I saw this comment on the post about Obama’s presumptuous weekly address (where he takes on the trappings of the job before he actually has it):
You know, Rush Limbaugh has to retire someday. I’m thinking Guy Arthur Thomas and Michelle really ought to team up to replace him. They so perfectly capture what it means to be Republican, and to be Reformed Christians. I wouldn’t be surprised that various churches in the Reformed tradition link to Michelle’s blog from all over the internet, because she is such a wonderful spokesperson for their tradition.
While I was writing a reply I thought of John Knox and laughed and figured I’d share the joke with you. John Knox was a pretty tough guy and didn’t give much ground to rulers, he wasn’t afraid to call them idolaters when he had to. He even went so far as writing a tract against women rulers (at the time when their were queens ruling England and Scotland), The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women. He wrote it with Mary Tudor and Mary Stuart in mind but Elizabeth was pretty ticked off at him when she assumed the throne. Mary reportedly said of him, “I fear the prayers of John Knox more than all the assembled armies of Europe.” I think what I said about Obama is pretty mild in comparison, don’t you? 
So, I think Reformed Theology can withstand the black eye you think I give it by criticizing the Democrats. I think that the guys who went before me would understand and probably approve. They knew what I do, that the government isn’t the final authority and that those in power will face the judgment of seat of God and will have to give an account for how they used that power. Did they use if for good or to feather their own nest? Did they use it to help the oppressed? Or did they use it to continue the oppression?
BTW, for you guys who think that’s pretty tough, how about this from Martin Luther King:
“Congress sees the problem [of poverty] every day. But they won’t face it. And I hate to say it. But this Congress, if it does not come to itself, is going to hell.”
You have an open letter to Obama on your blog stating that “prophetic vocation will require us to challenge your administration.” What do you mean by prophetic vocation?
That we offer you our prayers and our support, but we will challenge you when it’s needed. The prophets of the Bible always did that. They didn’t normally live in the quarters of power. And they weren’t afraid. They were out in the wilderness, and they were willing to challenge the king. And as I said in my blog post, most politicians now can’t deal with that sort of direct confrontation, but I think Obama may understand that a challenge is, in a way, the deepest form of support.
posted November 17, 2008 at 7:26 am
I wasn’t aware that a weekly radio address was a “Presidential trapping”. When did this become a trapping of the Presidency?
Last I was aware, all people in America had the right to speak, and, should they have the ability, to have their talk broadcast. I know members of the opposition party, both prominent and less-prominent have done so for quite a few years.
I think all of us who have read your blog are aware that you’re not the only person who will criticize our next President. Most, if not all of us will criticize the next President, most repeatedly. One of the criticisms of your incessant attacks is the lack of discernment you show, both in the areas you criticize and the comments you make. I’d say it’s telling that you apparently lack the discernment to realize that.
posted November 17, 2008 at 10:02 am
CX: I agree entirely. Michelle can hardly claim to stand in the tradition of the Biblical prophets when she first idolizes Sarah Palin when Palin bears false witness, whipping up crowds by implying that Obama is a terrorist, and then–because Michelle MUST find something to snipe at Obama about, she takes him to task for addressing the country regarding the current economic crisis, letting us know that he’s already on the job (good thing, too–I only wish he could act RIGHT NOW).
Really, Michelle, I think you have some rather grandiose and distorted fantasies about what you are actually up to on this blog.
posted November 17, 2008 at 10:24 am
I think what I said about Obama is pretty mild in comparison, don’t you?
I think that the guys who went before me would understand and probably approve.
I’ve never read any John Knox but I’ve read Lewis who stresses compliance to contemporary propriety to anything from the past:
the rule of propriety changes. … Some of the language which chaste women used in Shakespeare’s time would have been used in the nineteenth century only by a woman completely abandoned. When people break the rule of propriety current in their own time and place, if they do so in order to excite lust in themselves or others, then they are offending against chastity. But if they break it through ignorance or carelessness they are guilty only of bad manners. When, as often happens, they break it defiantly in order to shock or embarrass others, they are not necessarily being unchaste, but they are being uncharitable: for it is uncharitable to take pleasure in making other people uncomfortable.
posted November 17, 2008 at 4:49 pm
I think you misunderstand my suggestion. I really do think you represent the mainstream of Reformed Christianity and a very significant section of the Republican party. You don’t give them a black eye. You show what they are.
The reference to Guy Arthur Thomas, OK, that was a dig. But he represents his own smaller faction of the right, thankfully, a much smaller faction of the right. I really hope he’s in junior high somewhere, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s been voting since 1962.
posted November 17, 2008 at 5:39 pm
I really do think you represent the mainstream of Reformed Christianity and a very significant section of the Republican party.
I don’t know about the Republican party so much, but my sense is that the segment of Reformed Christianity with which michele associates most, i.e., WTS, is consciously moving from its past isolationism and fundamentalism, is allowing itself to be vulnerable due to its confidence in Christ, is likewise striving to be more intellectually honest, and is making the effort to be more winsome.
Now, myself, being in a tradition that’s been trying this all – well, except for the winsome part – for 40 years (longer than the PCA’s been around!), I know it doesn’t happen overnight. There are setbacks and outright falls. But a smaller membership may carry the day!
In other words, there’s hope, Robert. I’m actually excited and want to support her.
posted November 17, 2008 at 11:35 pm
“I don’t know about the Republican party so much, but my sense is that the segment of Reformed Christianity with which michele associates most, i.e., WTS, is consciously moving from its past isolationism and fundamentalism, is allowing itself to be vulnerable due to its confidence in Christ, is likewise striving to be more intellectually honest, and is making the effort to be more winsome.”
Apparently it has a ways to go. But it will get there precisely by being out there in a big way. Iron against iron, so the Bible says, one man sharpens another.
posted November 17, 2008 at 11:42 pm
By the way, although several members of my family went to or taught at Princeton, and I’m frankly more comfortable with a minister from Princeton (albeit you’d almost swear some of them are Unitarians, not Presbyterians), I do understand why there would have been a departure to WTS some decades ago. It’s just that the polemics that worked in the 1920′s don’t necessarily work in the 2000′s. Gotta make the answers match up with the questions to be effective. And all this pillorying (pillorying, is that a word?) Michelle gets in her comments sections probably will help her in the long run. Not that she will tell us she loves us anytime soon, I think.
posted November 18, 2008 at 6:34 am
“I’ve never read any John Knox but I’ve read Lewis who stresses compliance to contemporary propriety to anything from the past”
Please explain to me how noting that Obama is being presumptuous in taking on the trappings of the presidency (and yes, the week address is something that the president does, not the president elect — if the press did it’s job you’d know that because they’d actually report on the fact that he was being presumptuous and stepping on the toes of the president — if McCain did this he’d be ridiculed for a week)is not in “compliance to contemporary propriety?”