of policy suggestions, with graphs, charts, and detailed budgets.
That guy was called a dry, boring policy wonk.
Obama’s goals are no more unattainably loft, nor lacking in quantity, quality or detail than any other candidate at this stage of the election.
If he’s more eloquent in expressing them, well, we are a little out of practice hearing decent rhetoric after four years listening to someone saying such oratorical gems as…
“And so the fact that they purchased the machine meant somebody had to make the machine. And when somebody makes a machine, it means there’s jobs at the machine-making place.” –George W. Bush, Mesa, Arizona, May 27, 2008
So, I can understand being a little lost at first.
posted June 6, 2008 at 1:21 pm
As far as the Council of Nicea is concerned and the doctrine of the Trinity, I don’t know enough about it to comment. I have been taking a four year “Education for Ministry” class that is offered by the University of the South, but have just finished Year 2 (the New Testament). Next year would be Church History, but I am taking a break of at least one year.
On a personal level, I have trouble with the Trinity. I know it is supposed to be “one God in Three Persons” but it seems more like a reintroduction of more than one God.
posted June 6, 2008 at 1:44 pm
You are claiming to know where my thinking stops?
That’s the goal of any good student, to know how their teacher thinks. Facilitates test-taking.
I’m sorry … I shouldn’t be so presumptuous … I recant my hyperbole … but rephrase my point: if this were telling the Garden story, it’s like stopping at The Fall.
Yes, we want bad things for ourselves. But God wants good things.
God “saved them by the hand of Jeroboam” – that’s strong language, even in a temporal sense.
Myself, I’m inclined to dismiss the verse as a pious editor’s whitewashing interpolation upon the history of Israel’s kings. You know what I think about common grace. Besides, this verse goes well beyond it.
2 Kings 14 is a coincidence but yeah, the parallel with Obama’s self-image is unmistakable.
PS: Hey, we’re starting the Joseph segment of Genesis next Friday and going through the summer. Think you (or Susan) can drop in sometime? (I won’t be there next Friday, actually).
posted June 6, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Next year would be Church History, but I am taking a break of at least one year.
A Church History class might not cover the general councils. Leo Davis has the most approachable book I’ve read on them.
I should add that if the revelation to Muhammad was a christological correction, it came way too late to be helpful.
posted June 6, 2008 at 8:22 pm
“…the change that Obama wants to make (the change from capitalism to socialism).”
hahahahahahahahahahaha! oh, sister, you’re always good for a laugh!
and the change that mccain proposes is replacing the worst president ever for one that’s just as bad, but also the oldest ever. mccain voted with bush some 95% of the time. golly, what a maverick.
“After listening to the things Obama promises will happen after he’s elected the oceans will start to recede and the planet begin to heal…”
because you’re listening to the fiction of malkin, not what obama is saying.
here are some of the things obama has promised:
1. affordable health care
2. have all of our combat brigades out of iraq within 16 months (2 brigades at a time) but will target al qaeda if it tries to base itself there
3. clean up washington with a government reform package aimed at reducing the growing power of lobbyists
4. address global climate change (reduce addiction to fossil fuels, set goals for carbon-neutral buildings, boost utility infrastructure for renewable energies, etc)
5. crack down on predatory lending
of course it seems that republicans are against all those things. i’m sure that they will do everything they can to oppose these changes.
“messiah, messiah, messiah”
your canned criticism #1 (and a lousy strawman at that) is barely even *YAWN* worthy.
wow… your boy king bush has done a wonderful job on the economy. unemployment just jumped by the largest increase in 20 years and the market took another dive. and mccain doesn’t understand the economy. not a good platform, huh?
posted June 7, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Thanks for the “reformed theology” input. I wonder if having to do this has changed how you blog? You definitely are putting mroe thought into it.
You state “political agenda of the left (government is the solution to our problems) and that of some on the right (government should be limited to allow the free market to come up with solutions to our problems.”
Why, when all men are fallen, and according to reformed theology, “totally depraved”, is it better to think “depraved” men will “solve our problems” in a free market, but “depraved” men cannot do so within the confines of government? Jesus never really attacked the government, even a very evil Roman government. He did attack greed, and the rich oppressing the poor. I think a truely reformed view is to say any economic system, or governement, will be run by “depraved” men and women, and thus will never ultimately solve the problems of a fallen universe. The right is not “less depraved” than the left, all are sinners, and Obama can never be a savior, but he can be a sinful leader-of a sinful people. McCain would also be a sinful leader of a sinful people. The TV star you wanted as president would also been a sinful leader. I really think many of the religious right seen Bush as a “savior” for the USA and now have been hurt or angry that he did not deliver, but even worse, made things worse.
So-how is the right wing political position you take more reflective of reformed theology than the left?
You accuse Obama of wanting to move the USa toward socialism. Prove it! Also show how unrestrained depraved capitalism is more reformed than socialism.